when i was going to graduate school we hired three professors 2 male and 1 female. one of the men was a very prolific scholar, whereas the other was not. the female was a better teacher and nearly matched the former in scholarly productivity. as the school paper presented male professor #1 made 68k, male professor #2 made 66k, and the female professor made 60k. it was right there in everyone's face. same thing happened across the university in several areas. same thing happens at higher levels. as someone else posted, at lower levels the pay tends to be much more equal.
Funny, that comes from a conservative newspaper dominated by male readership...
Listen, ask any female if we're paid equally. This is beyond ridiculous (and also derailing the thread) that you are trying to prove (by online information) that we're all paid equally when we know we're not. Discrimination is oh so common in the workplace when it comes to earnings.
when i was going to graduate school we hired three professors 2 male and 1 female. one of the men was a very prolific scholar, whereas the other was not. the female was a better teacher and nearly matched the former in scholarly productivity. as the school paper presented male professor #1 made 68k, male professor #2 made 66k, and the female professor made 60k. it was right there in everyone's face. same thing happened across the university in several areas. same thing happens at higher levels. as someone else posted, at lower levels the pay tends to be much more equal.
Where you there when they negoiated for their salaries? Maybe the woman didn't.
How do you qualify a "better Teacher"
What were there teaching experience? What does nearly match mean?
There are so many questions you can't answer, but again you look at the raw numbers and assume that because the person making less is a woman, the only reason is because she is a woman...
blockhead did you read the government report or did you have someone tell you what it said? within the report it says:
"When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000. While the difference fluctuated in each year we studied, there was a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over the time period. (See table 2 in app. II.)"
"Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women".
Potential Reasons for the Remaining
Earnings Difference
• Our model could not explain all of the earnings difference between men and women due to inherent limitations in the survey data and in statistical analysis
• Some experts and literature identified potential reasons for an earnings difference:
• some women trade off advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities
• discrimination resulting from societal views about acceptable roles for men and women or views about
women in the workplace may affect women’s earnings
Discrimination May Also Affect Women’s
Earnings
• According to some experts and literature, those who work in traditionally female-dominated occupations generally receive less earnings
• Also, according to some experts, discrimination against women in the workplace negatively affects women’s job opportunities, advancement, and therefore, earnings
Concluding Observations
• While we could account for much of the earnings difference between men and women, we cannot explain all of the difference due to inherent limitations in the survey data and in statistical analysis
• It is difficult to evaluate the remaining difference without a full understanding of what contributes to the difference
• An earnings difference resulting from individual decisions about how to manage work and family may not be a
problem, unless the decisions are not freely made
• An earnings difference may result from workplace discrimination or subtler discrimination about job choices
women can make
when i was going to graduate school we hired three professors 2 male and 1 female. one of the men was a very prolific scholar, whereas the other was not. the female was a better teacher and nearly matched the former in scholarly productivity. as the school paper presented male professor #1 made 68k, male professor #2 made 66k, and the female professor made 60k. it was right there in everyone's face. same thing happened across the university in several areas. same thing happens at higher levels. as someone else posted, at lower levels the pay tends to be much more equal.
Where you there when they negoiated for their salaries? Maybe the woman didn't.
How do you qualify a "better Teacher"
What were there teaching experience? What does nearly match mean?
There are so many questions you can't answer, but again you look at the raw numbers and assume that because the person making less is a woman, the only reason is because she is a woman...
female had more teaching experience than both, and received higher peer and student teaching reviews than both. she was the most coveted female academic in the field with offers from 3 other Universities. she published 3 books, and 18 journal articles in 3 years, whereas the male counterpart published 2 books and 21 journal articles in the same amount of time. the other yokel published 1 book and 4 journal articles. she took no time off.
i have done it and you still keep dismissing my response.
