|
Posts:
6,471
From:
Right here
Registered:
12/19/01
|
|
(1 of 18)
Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 12:39 PM
|
From Wiki (give me a break, it will work in this context)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA
Male–female income disparity, also referred to as a "gender gap in earnings", in the United States, also known as the "gender wage gap," the "gender earnings gap" and the "gender pay gap", is used by government agencies and economists to refer to statistics gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau, as part of the Current Population Survey, comparing median male wages to median female wages. The gender gap is usually expressed as the ratio of female to male earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers.
For example, in 2004 the median income of FTYR male workers was $40,798, compared to $31,223 for FTYR female workers (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2005). 31,223 divided by 40,798 is 0.765, so the gender earnings gap in 2004 was 0.235 (1 minus 0.765). This is often expressed as a percentage: e.g., "in 2004, women's wages were 76.5% of men's wages," or "in 2004, women earned 23.5% less than men earned."
For 2008 the U.S. Labor Department reported women's median wages to be 79.9% of men's, while women who have never married earn 94.2% of their unmarried male counterparts' earnings.[2] This statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, or hours worked, other than meeting requirement for "full time" work.
Ok, now I underlined the last part, a very IMPORTANT part that many would like to ignore. It basically admits it does not take PERFORMANCE into account when calculating these figures.
Performance, in the working world, is ALL that matters. MOST business owners do not care what your gender is, they care about results. Which means how much money you make them.
I worked in an office for 17 years. The workers were about 95% female. The top three executives at the company were all men. How unfair right? Well, these three men started the company. However, the vast majority of the supervisors in each department were women. The women had gone as high as they could. Not because they were women, but because the three that started the company were not going to give up there job.....to ANYONE!
Now, in 17 years I saw a generalized difference in how men worked compared to women, in the same job. I witnessed, with my own two eyes, women CRYING at work over work-related issues. Just like in baseball, there is no crying in business. Unfair? Maybe. But it is true. There is no place for it in the business world. It is an emotionless world.
I was a bill collector there for about 5 years. There were women, working in the same job, that were afraid to call some customers because they were rude jerk (they really were). I volunteered to call these people for them. I made the calls they would not. I was a better "return on the investment" then the women. Conversely, if I would have asked a woman to call because I was afraid, then they would have been a better investment. Should the person afraid to make the calls make the same as the one that isn't afraid? The job is to call people after all.
Another big point is I have seen many women take their twelve week maternity leave during my years there. Again, you can say it is their "right" and you would be correct. But I am talking about the BUSINESS world, not the political one. The company is getting NOTHING from that worker during that 12 weeks. They have to fill the void AND give them back the same job at the same pay. That leave COST that company money(even if the leave is unpaid). How do you negate that loss? Perhaps with lower pay? Now, correct me if I am wrong, but can't the FATHER'S also take time off? How many of them take the 12 weeks?
Business has traditionally been a man's world, that is a fact. I am not saying women can't do it, the company I worked for thrived with a female work force. I am saying you cannot force the square peg into a round hole. Even if it is mostly women working there, it must be done in a male way.
Of course, a woman can start her own business, run it HER way. She can give 6 months off for maternity leave, not call the "rude" customers, get in touch with the "feelings" of their workers, and pay the females that work there TWICE of what they pay the men, regardless of performance.
How well do you think a company like that would do? Why?
--
Disclaimer: The previous post, unless otherwise noted, is based on personal belief and observation. It is the post of a curious mind with the understanding that NOBODY knows for sure the answer to anything.
|
|
|
Posts:
23,728
Registered:
1/3/06
|
|
(2 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 12:42 PM
|
|
I retired ten yrs ago so women could work on the Ford assembly line.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,225
Registered:
9/16/08
|
|
(3 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 1:00 PM
|
> From Wiki (give me a break, it will work in this
> context)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_dispar
> ity_in_the_USA
>
> Male–female income disparity, also referred to as a
> "gender gap in earnings", in the United States, also
> known as the "gender wage gap," the "gender earnings
> gap" and the "gender pay gap", is used by government
> agencies and economists to refer to statistics
> gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau, as part of the
> Current Population Survey, comparing median male
> wages to median female wages. The gender gap is
> usually expressed as the ratio of female to male
> earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers.
