Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by cipher6, Mar 29, 2011.
Interesting article in the WSJ today, thought you would like it.
By CARRIE LUKAS
Download the Forums for Android™ app!
Not necessarily. You're simplifying too much. Some people who choose to just eat pizza and remain fat are unable to control their weight. Others who choose to do that are able.
Exactly, and some people need a lot of help.
That's not accurate. Again, you're simplifying too much. There's a difference between having been convinced that you can't do something and choosing not to do that something.
Nope, that's not under my thinking.
Good because neither do I. But what you have said here is not my thinking.
I don't agree that they as a group have significantly different personalities in ways that are relevant to their rate of pay.
You guys are amazing. Women with the same education, same age, same family situation, working the same amount of hours get paid less than men. Rationalize that away any way you want. I'll take it for what it is.
Thank you for that wonderful lesson in using misleading statistics to support a claim. I do like how you gravitate to the article using statistics that support your theory while dismissing information others have provided because it goes against your theory, even though the information I've given is much more relevant. It's true that in some studies in major urban areas, women on average make more than men. What's not true is that that means there's no wage gap. Things like what I posted are much better indicators of whether or not there's a wage gap, but it's OK to ignore that because you don't like it.
So, where do you draw the line? How do you determine person A has the psychical ability and will power ability, but they just choose not to use it, while person B has the psychical ability but not the will power ability, making them "unable?"
I'm simplifying for a reason, to show a point...
So how do you know which is which? If you've been convinced you can't do it, can you be unconvinced? If you can, or could have been, unconvinced, should you still be considered "unable?"
But that is where that thinking leads... You can't measure will power, there is no way to know one person is actually lacking the will power to do something, while another simply is refusing to use their will power...
And I think there is a reason for that. Will power, isn't a trait like strength or height or metabolism. I don't think anyone really lacks will power to do something, but refuses to utilize that will power. I think with the right motivations, anyone can utilize their will power.
Anecdotal example: My wife is a smoker, and could never quit. But then she got pregnant, and quit cold turkey for 9 months. That was sufficient motivation to change her habits. She always struggled with dieting, then they told her she had gestational diabetes, and she went on a diet no problem.
Would homelessness and an uncomfortable life be sufficient motivation to engage people's will power?
If it is as you say, and some are simply lacking that ability to want to do something, therefore we must support them, because they lack the ability to want to work and hold a full time job, how do we make that determination? How do we determine one guy is simply lazy, while another is truly lacking in the ability to want to do something?
I'm not rationalizing, but examining the statistics.
What about negotiation skills? And most professional jobs, they don't have a hard set salary for the person they are looking to hire. You go into the interview and they ask you want your looking to make most times.
What if, men, as a group, have better negotiating skills, and are able to secure themselves better salaries in the interview, and negotiate better raises while employed?
I'm not claiming thats the case or explanation of the gender gap, but if it was, if you could control for that factor in the statistics, like you do with education, children, hours worked etc. and the gap dissipated, would that still be "gender discrimination?"
What would it be when a man had better negotiating skills than other man and secured himself a better salary?
Your dismissing out of hand data that is contrary to what you've said, simply because its contrary...
I'm not dismissing anything, just adding this perspective and data to the debate to help get a full view of the situation.
I've never claimed there is no gender gap, I've even said, I think some of it could be straight gender discrimination... but I don't think its as large as many claim it to be.
Why don't we take ALL the data as a whole?
Why are the things you've posted "much better indicators?"
Why are things like personality not applicable? Do you think there is a personality wage gap? What if we took all men, classified them by personality and compared their wages controlling for all the other factors? Do you think there would be a wage gap?
And, what about this factoid?
Is that gender discrimination against men? If no, why not?
It has to be on an individual basis.
But the point isn't correct because of the simplification.
Think of it like the objection to snitching you find in a lot of poor, drug-addled cities where there are gangs. To people outside of that culture, it seems like a ridiculous value to hold to not help the cops get the people who are messing up the community. But to kids growing up in that culture, it seems perfectly normal. It's possible to convince some of the kids who grow up there that "snitching" is perfectly acceptable, at least in the context of helping the cops in legitimate ways. However, some of them just aren't going to listen.