I didn't respond to one post because you were obviously heated (look at your own words) and you didn't seem to want to have a level-headed discussion. Further on the substance, you won't even acknowledge that an increase in labor supply, holding all else equal, drives down wages. That's econ 101 stuff. Any economist would say it's true. Yet, you're saying it's not (to my knowledge). If I'm wrong here, please say so.
a discussion would merely be us writing based on our own opinions without trying to bring logic and reason into the thread.
Ummm... I don't think so. I have had plenty of discussions on a variety of subjects where there were differing opinions and people brought logic and reason to the table. I think this statement is pretty silly.
i said this thread reminded me of a george carlin comedy bit -...
i agree that the ugly comment was stupid, but it wasn't what i was getting at...just didn't want to be called on taking the quote out of context.
[/quote]
Uh huh. Well, maybe if you agree that the "ugly comment was stupid and wasn't what you were getting at" you shouldn't have included it? It's without a doubt inflammatory (there's rules against that here, but even if there weren't - it's just immature). So, I feel no real need to respond to people trying to get a rise out of those who disagree with them. You can say you didn't mean to do that, but I think you're smart enough to cut that part of the longer quote out when you type it into a message board and hit submit. It's not very hard.
Funny, that comes from a conservative newspaper dominated by male readership...
Listen, ask any female if we're paid equally. This is beyond ridiculous (and also derailing the thread) that you are trying to prove (by online information) that we're all paid equally when we know we're not. Discrimination is oh so common in the workplace when it comes to earnings.
lol... Good job reading the other study I posted... If you don't want to believe its true that fine by me, but don't be ignorant about it.
LOL "it comes from a conservative newspaper dominated by male readership..."
And the next statement you say is "Ask any female if were paid equally"
So you say what I post is biased, yet you exclude all MALES in your qualifications...HAHA
You people keep reminding why I stopped posting here...
when i was going to graduate school we hired three professors 2 male and 1 female. one of the men was a very prolific scholar, whereas the other was not. the female was a better teacher and nearly matched the former in scholarly productivity. as the school paper presented male professor #1 made 68k, male professor #2 made 66k, and the female professor made 60k. it was right there in everyone's face. same thing happened across the university in several areas. same thing happens at higher levels. as someone else posted, at lower levels the pay tends to be much more equal.
Where you there when they negoiated for their salaries? Maybe the woman didn't.
How do you qualify a "better Teacher"
What were there teaching experience? What does nearly match mean?
There are so many questions you can't answer, but again you look at the raw numbers and assume that because the person making less is a woman, the only reason is because she is a woman...
female had more teaching experience than both, and received higher peer and student teaching reviews than both. she was the most coveted female academic in the field with offers from 3 other Universities. she published 3 books, and 18 journal articles in 3 years, whereas the male counterpart published 2 books and 21 journal articles in the same amount of time. the other yokel published 1 book and 4 journal articles. she took no time off.
So did you sit in their interviews, do you know who negotiated for what?
the increase in the labor supply is true i didn't actually argue that. what i argued/discussed/debated (whatever words your prefer) is that this increase in the labor supply is very minimal when compared with the export of labor, decimation of unions, etc...i think that's econ 101 as well - maybe 102 so kids don't feel bad about themselves and quit econ.
again, the point with the carlin quote was that we have a country that has a large number of leaders who suggest they care about the "unborn" but work hard to make their post-birth life a living hell. that, i believe, far outweighs any unintended consequences of the post-women's rights movement.
i was a grad student rep on two of them and my best friend in grad school was for the other so yes, and the starting offers being discussed were significantly different...wtf more do you want?
I dont have any documented facts, studies, or statistical analysis, but I can simply chime in with personal experience....I worked in restaurants for a very long time and was included in the hiring of many high level management positions. The women were paid less. Same qualifications, but paid less. And I was present for negotiations during interview process. It was obvious gender discrimination in my eyes. That's just one sliver of reality though...
really, I didn't see any in the body of your post...
well ... you can search for them yourself ... or you can search for "there is no pay gap between men and women" and find more articles to your liking ...
Really... Its FACT?
