Gender pay inequality is a strawman argument.

[karrie]

It's not for the same work. This is what this whole thread is about. It's about comparing apples to oranges to make an invalid point seem valid. Take this article for example: Gender pay gap widening, study asserts. It makes mention of the pay disparity and that a man with the same education makes more than a woman with equal education, but it is not for the same work. Take for example trades vs. child care. Trades pay well and child care does not. Any guess as to which of those two men choose and which one women choose?

.

Given that it's taking a large population sample, and comparing equivalent education, I don't see what your complaint with it is. Child care and tradeswork are NOT equivalent education thus not covered by what this article discusses.

There are issues it fails to address for me, such as, do they take maternity leave into account in that pay structure, but, the fact is that women still are not on par throughout much of the workforce for equivalent jobs.

 

[ansutherland]

I think that homosexuality is natures way of birth control and disease is another of natures ways of keeping the population under control. Advances in modern medicine have prolonged life beyond natural cycles and has upset the natural order of things.

Actually, there has been, in recent times, the emergence of evidence that homosexuality may have reproductive advantages, at least in some species. It has been shown to help keep males virile if they mate with other males. This is while they bide their time for a female to come along. Not sure why it exist in humans, but I don't think that nature had an idea in mind, rather it is probably a vestigial behaviour or one that still does have purpose, just not an obvious one.

All the article says is that men make more for equal years of education. That's it. You would have a point if a man and a woman both graduate with the EXACT same degree and applied and attained the EXACT same job, yet the man still made more. This is not the case. The man and the woman may have similar years of education, but a degree in social work and a degree in computer science, though both degrees, do not yield similar jobs; nor do they yield similar pay.

 

[Downhome_Woman]

Where i work women are paid based on past work experiences and education... The same as the men, thats everywhere ive worked also.... I make more money than most of my fellow dudes, because of my experience and capabilities...

Actually to be honest there is a girl in the crew im with now that gets special treatment(titties) and doesnt work nearly as much or as hard as the men here now.. Im still working in the afternoon and she is standing around doing squat.... And she makes more money than most of the crew except my boss and his assistant. Her pay equals mine, but i actually do work harder

Wow. Where I just left, the office manager who actually corrected the STOOPID mistakes made by careless - dare I say at times lazy? salesMEN (because quite frankly, while the saleswomen made errors the errors were acknowledged, rather than those of the male salespersons, whose attitudes tended to more of the' well, I f!@%#d up - fix it' attitude.
New salesMEN were recently taken on board the company and knew more than those of us who had been there for longer. It was interesting to see. Those of us WOMEN - who fixed the errors of the MEN who had the cache of being salesmen with penises - but had less knowledge of the company - were at the bottom of the company pile. And what really is amusing is that all their ability to get clients meant nothing - because without the abilities of the women in the company - you know - the office manager, the CSR, the Production Manager, the Graphic Designer - all their 'sales ability' would have been useless. but were we told anything about what was happening in the company? Of course not!
You know what? Your 'girl' got advancement because she had - how'd you put it? Oh yes! Titties - she had titties!
Well, I just left a place - and trust me, I liked my boss, I liked my co-workers, but it was a'man's world - it was the 'Empire of the Penis' As much as it may have been women that actually made the world work? It was the penis that ruled - even though at time that penis was a real dick. It was women who corrected the errors on the orders made by the salesMEN. It was women who corrected the horrible art given to them by the salesMEN who KNEW they were supposed to get art in the correct format - but didn't think it was important.
Suck it up Buttercup. So you have to deal with it now? My condolences. Women have been dealing with this garbage - in ALL aspects of their lives - for eons. I hope for all of us - male and female - it gets better.

 

[gopher]

In the states it has been proven that the income gap between minorities and the majoritarian population has increased dramatically in the past ten years. Yet, it has never gotten much media attention. Don't know to what extent any of that is true.

 

[ansutherland]

Given that it's taking a large population sample, and comparing equivalent education, I don't see what your complaint with it is. Child care and tradeswork are NOT equivalent education thus not covered by what this article discusses.

There are issues it fails to address for me, such as, do they take maternity leave into account in that pay structure, but, the fact is that women still are not on par throughout much of the workforce for equivalent jobs.

