|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And for the finale the economist they quote... argues that employers should be forced to pay more for less productive workers.
Ah, but you've forgotten that the idea of "productivity" is merely one dreamt up by our oppressive, patriarchal society in order to hold women back. Isn't "productivity", after all, culturally determined? Who is to say that a man who builds airplane engines is more "productive" than a woman who stands around smiling at everyone all day?
Seriously, although maybe I'm a wild-eyed optimist, I find fewer and fewer people taking claims of the wage "gender gap" seriously anymore except for feminists, the media, and politicians. I get the impression that such "studies" would be laughed off due to their methodological flaws if they were ever submitted to a serious peer-reviewed sociological journal, for instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hazardous material removal statistic quoted by this article confused me, but I have a guess now as to why women would be paid more than men for that profession.
My bet is that the hazardous material removal field includes a significant number of chemists, biologists and geologists dealing with groundwater contamination. That'd be where the women are working. Their salaries are going to be higher than the guys with the shovels and bulldozers actually moving the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:52 PM June 8th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Do these studies also account for pay packages? For instance, an average office worker may take home half what a plumber does, but that plumber doesn't automatically get things like health insurance and a dental plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. These studies do not account that Full-Time workers can work anywhere from 35 to 60+ hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have said this many times before in this forum...the only thing...I REPEAT IHE ONLY THING..that has ever persuaded an employer to pay more is a picket line preventing him from getting richer...this is how it always has been for men...employers have a limitless capacity for ignoring chants and mantras like ....oooh the big bad boogeyperson forces me to wear a brassier...oooh the big bad boogey person won't give me an orgasm....oooh the big bad boogy person spoiled my appetite and made me anorexic....oooh the big bad boogeyperson makes me puke and now I'm bulemic....oooooh the big bad boogeyperson makes more money than I doooo...itsnotfair.....TEACHER!!! MAKE HIM STAWWWPITTT!!!!
Grow up you spineless whiners and get a union card and a nice thick soled pair of picket line walking shoes and I'll even walk the picket line with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The AP article is largely feminist spin. It's why I trust the mainstream media less and less for objective analysis. Level of experience is ignored as is the fact that men are more likely than women to work overtime, and fulltime working men work longer hours on average than full-time working women. Men also tend to work in the less desirable conditions and shifts which may result in higher pay. It seems that the effect of the market's influence on salaries and income is given short shrift in the article. As usual, the implication from the article's point of view is that women earn less because "women's jobs" unfairly pay less than men's jobs, and mothers who take time off to care for children are valued less than men who work as their family's primary if not sole breadwinner. (Never mind the fact that stay-at-home dads who have left the workforce also suffer a similar economic loss).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot to mention the most obvious thing...we penis encumbered, testosterone poisoned, viciously aggressive creatures are much more inclined to join a union and walk a picket line because we know damned well that the only non-unionized employers who volunarily pay higher wages are those who are afraid of having their shops unionized (you weren't so naieve as to believe that an employer pays anyone any more than he can get away with were you?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equal Pay reporting is not simply flawed, it seems positively corrupt:
In Britain, it has been admitted by an MP, that is costs exactly the same to train either male or female Doctors. However, throughout their respective working lives - women only repay that training by working approximately half of the time men spend working ! Plainly, taking time off (for one reason or another) impacts upon the selection for higher grade positions i.e., would you rather someone was appointed to a senior position who had maintained their knowledge and expertise or someone who had perhaps been away from the job for certain amounts of time. The very same is true in the female dominated work of Nursing. Perhaps because they do not have babies or similar reasons for taking years off the job, men seem to get promoted to the higher level positions and consequently earn more.
Incidently, one does not find women working in the Danger jobs, i.e. down the sewers - where I think such reports perhaps ought to be !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone noticed that these articles about the supposed wage gap are becoming more and more frequent? This is mainly because Kerry's feminist overlords are insisting that he make it a campaign issue. Because they have so many contacts in the press you can expect to see more and more of these articles everywhere you look up to election day. I only hope Warren Farrell's book comes out before then. If it does you'll see the issue dry up rather than debate the facts he presents.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