Why don't you take the time and read this http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
"Womens Earnings" Work Patterns Explain the Differences between Men and Womens earnings.
IF you actually read this then you will see that if actually broken down per hour there is no noticeable pay gap.
You are welcome to post any sources to back your logic also...
I actually tried to read it, but I can't download it. Only have my phone and it won't work. However, I invite you to simply Google "pay inequity between men and women" and start reading. When you're done reading everything showing that it exists and that the inequity is at 77% average (and after checking all the sources, including the USCB and all its counterparts around the world, among others), get back to me. Should only take you a week or so to go through all the evidence showing the fact of pay inequities.
Oh, and I work at a university, and yes, it's true, men get paid more for the same positions, particularly in upper level admin. Same job, same hours, less pay.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
fine I get it...your issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children but it's more difficult nowadays...
this is what I get when I ask myself
>which sounds like you feel only women can stay home to take care of children...you know since the man is out working...
I understand perfectly well what I'm trying to say. I never said a man can't stay home instead of a woman. You seem like you're trying to say that for me - why I don't know. My point, is that as a couple, it's harder than it once was to have either (man or woman) stay home and care for their child/children because of societal and financial pressures.
and I get the sense that you don't understand what you're trying to say...
I feel exactly the same about you. So, we're on the same page there.
no you don't, you know exactly what I'm saying...
your posts are clearly biased....you kept going back to women working outside the home...when called out, you backpeddled and changed that to couple....
really, I didn't see any in the body of your post...
well ... you can search for them yourself ... or you can search for "there is no pay gap between men and women" and find more articles to your liking ...
the increase in the labor supply is true i didn't actually argue that. what i argued/discussed/debated (whatever words your prefer) is that this increase in the labor supply is very minimal when compared with the export of labor, decimation of unions, etc...i think that's econ 101 as well - maybe 102 so kids don't feel bad about themselves and quit econ.
Ok, fair enough on labor supply. That means you agree as more and more women entered the workforce, the real wage either shrank or was atleast constrained in terms of growth.
My response to your point on unions being more important than the forementioned is simply I don't agree, and it's impossible for either of us to prove. Moreover, it's my opinion that unions can certainly prop up wages (to quote myself from earlier) in the short run for those who obtain union jobs. The negative is that they can also result in less workers employed (which could mean lower aggregate median wages), black markets and declining productivity (which is a long run problem to wages). It's way more complicated than just this, but the bottom line is - I disagree. I am quite certain you disagree with me too. So, that is fine. We're left disagreeing. But, one additional reason I felt no need to continue the discussion was that I don't agree about unions being more important.
again, the point with the carlin quote was that we have a country that has a large number of leaders who suggest they care about the "unborn" but work hard to make their post-birth life a living hell. that, i believe, far outweighs any unintended consequences of the post-women's rights movement.
Uh huh. I still don't see what being "ugly" has anything do with your or his stance on the matter. In my opinion, Carlin wasn't exactly a GQ model. Anyway, I'd simply suggest you don't add quotes on whole entire political sects of people being ugly in the future because they are inflammatory. I'm quite certain if roles were reversed, you'd agree.
fine I get it...your issue is that sometimes women want to stay home with their children but it's more difficult nowadays...
this is what I get when I ask myself
>which sounds like you feel only women can stay home to take care of children...you know since the man is out working...
I understand perfectly well what I'm trying to say. I never said a man can't stay home instead of a woman. You seem like you're trying to say that for me - why I don't know. My point, is that as a couple, it's harder than it once was to have either (man or woman) stay home and care for their child/children because of societal and financial pressures.
and I get the sense that you don't understand what you're trying to say...
I feel exactly the same about you. So, we're on the same page there.
no you don't, you know exactly what I'm saying...
your posts are clearly biased....you kept going back to women working outside the home...when called out, you backpeddled and changed that to couple....
Really... Its FACT?
Why don't you take the time and read this http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
"Womens Earnings" Work Patterns Explain the Differences between Men and Womens earnings.