>
> For example, in 2004 the median income of FTYR male
> workers was $40,798, compared to $31,223 for FTYR
> female workers (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2005). 31,223
> divided by 40,798 is 0.765, so the gender earnings
> gap in 2004 was 0.235 (1 minus 0.765). This is often
> expressed as a percentage: e.g., "in 2004, women's
> wages were 76.5% of men's wages," or "in 2004, women
> earned 23.5% less than men earned."
>
> For 2008 the U.S. Labor Department reported women's
> median wages to be 79.9% of men's, while women who
> have never married earn 94.2% of their unmarried male
> counterparts' earnings.[2] This statistic does
> not take into account differences in experience,
> skill, occupation, or hours worked, other than
> meeting requirement for "full time" work.
>
> Ok, now I underlined the last part, a very IMPORTANT
> part that many would like to ignore. It basically
> admits it does not take PERFORMANCE into account when
> calculating these figures.
I tried explaining that to HistoricalReality, but no dice.
And the News commentators won't argue it when they face women. At most they will slightly challenge them and then let it go.
So we are led to believe that if a man and woman walk into a full time job with the minimum qualifications needed, the woman will automatically be offered a 30% less salary, just because she is a woman.
>
> Performance, in the working world, is
> ALL that matters. MOST business owners
> do not care what your gender is, they care about
> results. Which means how much money you make them.
>
> I worked in an office for 17 years. The workers were
> about 95% female. The top three executives at the
> company were all men. How unfair right? Well, these
> three men started the company. However, the vast
> majority of the supervisors in each department were
> women. The women had gone as high as they could. Not
> because they were women, but because the three that
> started the company were not going to give up there
> job.....to ANYONE!
>
> Now, in 17 years I saw a generalized difference in
> how men worked compared to women, in the same job. I
> witnessed, with my own two eyes, women CRYING at work
> over work-related issues. Just like in baseball,
> there is no crying in business. Unfair? Maybe. But it
> is true. There is no place for it in the business
> world. It is an emotionless world.
>
> I was a bill collector there for about 5 years. There
> were women, working in the same job, that were afraid
> to call some customers because they were rude jerk
> (they really were). I volunteered to call these
> people for them. I made the calls they would not. I
> was a better "return on the investment" then the
> women. Conversely, if I would have asked a woman to
> call because I was afraid, then they would have been
> a better investment. Should the person afraid to make
> the calls make the same as the one that isn't afraid?
> The job is to call people after all.
>
> Another big point is I have seen many women take
> their twelve week maternity leave during my years
> there. Again, you can say it is their "right" and you
> would be correct. But I am talking about the BUSINESS
> world, not the political one. The company is getting
> NOTHING from that worker during that 12 weeks. They
> have to fill the void AND give them back the same job
> at the same pay. That leave COST that company
> money(even if the leave is unpaid). How do you negate
> that loss? Perhaps with lower pay? Now, correct me if
> I am wrong, but can't the FATHER'S also take time
> off? How many of them take the 12 weeks?
>
> Business has traditionally been a man's world, that
> is a fact. I am not saying women can't do it, the
> company I worked for thrived with a female work
> force. I am saying you cannot force the square peg
> into a round hole. Even if it is mostly women working
> there, it must be done in a male way.
>
> Of course, a woman can start her own business, run it
> HER way. She can give 6 months off for maternity
> leave, not call the "rude" customers, get in touch
> with the "feelings" of their workers, and pay the
> females that work there TWICE of what they pay the
> men, regardless of performance.
>
> How well do you think a company like that would do?
> Why?
>
> --
> Disclaimer: The previous post, unless otherwise
> noted, is based on personal belief and observation.
> It is the post of a curious mind with the
> understanding that NOBODY knows for sure the answer
> to anything.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,225
Registered:
9/16/08
|
|
(4 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 1:01 PM
|
> I retired ten yrs ago so women could work on the Ford
> assembly line.
If you did it knowing that they weren't qualified or just so they could get the job because they are women, then shame on both you and the factory you worked for.
|
|
|
Posts:
23,728
Registered:
1/3/06
|
|
(5 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 1:06 PM
|
> > I retired ten yrs ago so women could work on the
> Ford
> > assembly line.
>
> If you did it knowing that they weren't qualified or
> just so they could get the job because they are
> women, then shame on both you and the factory you
> worked for.
Every non College Educated is qualified to work on an assembly line.