This is also why I gave the analogy of religious people/atheists. Most people grow up in religious homes and are indoctrinated into a religion. Some are able to break out of that later, and others aren't. My parents are both very intelligent people, but they're still very religious.
What I'm saying is that education is our best tool.
Also, yes, some people do just lack the willpower. Some women in your wife's situation simply wouldn't quit smoking or wouldn't be able to diet. This is my point. Some people can, while others can't. Getting more people to get out of poverty involves a lot of education and different methods of breaking the mindsets of generational poverty.
And this is the problem: "What if?" My point is that for a given group of men and women, it's incorrect to assume a difference in negotiating skills or any other skills like that. Some women will be good at negotiating, and others won't. Some men will be good at it and some won't. On average, there's no good reason to assume there would be a significant difference in negotiating skills between men and women.
All this is is the No True Scotsman fallacy.
"Women still make less than men."
"Well, there could be factors other than discrimination that make that the case."
"Sure, but even when you do a study that takes out relevant factors like age, educational background, relevant experience, family status and hours worked, you still find a significant wage gap."
"Yeah, but it could be this."
At a certain point you have to just say "Yeah, it does seem that there is still gender discrimination going on according to the statistics".
I don't think anyone here is unwilling to admit that "it does seem that there is still gender discrimination going on according to the statistics". What we are saying, I think, is that there are still factors that the statistics do not and can not take into account (that is, WHY is there discrimination going on). I think it would be foolish for me to think that there aren't things that woman, in general, innately do better than men. Conversely, I am sure there are things that men, on average, innately do better than women. Some of those things may be stereotypical, but so be it. As human beings, we are equal. When it comes to general abilities, the politically correct thing is to say we are equal, but biologically we are clearly not. Is it so hard to imagine that, on average, each gender does certain things better than the other? I think not. The problem is that in work situations where one sex has statistically done better than the other, if a person of the gender opposite "what you are looking for" turns up, he/she is likely stereotyped.
No, I'm not even dismissing it. I understand that there are statistics like the fact that in some major cities women make significantly more than men on average. What I'm saying is that, while that's the case, it doesn't override studies that indicate that women of the same age, experience and education level, family status and hours worked make less than men for similar jobs.
This is good, but how large does it have to be? The point is that there is gender discrimination at all.
We do. That's my point. The title of the article you posted was "There is no male-female wage gap". My point was that the information in that article might be correct, but it doesn't override other, more relevant and indicative information like what I posted.
Because instead of general stats, they specifically tried to figure out whether there was a gender wage gap. Instead of inferring from facts like a higher unemployment rate among men and a reverse gender wage gap in many major cities that there is no wage gap, they took our variables that could skew the averages.
Because there's no reason to believe that there are relevant differences in personality between a random group of men and a random group of men
What about it? It could be, but we'd need a lot more information. There is no history of gender discrimination against men on a large scale, whereas there is against women. Also, just one simple stat like that isn't nearly enough information to make a conclusion like that, especially considering the difference in those percentages is not that big.
But if a woman is doing the same job as a man and has the same qualifications, she should be making the same amount. We have indications that that is not the case a lot of times.
To truely make the study valid, you'd have to go to the same company and the same business building, and check the same exact job. Not all companies pay the same. Some companies may be more desperate for a position and will pay more, or may be less in need and low ball applicants.
I'm very near finishing college, and have heard tons of stories about getting jobs from friends. Some women, some men. Here's two entry level accountants with prior work experience, an internship, good grades, the whole deal. The female friend was offered 45,000 from her company...if she got her CPA and started to work on her Masters. The male was offered 65,000 right out of school, no CPA, no further education necessary. While that may show discrimination, the simple fact is it's different companies and they're willing to pay different amounts for the "same" job.
Also for the negotiation argument, it's shown men are better than women in stats. Again, relying on stats there's a number of factors not considered. But if you want to put stats versus stats, you got the wage gap vs this negotiation stat, raw data vs raw data no analysis here. The wage gap is like 23% or something like that, this study shows negotiation and who did or who didn't. It showed 20% more men negotiated their pay. Could this be a direct correlation to the wage gap, most certainly. Could it be something completely non-related, absolutely. It's all about how you interpret things.