IF you actually read this then you will see that if actually broken down per hour there is no noticeable pay gap.
You are welcome to post any sources to back your logic also...
I actually tried to read it, but I can't download it. Only have my phone and it won't work. However, I invite you to simply Google "pay inequity between men and women" and start reading. When you're done reading everything showing that it exists and that the inequity is at 77% average (and after checking all the sources, including the USCB and all its counterparts around the world, among others), get back to me. Should only take you a week or so to go through all the evidence showing the fact of pay inequities.
Oh, and I work at a university, and yes, it's true, men get paid more for the same positions, particularly in upper level admin. Same job, same hours, less pay.
Its been debunked to may times to wast my time reading that.
I assume you were present in your univeristy members interviews and saw the negotiations taking place.
Same positions dosent mean jack shit if one person is right out of school and the other have been doing it for 20 years... Have you heard of a thing called experience? Alot more goes into pay than just your job title and hours...
I can't imagine a Univerisy with PUBLIC records would take on this kind of liability...
But if you say so...
if there is a wage gap in a somewhat socialized country like Canada - you can postulate on what that would be in the US ...
Statistical evidence demonstrates that women continue to earn less than men in Canada, as in all the countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This is the case despite the fact that women are catching up with men in labour force participation, and have caught up with men in educational attainment. The gap between what women earn and what men earn is known as the gender wage gap.
the sexual revolution wasn't the women's liberation movement of the early 1900's.
if more choices and a better overall acceptance of oneself equals happier, then everyone is happier.
eh?
amy
Amy The Great #74594
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016 Missoula MT 2018
I didn't think it would be divisive either. In fact, I thought there's more here that we would all agree on, then would disagree. But, I guess I was wrong.
I find it. Interesting that you find it surprising that this topic is divisive. Of course it's divisive... I find it surprising that so many men don't understand why women are so defensive towards men when it comes to issues like this. Women are members of a group of people who have been consistently abused, humiliated, degraded, and dismissed since the beginning of time, basically. I don't get how men can't grasp that concept. Of COURSE it's divisive when men start chiming in about whether or not women's new found levels of freedom and equality are 'good for them'. Are you kidding? It's practically like white men discussing whether or not the end of of slavery was good for the blacks. Those men could be the most anti-racist, slave-hating people in the world... but that ddoes't make the fact that they're even discussing it any less irritating to black people... as though it's even a question! And there is always the underlying fact that their history as the down-trodden and abused, be it personal history or cultural, is a direct result of the acts of the same types of people discussing the issue. Sorry guys... it's a knee jerk reaction (a totally justifiable one) for women to get their guard up when men start pontificating on this issue
I agree that this topic is divisive for these reasons. As a woman, this is my life too. I am 40 years old and was brought up by a stay at home mom which was great. But my dad worked 2nd shift until I was 12 years old and I rarely ever saw him. That had a huge impact on me, even more so as a woman because I never had a man consistently in my life to relate to. My dad is a wonderful person and he worked hard to provide for us so my mom could stay home BUT I regret having so little of a relationship with him. I have no doubt I'll get blasted for saying this but...
Why is it an either/or situation? Either my husband makes a ton of money so I can stay home (or just as good maybe I make more money and HE stays home - thats a sexual revolution!) or I work and put my kids in daycare. Why isn't there a better option? For example, many European countries provide paid maternity AND paternity leave for 2 years or more so it doesn't become a horrible choice between day care or having no money. I know that means higher taxes and most of you will disagree with that but do we want to go back? Women have been subjugated since the beginning of time and I for one do not, cannot have that happen.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
Oh and just another thought on wage discrepancy.... I teach at a public high school and our salaries are based on education level and years of experience so men and women make the same. However, the discrepancy comes in the number of women in administration (assistant principals, principals, superintendents and others who work at the Board of Ed) Fewer women are in those positions so you will see a wage gap. There are fewer women because we are staying at home OR in my case and in the case of several colleagues we won't go through the time, expense, and hassle of trying to move up because family is our priority and we are still primarily responsible for picking up the kids, fixing dinner, and running the kids to softball, football, cross country, etc. Guess where I'm headed now
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
the sexual revolution wasn't the women's liberation movement of the early 1900's.