All the College Educated are in Politics running the Country.
|
|
|
Posts:
14,443
Registered:
11/8/08
|
|
(6 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 1:07 PM
|
Unless the OP author is a woman, the OP author doesn't have any dog in the fight pertaining to women's issues.
Please do note the OP author had to use an absurd statistical opinon of no value from Wiki to start this absurd thread.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,471
From:
Right here
Registered:
12/19/01
|
|
(7 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 1:22 PM
|
"Please do note the OP author had to use an absurd statistical opinon of no value from Wiki to start this absurd thread."
Do you have studies that take PERFORMANCE into account on the "wage gap"?
--
Disclaimer: The previous post, unless otherwise noted, is based on personal belief and observation. It is the post of a curious mind with the understanding that NOBODY knows for sure the answer to anything.
|
|
|
Posts:
14,443
Registered:
11/8/08
|
|
(8 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 1:30 PM
|
> Do you have studies that take PERFORMANCE into
> account on the "wage gap"?
Do you have any valid academic studies to prove anything in that Wiki opinion or your own? You started this. It's up to you to validate anything you claim. I don't have to prove or disprove anything. All I have to do is say you're dead wrong. You have to prove what you think is valid. Can you do that?
|
|
|
Posts:
6,471
From:
Right here
Registered:
12/19/01
|
|
(9 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 1:39 PM
|
"Do you have any valid academic studies to prove anything in that Wiki opinion or your own?"
Read the references at the bottom of the Wiki page. Like this one.....
"http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html"
Of course, it is well known that you are not concerned with "facts". You have you perceptions and that is good enough.
You know WHY there are no reports that take PERFORMANCE into account? Because they would be extremely difficult to obtain. How a person does at their job is an INDIVIDUAL thing that must take many different parameters into account.
The studies that "prove" men make more than women look at ONLY the $ signs.
We are talking business, not your political agenda. Again, how well you perform is ALL that matters in the business world.
You don't do as good a job as your co-worker, you should not make the same amount of money, regardless of gender. To think other-wise is counter-business.
--
Disclaimer: The previous post, unless otherwise noted, is based on personal belief and observation. It is the post of a curious mind with the understanding that NOBODY knows for sure the answer to anything.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,613
Registered:
1/11/06
|
|
(10 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 2:05 PM
|
Well, I work for a big corporation and there is one male paralegal and he makes more than I do because he is a man. Does he work harder, hell no. He misses at least one day a week. I rarely miss work. When I'm there I keep my nose to the grindstone. He is on the internet reading articles, etc. It does happen.
--
|
|
|
Posts:
2,735
Registered:
10/24/06
|
|
(11 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 2:16 PM
|
Nogod - yes, fathers can take the SAME parenthood leave as mothers. They generally don't, as when someone has to give up a career or outside activity to take care of a child, it's almost always the woman. But I do know several 'househusbands' who do a fine job raising a kid while the wife works at a better-paying job.
Nogod, performance has been factored in, time and again. When these statistics are compiled, they use time on job, level of education, level of job etc. to make sure the men and women are doing the same things. Take, for example, the woman pharmacy manager who recently hauled Wal-Mart over the coals (and got a huge award) because she wasn't being given managerial pay, despite her excellent performance reviews? Happens all the time, altho most women never make a peep about it. They go cry instead. (I really fault them for that. They should stand up for themselves and kick b tt instead).
And I don't respect anyone who takes a job who can't do what that job requires - whether it be to confront a rude jerk, or to smooth the ruffled feathers of an angry customer (one a 'male' talent, the other 'female'). I think it's entirely wrong for a woman to be a firefighter if she can't haul a normal heavy person down a ladder. If she's a bull -, that's fine. Or a man who'd get a hernia lifting a toothpick. Wrong.
Listen, Nogod, somebody has to have babies to keep people paying for your future Social Security. Let's not begrudge whatever is needed to help them. After all, Europe does it and has done for some 70 years, and they're doing just fine.
And, dear, just because business has 'traditionally' been done in a male way doesn't mean that it's going to stay that way. We call this 'progress'. Never used to be blacks in management, or in the armed services (integrated), either. However....
I've seen tons of changes since I began working, and most (not all) have been for the better. When I started, women who were married would be given much lower pay than married men, because (and this was said overtly, without any shame) their husbands should be supporting them and they didn't really need the money. For the same amount of work as their male colleagues...