All the article says is that men make more for equal years of education. That's it. You would have a point if a man and a woman both graduate with the EXACT same degree and applied and attained the EXACT same job, yet the man still made more. This is not the case. The man and the woman may have similar years of education, but a degree in social work and a degree in computer science, though both degrees, do not yield similar jobs; nor do they yield similar pay.

 

[TenPenny]

There are issues it fails to address for me, such as, do they take maternity leave into account in that pay structure, but, the fact is that women still are not on par throughout much of the workforce for equivalent jobs.

I guess that depends on what you mean by 'equivalent jobs'.

Which is the whole problem.

All the article says is that men make more for equal years of education. That's it. You would have a point if a man and a woman both graduate with the EXACT same degree and applied and attained the EXACT same job, yet the man still made more. This is not the case. The man and the woman may have similar years of education, but a degree in social work and a degree in computer science, though both degrees, do not yield similar jobs; nor do they yield similar pay.

Female GPs typically make less than male GPs. But guess what? It's because female GPs typically see fewer patients than male GPs.

 

[karrie]

well ansutherland, rather than showing any backing to the fact that equal jobs DO get equal pay, all you're doing is picking apart some articles. You're not answering the question of whether or not women do in fact get paid fairly as, say, managers, oil field hands, engineers, etc. All you've done to address that is imply that because there will be more women than men in the workplace, they should be happy with what they get

 

[ansutherland]

well ansutherland, rather than showing any backing to the fact that equal jobs DO get equal pay, all you're doing is picking apart some articles. You're not answering the question of whether or not women do in fact get paid fairly as, say, managers, oil field hands, engineers, etc. All you've done to address that is imply that because there will be more women than men in the workplace, they should be happy with what they get

This thread is not about getting paid fairly. If we can agree that the pay disparity exists because men and women do different jobs, then it would appear you wish to make the point that though women do different work, they need better compensation so that they make the same as a man while doing different work??? Am I getting this right? Well, quite frankly, if they want better pay, choose a different job. The market generally does a pretty good job of dictating the appropriate rates of pay provided there is no external interference. I take it from your stance though that you wish to see external interference, perhaps in the form of government legistlation. So, maybe a solution in your eyes would be for the government to demand that social workers get paid what firemen make? Or, how about every job in Canada gets the same rate. How about $25.00 and hour? Irrespective of the career of your choosing, we all get the same.

Sorry, this is not a solution, and I'm glad it's not. I have a friend for example who is a Power Line Tech. He makes somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000 a year; no college degree either. There is good reason why they are paid so well. Would you be comfortable working a 100 feet in the air on a power line carrying 500,000 volts? If women wish to pursue such dangerous jobs with such high pay, feel free, but my feeling is that they would rather do something different.

It's all about choices.

 

[AnnaG]

All the article says is that men make more for equal years of education. That's it. You would have a point if a man and a woman both graduate with the EXACT same degree and applied and attained the EXACT same job, yet the man still made more. This is not the case. The man and the woman may have similar years of education, but a degree in social work and a degree in computer science, though both degrees, do not yield similar jobs; nor do they yield similar pay.

... and that indicates a failure in societal priorities. Raising kids would seem to most people to be more important than relaying stock market info through computers or whatever else computers do besides allowing folks like us discuss stuff.
I touched on this abit when I came into CanCon. Why should some family physician who affects a couple thousand clients get a relative pittance while some golf star gets millions for playing a game?
Pay equity is great when there's no gender difference because pay should be according to performance, not gender. But, the priorities behind pay equity are not always rational.

 

[ansutherland]

... and that indicates a failure in societal priorities. Raising kids would seem to most people to be more important than relaying stock market info through computers or whatever else computers do besides allowing folks like us discuss stuff.
I touched on this abit when I came into CanCon. Why should some family physician who affects a couple thousand clients get a relative pittance while some golf star gets millions for playing a game?
Pay equity is great when there's no gender difference because pay should be according to performance, not gender. But, the priorities behind pay equity are not always rational.