How Avoiding Negotiation Hurts Women - ABC News
I know I may be hesitant to accept the fact that there's discrimination, it's just the way I was brought up. I know for the overall picture there is against minorities and women. But if I mess up or don't get a job I want, it's because I as a person didn't do something right, not because I'm Asian and the stats point that way.
I don't see anything that indicated that the woman is doing the same job EQUALLY WELL as the man. That is the issue of looking at the statistics only. I am saying it is entirely possible that the woman are actually making the company less money, on average, than the men are. That simple fact would be a valid reason to pay them less.
39 jobs where women make more than men - Feb. 28, 2006
Here is a list of 39 jobs where woman make more than men. In many cases it is well over 25% more. Some of those jobs sterotypically seem like the male would do far better.
At the risk of being labeled as only presenting data that supports my own statements, I will simply pose a question.
What are we able to conclude from this? See the below link for the proposed answer.
Hey Opra likely earns more than Jimmy Fallon. Just a guess, but I should think so.
J.K. Rowling makes more than most male writers.
Mom made more than dad.
And your point?
You guys are unreal. I'll leave you to your fantasy that there is no wage gap due to discrimination. Have fun in your fantasy world. The facts are already there, if you'd rather check out reality.
Hey there Tom buddy,
Trust me I know how hard it is to control yourself sometimes when you believe in something with so much passion . strength.
So I won't judge you since we all make mistakes
I found this to help your argument (and other people here too) that I am starting to beleive that women do actually get paid less...
But I am also starting to see this is because maybe they are not ummm ... i think they are not "forceful" enough.
Here this will explain it :
Why women get paid less - and 6 tips on winning
evryone has said it is happening. take your ball and go home just because you do not know how to argue.
No one was bashing you or your opinion. There is no quicker way to lose credibility and lose a debate than resorting to insults or pull the "whatever you just don't understand" card. I have my opinion, you have yours. I have acknowledged there is a wage gap on paper and stats, I just added a few more factors that might explain why there is one. You are more than welcomed to explain how my explanations are wrong, that's the whole thing in a debate. Neither side is right or wrong, it's just people of different opinions trying to justify their side. You've already brought several good points to the table.
I might also offer this: saying that the "facts are allready there" means very little in the cold light of day. Some people Google something and if the pages served agree with their opinion, they use those as sources.
And they believe that the information is accurate, when it might be absolutely wrong or worse, misleading.
I'll give you an example: Rush Limbaugh is a liar, because of this, that, and something else. Whhen you look at legitimate sources, you discover he is extremely accurate and finding examples of his lying is exceedingly difficult. And quite often, the person making the claim simply does not want to look for the truth, and they resort to using toss away phrases like, "Everyone knows he is a liar." Or some such.
But you read that he is a liar on perhaps thousands of pages, so it must be true. Just an example, let's not turn this into a bash Rush thing.
Determining exact figures can be tricky; for every page you source I can source a different page that indicates you are incorrect. And you can do the same thing. Too much data on the web is worthless and quite often it is driven by an agenda.
I will accept that in some cases, women are paid less for the same job. But, there is usually a good reasoin why this can happen. I seriously doubt in too many men gathered here will give up their raises to provide more money for their female co-workers.
good reason or not, it happens. deal with it. his problems arn't with us, they are with the corporate honchos that set the precedent.
This has been covered once, twice, and a thousand times. It is a problem and nobody disagrees. What we do not necessarily agree on is how big an issue it is. Are ALL women being underpaid just because they are women? Clearly not. Are 50% of women being underpaid just because they are woman? Maybe, but I still think those numbers are too high. We are simply trying to discuss how big the problem actually is, not whether it is a problem or not. We have already all clarified that it is still a rpoblem, no matter how small.
I can sincerely say that if it can be presented to me that the woman is doing the same amount of work, working the same amount of hours, with the same amount of credentials as I have, I would sacrifice some of my pay so that we can be equals. That said, I am already in a femal dominated field where all the woman around me are making more than I am, though I cannot say that we are equals since I am technically the noobie at the clinic.