if more choices and a better overall acceptance of oneself equals happier, then everyone is happier.
eh?
amy
sexual revolution came about during second wave feminism/women's lib (ugh) which was simply about breaking the social structures posed by biological determinism, and we have now entered third wave feminism concerned with post-structuralism (Foucault and the like) whereby social structures are constantly changing, biological determinism has given way to social influence (the panopticon) and so on. This is where Blockhead's question about homosexuality and female/male issues are conflated. There are many feminists who disagree with one another depending on where they stand 1st/2nd/3rd wave. The type of feminism I most closely align with is 3rd wave whereby nearly everything is socially constructed and biological determinism is considered too simple. Thus sexuality is both a biological impulse AND a social construct (there are degrees of sexuality in this conception thus no one is a perfect hetero/homo sexual), just the same as gender (there are degrees of masculinity and femininity that overlap and diverge). This, however, doesn't mean that everything means nothing, but rather that there are degrees of oppression based on social structures. In that case, discrimination of homosexuals and discrimination of women are both understood as not good.
Really... Its FACT?
Why don't you take the time and read this http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
"Womens Earnings" Work Patterns Explain the Differences between Men and Womens earnings.
IF you actually read this then you will see that if actually broken down per hour there is no noticeable pay gap.
You are welcome to post any sources to back your logic also...
Its been debunked to may times to wast my time reading that.
I assume you were present in your univeristy members interviews and saw the negotiations taking place.
Same positions dosent mean jack shit if one person is right out of school and the other have been doing it for 20 years... Have you heard of a thing called experience? Alot more goes into pay than just your job title and hours...
I can't imagine a Univerisy with PUBLIC records would take on this kind of liability...
But if you say so...
Think what you want I guess - you seem to REALLY want to believe what you're saying... but you're still wrong. I've seen women with WAY more experience, education, and ability get paid less than men in the same position, my current director included. And many others here say they have experienced or witnessed the same thing. It's happening man. I'm not sure what offends you about this concept so much. I would think that anyone who cares would take the testimony here and think, 'wow, that's unfair; what can be done to stop this?' I mean, it's clear that women have been discriminated against forever - why the concept that it's still happening only about 100 years after sufferage, only maybe 30 years after any true movement started happening with women's equal rights (in our part of the world), would be so difficult for you to accept is beyond me. Does racism not exist anymore either?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
What's funny is that even the link to the study he provided found that discrimination of women over pay still exists, but he didn't read it and wants to believe that it doesn't. In blockhead's world no discrimination exists and anyone can make it in america so anyone who complains better shut their damn mouths. At least that's how I read his posts - could be wrong.
inlet, on the other hand, will get hung up on stupid shit that I even said was wrong but part of a quote and won't even address what was the crux of the quote. the reason being is that outside of the asanine "conservatives are ugly" statement (that was asanine), carlin makes a very good point. he also refuses to discuss how outsourced labor has been far more detrimental to real wages than women in the workplace, because hating on unions is way easier than talking about tax breaks, the effects of Free Trade Zones, and Free Trade Agreements, Wal-Mart sales stores, and so on. Each of these things have been way more devastating to American and Global societies, but they don't fit the narrative that women in the workplace are making everyone unhappy.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
Why is it an either/or situation? Either my husband makes a ton of money so I can stay home (or just as good maybe I make more money and HE stays home - thats a sexual revolution!) or I work and put my kids in daycare. Why isn't there a better option? For example, many European countries provide paid maternity AND paternity leave for 2 years or more so it doesn't become a horrible choice between day care or having no money. I know that means higher taxes and most of you will disagree with that but do we want to go back? Women have been subjugated since the beginning of time and I for one do not, cannot have that happen.
it's called socialism and the right have managed to make it a dirty word ...