Not always rational, but often. Take for example raising children. Anyone can do it. I'm not saying that anyone can do it well, but there is no specific training required to do it, thus the pool of people legally qualified is huge. It's regarded as a biological right, much like life itself. Now let’s look at a GP. Obviously the pool of people to draw from is much smaller. For one thing, not everyone wants to be a doctor. Secondly, it's not easy to become one. A huge percentage of people who wish to become one are weeded out because they don't have what it takes. This diminishes supply, while in no way addressing increases in demand, thus their salaries rise.

Does it seem fair to me that Tiger Woods makes what he makes? I don't know, it depends on how you define fair. In many ways it seems unfair, yet if I was the owner of a company and I had to compete with a bunch of other companies to gain the endorsement of a TW, I would not want the government telling me that I can't offer beyond X amount because there are workers of other professions that make a lot less and we would not want to create a perceived gender pay gap.

Think of it this way, women make of around half the population. They are generally better educated, and have a unique set of innate qualities that make them very valuable in the workforce. If I were a company, competing for the best a brightest workers around to enhance my companies performance and gain market share, it would only make sense to hire a woman, because according to some, I don't have to pay her as much. What a competitive advantage I would have discovered! People just as qualified, yet paid 30% less. This is obviously not the case, yet some still disagree. As for fairness, well that's relative. If you were in a bind and you needed your hair cut but your toilet was plugged, and you only had so much money, which of those two is more important........hair stylist or plumber? Which of those two is more likely to be done by a man?

You mentioned child care as important, and I agree, but there is no supply shortage of women willing to do that job and there is only so much people are willing to pay for those kinds of services.

 

[karrie]

This thread is not about getting paid fairly. If we can agree that the pay disparity exists because men and women do different jobs, then it would appear you wish to make the point that though women do different work, they need better compensation so that they make the same as a man while doing different work??? Am I getting this right?

No, you pulled that out of thin air.

I take it from your stance though that you wish to see external interference, perhaps in the form of government legistlation.

No, more pulling stuff from thin air.

look, you're the one that decided that this was an argument that women throw out, and asked when and why they throw it out there... if you want to make up and argument, fine, but don't make up MY side of the argument. lol.

 

[AnnaG]

Not always rational, but often. Take for example raising children. Anyone can do it. I'm not saying that anyone can do it well, but there is no specific training required to do it, thus the pool of people legally qualified is huge. It's regarded as a biological right, much like life itself. Now let’s look at a GP. Obviously the pool of people to draw from is much smaller. For one thing, not everyone wants to be a doctor. Secondly, it's not easy to become one. A huge percentage of people who wish to become one are weeded out because they don't have what it takes. This diminishes supply, while in no way addressing increases in demand, thus their salaries rise.

Does it seem fair to me that Tiger Woods makes what he makes? I don't know, it depends on how you define fair. In many ways it seems unfair, yet if I was the owner of a company and I had to compete with a bunch of other companies to gain the endorsement of a TW, I would not want the government telling me that I can't offer beyond X amount because there are workers of other professions that make a lot less and we would not want to create a perceived gender pay gap.

That's nice but why should someone who looks after a lot of families' health get a small fraction of what some entertainer like Woods gets. It isn't rational.

Think of it this way, women make of around half the population. They are generally better educated, and have a unique set of innate qualities that make them very valuable in the workforce. If I were a company, competing for the best a brightest workers around to enhance my companies performance and gain market share, it would only make sense to hire a woman, because according to some, I don't have to pay her as much. What a competitive advantage I would have discovered! People just as qualified, yet paid 30% less. This is obviously not the case, yet some still disagree.

Being economically rational is not necessarily being generally rational.

As for fairness, well that's relative. If you were in a bind and you needed your hair cut but your toilet was plugged, and you only had so much money, which of those two is more important........hair stylist or plumber? Which of those two is more likely to be done by a man?

Plumber obviously.

You mentioned child care as important, and I agree, but there is no supply shortage of women willing to do that job and there is only so much people are willing to pay for those kinds of services.

Yet men don't seem to mind women doing that job. Women still are stigmatised for becoming firefighters, though.
Men ran everything. If you don't think that had a price, you're mistaken. And the women paid the price.

 

[ansutherland]

well ansutherland, rather than showing any backing to the fact that equal jobs DO get equal pay, all you're doing is picking apart some articles. You're not answering the question of whether or not women do in fact get paid fairly as, say, managers, oil field hands, engineers, etc. All you've done to address that is imply that because there will be more women than men in the workplace, they should be happy with what they get

No, you pulled that out of thin air.