And even today, business owners DO care what your gender is. If you think not - you haven't been observant.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,471
From:
Right here
Registered:
12/19/01
|
|
(12 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 6:29 PM
|
"Well, I work for a big corporation and there is one male paralegal and he makes more than I do because he is a man. Does he work harder, hell no. He misses at least one day a week. I rarely miss work. When I'm there I keep my nose to the grindstone. He is on the internet reading articles, etc. It does happen."
I didn't mean to imply it NEVER happens, I did say MOST companies only care about performance. Not to excuse his lack of work part, but has he been there longer? Does his amount of work match yours even though he works less? Lastly, is he related to the boss!!!
--
Disclaimer: The previous post, unless otherwise noted, is based on personal belief and observation. It is the post of a curious mind with the understanding that NOBODY knows for sure the answer to anything.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,471
From:
Right here
Registered:
12/19/01
|
|
(13 of 18)
Re: Women in the workforce part I. The paycheck.
Nov 4, 2009 6:41 PM
|
"Nogod - yes, fathers can take the SAME parenthood leave as mothers. They generally don't, as when someone has to give up a career or outside activity to take care of a child, it's almost always the woman. But I do know several 'househusbands' who do a fine job raising a kid while the wife works at a better-paying job."
Exactly, the pay is all that should matter, whoever makes less stays home. I imagine if a majority of men started staying home with the kids, the pay rate for men would drop as THEY would become the more "costly" employee.
"Nogod, performance has been factored in, time and again. When these statistics are compiled, they use time on job, level of education, level of job etc. to make sure the men and women are doing the same things."
But those things do NOT measure performance. They MAY measure the ability of the person to do the job, on paper, but that does not always transfer to "real life". Really all that matters in performance is how many widgets the person can produce. Easy in the manufacturing sector, a bit harder in the business world sometimes. That has to be decided on a case by case basis and should not have to be justified in every single case. The fact is some people do the job BETTER, plain and simple, and they should get paid MORE, regardless of gender.
"Take, for example, the woman pharmacy manager who recently hauled Wal-Mart over the coals (and got a huge award) because she wasn't being given managerial pay, despite her excellent performance reviews?"
I do not think Wal-mart can be used as an "example" in equal and fair pay. I think they try to "stick it" to everyone they can from vendors to greeters. It's the cost of the low prices.
Now, a person can do their job VERY well but not be manager material. I think you know that. Doing a job and supervising people to do that job are two different thing and being good at one doesn't mean you are good at the other.
"And, dear, just because business has 'traditionally' been done in a male way doesn't mean that it's going to stay that way. We call this 'progress'. Never used to be blacks in management, or in the armed services (integrated), either. However.... "
Even with all the changes business is still traditionally done in a "male" way. You know cutthroat, competitive, and NO CRYING. It is how things get done, it is how money gets made, isn't that the POINT of a business?
--
Disclaimer: The previous post, unless otherwise noted, is based on personal belief and observation. It is the post of a curious mind with the understanding that NOBODY knows for sure the answer to anything.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,307
From:
Idaho
Registered:
11/25/04
|
|
(14 of 18)
nogod; Frankly - You Don't Know What You're Talking About
Nov 4, 2009 6:41 PM
|
Many other people here have taken you to task for your Blinders, so i won't.
But Really - you don't have a Clue.
Like the guys fighting the military wars over on another thread put it, "If you haven't Been there, you have No Competence to Judge it.".
And, besides, all you tried to do was Justify the 75%. You Can't deny it.
Which means it Reamins, exactly as I said a Very Big Issue.
--
"Is my enemy my Teacher?" - Old Arab Motto.
"I don't belong to any Organized political party - I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers
When Fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross - Sinclair Lewis
|
|
|
Posts:
6,471
From:
Right here
Registered:
12/19/01
|
|
(15 of 18)
Re: nogod; Frankly - You Don't Know What You're Talking About
Nov 4, 2009 7:20 PM
|
Why would I try to "justify" a made up number like the 75%?
PERFORMANCE is ALL that matters.
--
Disclaimer: The previous post, unless otherwise noted, is based on personal belief and observation. It is the post of a curious mind with the understanding that NOBODY knows for sure the answer to anything.
|
|
|
|
|