Why is it an either/or situation? Either my husband makes a ton of money so I can stay home (or just as good maybe I make more money and HE stays home - thats a sexual revolution!) or I work and put my kids in daycare. Why isn't there a better option? For example, many European countries provide paid maternity AND paternity leave for 2 years or more so it doesn't become a horrible choice between day care or having no money. I know that means higher taxes and most of you will disagree with that but do we want to go back? Women have been subjugated since the beginning of time and I for one do not, cannot have that happen.
it's called socialism and the right have managed to make it a dirty word ...
it's kind of funny that socialism, or socialist policies would serve as a very viable answer to the idea that we are all unhappy because we don't get to spend time with family, and that neoliberal capitalism is at the crux of the problem. wonder if the OP would be up for a shift towards something like 1 and 2 year paid leaves for children?
Comments
Funny, that comes from a conservative newspaper dominated by male readership...
Listen, ask any female if we're paid equally. This is beyond ridiculous (and also derailing the thread) that you are trying to prove (by online information) that we're all paid equally when we know we're not. Discrimination is oh so common in the workplace when it comes to earnings.
How do you qualify a "better Teacher"
What were there teaching experience? What does nearly match mean?
There are so many questions you can't answer, but again you look at the raw numbers and assume that because the person making less is a woman, the only reason is because she is a woman...
"When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000. While the difference fluctuated in each year we studied, there was a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over the time period. (See table 2 in app. II.)"
"Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women".
Potential Reasons for the Remaining
Earnings Difference
• Our model could not explain all of the earnings difference between men and women due to inherent limitations in the survey data and in statistical analysis
• Some experts and literature identified potential reasons for an earnings difference:
• some women trade off advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities
• discrimination resulting from societal views about acceptable roles for men and women or views about
women in the workplace may affect women’s earnings
Discrimination May Also Affect Women’s
Earnings
• According to some experts and literature, those who work in traditionally female-dominated occupations generally receive less earnings
• Also, according to some experts, discrimination against women in the workplace negatively affects women’s job opportunities, advancement, and therefore, earnings
Concluding Observations
• While we could account for much of the earnings difference between men and women, we cannot explain all of the difference due to inherent limitations in the survey data and in statistical analysis
• It is difficult to evaluate the remaining difference without a full understanding of what contributes to the difference
• An earnings difference resulting from individual decisions about how to manage work and family may not be a
problem, unless the decisions are not freely made
• An earnings difference may result from workplace discrimination or subtler discrimination about job choices
women can make
No, I was saying that I didn't understand why people were focusing on the writing style of the original piece rather than the substance.
I didn't respond to one post because you were obviously heated (look at your own words) and you didn't seem to want to have a level-headed discussion. Further on the substance, you won't even acknowledge that an increase in labor supply, holding all else equal, drives down wages. That's econ 101 stuff. Any economist would say it's true. Yet, you're saying it's not (to my knowledge). If I'm wrong here, please say so.
It doesn't need to be a debate.
Ummm... I don't think so. I have had plenty of discussions on a variety of subjects where there were differing opinions and people brought logic and reason to the table. I think this statement is pretty silly.
[/quote]
Uh huh. Well, maybe if you agree that the "ugly comment was stupid and wasn't what you were getting at" you shouldn't have included it? It's without a doubt inflammatory (there's rules against that here, but even if there weren't - it's just immature). So, I feel no real need to respond to people trying to get a rise out of those who disagree with them. You can say you didn't mean to do that, but I think you're smart enough to cut that part of the longer quote out when you type it into a message board and hit submit. It's not very hard.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
LOL "it comes from a conservative newspaper dominated by male readership..."