No, more pulling stuff from thin air.

look, you're the one that decided that this was an argument that women throw out, and asked when and why they throw it out there... if you want to make up and argument, fine, but don't make up MY side of the argument. lol.

I don't think I pulled that from thin air. Your quote from above would indicate that you don't think women get paid fairly. Your rebuttal did not address my assertion that men and women do different work, therefore earn different pay, and that is where the fallacy of pay discrepancy originates. Rather, you brought up pay fairness. This comes across as you wanting jobs that women do to get paid more money because you don't think they are fairly compensated? If I interpreted you incorrectly, then I apologize.

 

[karrie]

I don't think I pulled that from thin air. Your quote from above would indicate that you don't think women get paid fairly. Your rebuttal did not address my assertion that men and women do different work, therefore earn different pay, and that is where the fallacy of pay discrepancy originates. Rather, you brought up pay fairness. This comes across as you wanting jobs that women do to get paid more money because you don't think they are fairly compensated? If I interpreted you incorrectly, then I apologize.

I discussed equal work as the issue... don't tell me that two electricians do different work if one's a man and one's a woman. I'm sorry, but, most women I know aren't in 'women's work'. Uppity beyotches. lol.

 

[ansutherland]

Yet men don't seem to mind women doing that job. Women still are stigmatised for becoming firefighters, though.
Men ran everything. If you don't think that had a price, you're mistaken. And the women paid the price.

Women can be fire fighters, but do they have what it takes. There are good reasons why there are so few aside from supposed prejudice. The physical requirements are tough......very tough. Add to this that women are not likely as attracted to that type of career as men are.

Also, consider that men are not gifted the way women are with regards to child care just as women are not gifted the way men are with regards to physical strength. These innate biological strengths have occupational consequences.

 

[captain morgan]

That's nice but why should someone who looks after a lot of families' health get a small fraction of what some entertainer like Woods gets. It isn't rational.

Woods isn't paid via the public sector, add onto the idea that Canadians have a belief in an entitlement to "free" healthcare that is constrained by the actual amount of taxes collected versus the amount of "free" healthcare resources that are consumed.

That said, people will pay what the market will bear and that also extends to family doctors - case in point, Michael Jackson paid his personal doctor 100K per month (according to an article I read on these forums), clearly this is contrary to the above quote.

Yet men don't seem to mind women doing that job. Women still are stigmatised for becoming firefighters, though.
Men ran everything. If you don't think that had a price, you're mistaken. And the women paid the price.

.. And women don't seem to mind men working in certain positions either... That has nothing to do with the argument. As for firefighting, there is a very real physical component that favours more men being accepted into that position.

 

[ansutherland]

Wow, this topic sure died a quick death....I really thought we had a good debate going. though it was quite obvious which side was winning

 

[EagleSmack]

Personally, I have never understood why women would want to be equal to a bunch of emotionally retarded, sexually repressed, adolescent dickheads. Can someone explain that to me?

This gets a ROFL

Does it seem fair to me that Tiger Woods makes what he makes? I don't know, it depends on how you define fair. In many ways it seems unfair, yet if I was the owner of a company and I had to compete with a bunch of other companies to gain the endorsement of a TW, I would not want the government telling me that I can't offer beyond X amount because there are workers of other professions that make a lot less and we would not want to create a perceived gender pay gap.

Sports. This is one area where we can say for sure there is a HUGE disparity. Tiger makes what he makes because he wins so darn much and he is able to get the endorsements. Men's Golf is more popular because the market for the Men's Tour is bigger than the Women's tour.

Another one is the NBA and the WNBA. Women make a lot less because the viewership is less. Women themselves could save it if they would attend the games like men do. You notice a big difference at the NCAA Collegiate Basketball level. The only women teams that sell out consistently are UConn and Tennessee. So on one hand, for example, a Syracuse Men's Hoops will be sold out and the next night Syracuse Women's Basketball will be offering group rates to get people in the door. The woman and men both compete just as hard to win, but there is a disparity in attendance and in the professional sports a disparity in pay.