And the next statement you say is "Ask any female if were paid equally"
So you say what I post is biased, yet you exclude all MALES in your qualifications...HAHA
You people keep reminding why I stopped posting here...
again, the point with the carlin quote was that we have a country that has a large number of leaders who suggest they care about the "unborn" but work hard to make their post-birth life a living hell. that, i believe, far outweighs any unintended consequences of the post-women's rights movement.
well ... you can search for them yourself ... or you can search for "there is no pay gap between men and women" and find more articles to your liking ...
Oh, and I work at a university, and yes, it's true, men get paid more for the same positions, particularly in upper level admin. Same job, same hours, less pay.
no you don't, you know exactly what I'm saying...
your posts are clearly biased....you kept going back to women working outside the home...when called out, you backpeddled and changed that to couple....
anyhoo, glad we got that cleared up...
Ok, fair enough on labor supply. That means you agree as more and more women entered the workforce, the real wage either shrank or was atleast constrained in terms of growth.
My response to your point on unions being more important than the forementioned is simply I don't agree, and it's impossible for either of us to prove. Moreover, it's my opinion that unions can certainly prop up wages (to quote myself from earlier) in the short run for those who obtain union jobs. The negative is that they can also result in less workers employed (which could mean lower aggregate median wages), black markets and declining productivity (which is a long run problem to wages). It's way more complicated than just this, but the bottom line is - I disagree. I am quite certain you disagree with me too. So, that is fine. We're left disagreeing. But, one additional reason I felt no need to continue the discussion was that I don't agree about unions being more important.
Uh huh. I still don't see what being "ugly" has anything do with your or his stance on the matter. In my opinion, Carlin wasn't exactly a GQ model. Anyway, I'd simply suggest you don't add quotes on whole entire political sects of people being ugly in the future because they are inflammatory. I'm quite certain if roles were reversed, you'd agree.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Troll much?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I assume you were present in your univeristy members interviews and saw the negotiations taking place.
Same positions dosent mean jack shit if one person is right out of school and the other have been doing it for 20 years... Have you heard of a thing called experience? Alot more goes into pay than just your job title and hours...
I can't imagine a Univerisy with PUBLIC records would take on this kind of liability...
But if you say so...
um
this is a report published by the Canadian gov't ...
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/Resea ... 0-30-e.htm
if there is a wage gap in a somewhat socialized country like Canada - you can postulate on what that would be in the US ...
please note the bolded part ...
if more choices and a better overall acceptance of oneself equals happier, then everyone is happier.
eh?
amy
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016
Missoula MT 2018
I agree that this topic is divisive for these reasons. As a woman, this is my life too. I am 40 years old and was brought up by a stay at home mom which was great. But my dad worked 2nd shift until I was 12 years old and I rarely ever saw him. That had a huge impact on me, even more so as a woman because I never had a man consistently in my life to relate to. My dad is a wonderful person and he worked hard to provide for us so my mom could stay home BUT I regret having so little of a relationship with him. I have no doubt I'll get blasted for saying this but...
Why is it an either/or situation? Either my husband makes a ton of money so I can stay home (or just as good maybe I make more money and HE stays home - thats a sexual revolution!) or I work and put my kids in daycare. Why isn't there a better option? For example, many European countries provide paid maternity AND paternity leave for 2 years or more so it doesn't become a horrible choice between day care or having no money. I know that means higher taxes and most of you will disagree with that but do we want to go back? Women have been subjugated since the beginning of time and I for one do not, cannot have that happen.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
inlet, on the other hand, will get hung up on stupid shit that I even said was wrong but part of a quote and won't even address what was the crux of the quote. the reason being is that outside of the asanine "conservatives are ugly" statement (that was asanine), carlin makes a very good point. he also refuses to discuss how outsourced labor has been far more detrimental to real wages than women in the workplace, because hating on unions is way easier than talking about tax breaks, the effects of Free Trade Zones, and Free Trade Agreements, Wal-Mart sales stores, and so on. Each of these things have been way more devastating to American and Global societies, but they don't fit the narrative that women in the workplace are making everyone unhappy.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/sy-361656 ... sic_video/
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
it's called socialism and the right have managed to make it a dirty word ...