April 27, 2005
Why Men Earn more than Women
Women earn 80 cents for every dollar men earn - and it used to be even less. This always puzzled me. If women really work for 20% less than men, why does anyone ever hire a man to do anything? Labor makes up the lion’s share of most business’ costs. With a 20% cost savings advantage, wouldn’t firms populated by women always out compete those with men? A 20% cost savings right off the bat! That can be better than outsourcing to India. How is it that we don’t need affirmative action to keep those expensive men on the job?
I found a book that explains this anomaly descriptively called "Why Men Earn More and What Women Can do about it." Some of the difference has to do with the types of work men and women prefer. Dangerous and dirty is usually a man's job. Men account for 92% of all occupational deaths in the U.S. (This might be worth a 20% pay premium) Men dominate the list of the worst jobs in the U.S. in general. And men as twice as likely to work 50+ hours a week.
Another difference is training. Men are much more likely to study engineering, business etc. A person with such a degree commands higher salaries and in the high paying fields like this, woman graduates actually command higher salaries than men with the same background, but there are fewer of them.
So a lot of the gap has to do with personal choice. I personally have turned down jobs that paid much better because I chose to do a job I found more fulfilling, but men in general, are less likely than women to do that. Maybe both men and women are reaping the rewards of what they are choosing. I know that I occasionally regret not making the bigger bucks, but the benefits of doing what I choose outweigh that. How fair would it be for me to go to my colleagues who made the other choice and say that I want to keep my memories (and better lifestyle) but I want their money?
So if you compare apples to apples on the wage gap, you find that there really is nothing there. The victim industry certainly will not accept these figures that could cut into their lucrative practices. Maybe that's why we haven't heard much about this in the main stream media.
For women who want to earn more money, the book provides eight tips on how to earn more.
you are comparing apples to oranges though. You are trying to say that the difference is choices and the type of work that men do verses women… but that is ignoring what people are usually talking about when they say “equality in the workplace”. They are talking about where women and men are doing the same job, but the woman is making considerably less. Of course there are demographic statistics like who holds what job, and which jobs are more dangerous, but the point is that when women and men are doing the same job… men make more.
Posted by: Ryan at April 27, 2005 01:18 PMRyan
No. That is the point. When women and men do the same job and they have the same background (education, experience) they make about the same and in some places they make more. When anyone finds cases of women making less than men doing the same work, it is headlined.
We have been comparing apples and oranges when we compare all women and all men.
Posted by: Jack at April 27, 2005 01:33 PMJack my friend,
Cover you butt with a garbage can lid, I suspect that many here will be drawing back to give it a kick.
I agree that if EVERYTHING is equal, everyone should get the same exact pay.
I see the wage disparity as more a ability and costs thing, much like your article is implying.
I see no reason whatsoever that in a non- phyical job like management , both sexes shouldn’t be paid the same wage, if they put in the same hours with equal skills.
I have a problem with the female construction worker, on the road crew holding a flag, that demands the same wage as the man that puts out the freaking orange barrels because they cant lift them, either one could hold the damn flag.
I hate discrimination in any form, race, sex, religion, skin tone ect., but I also get angry with anyone that would use that to get the same money for a job that they aren’t equal at preforming.
Its a complex issue.
Posted by: Beagle at April 27, 2005 02:16 PMJack said: “A person with such a degree commands higher salaries and in the high paying fields like this, woman graduates actually command higher salaries than men with the same background, but there are fewer of them.”
I would love to see the data source for that statement. Your saying the glass ceiling does not exist for the high paying professional fields? May be true, but, not the last time I checked.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2005 02:23 PMDavid,
You just asked Jack for a source for his statement and then proceded to do the same. Where did you “Check”?
Jack you are so right! I have owned two bars. By far the women bartenders make more in tips than men. The difference is that the men just accept that it is a “part of life” and dont go around complaining about it.
When we as a country quit the “that’s not fair” and begin the “Ill do my best no matter what because that is good character” we’ll all be better off.
Good article.
I’m wondering if there is some kind of correlation with how long a women holds a job. There are a couple of women who have quit at my job because they have decided to start families and stay at home. There have been other females hired in their positions but because of their experience, they are making less then me of course. Do any of these statistics take into account that more men stay in a job for years and then retire. I’m not saying all women leave the work force, but it seems like a good amount of them do when they decide to start a family.
Ivan
David
The glass ceiling is a metaphor. Some of it is related to discrimination, but discrimination in the past. It is momentum that will be dissipated in a short time. A woman graduation in 1960 did not have the same opportunities, so they did not get the experience. This was not fair, but it is also difficult or impossible to remedy. I am not sure I would want the person who would have been a doctor but for the lack of opportunity to perform heart surgery on me tomorrow.
The age cohort that is now getting the CEO jobs is from the 1960s. Perhaps a woman would have had the experience to be a CEO if she had the opportunity, but she didn’t so she doesn’t. The situation for younger people is very different. Follow the links from the eight tips. Women are 15 times more likely than men to become top executives at major corporations before the age of 40.
I will check the source data re salaries in the book I refer to. I don’t have it with me now and I don’t think it is online.
As for the worth of degrees, it is obvious that different degrees are worth different amounts of money. I have an MA in ancient history and an MBA in marketing and research. If I were looking to make money, which would I mention first? To the extent that one group studies history and literature and the other studies engineering and business you will have differences.
Posted by: Jack at April 27, 2005 03:02 PMI really hope your not expecting that to happen anytime soon Scott.
As long as race, gender or sexual orientation can be used and abused to get an unfair advantage, people will keep using them as excuses.
Nice post Jack!
Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2005 03:08 PMHere’s a rebuttal to the argument that te pay disparity is due to women’s choices.
According to the article (I don’t know anything about this organization, so I can’t really vouch for its accuracy or sourcing),
- a survey of public relations professionals, showing that women with less than 5 years of experience make $29,726 while men with the same amount of experience make $48,162. For P.R. professionals in the 5-10 year category, women earn $41,141 while men earn $47,888. In the 10-15 year category, women earn $44,941 and men earn $54,457. In the 15-20 year range, women earn $49,270 and men earn $69,120.
- a salary survey of purchasers demonstrating that for professionals in the field of purchasing with 3 or fewer years experience, women earn $35,900 and men earn $47,700. For purchasers with 4-6 years experience, men earn $52,100 while women earn $38,300. Female purchasers who have 7 to ten years of experience earn $42,300 while their male counterparts earn $56,400. For those with 11-15 years experience, women earn $43,500 and men earn $63,400.
There are other points, too. If those studies are accurate (unfortunately, sources are not cited), then apples-to-apples says that wage discrimination is very strong.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 27, 2005 03:08 PMLike Lawnboy’s post, I have another rebutal to the argument that the pay disparity is due to women’s choices.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 27, 2005 03:40 PMLawnboy,
Any cases that stats are based on, without a file of facts on that case don’t mean very much in the real world of fair and equal.
I agree that HR mgr.’s often start a married male higher than a single male or a female, but that fact completely blows out of the water any case for sexism as a basis for wages.
Both the single male, and the single/married female, may start at less money.
I’m not saying its fair, just thats the way it works, a single male, or a married/single female may work for less, whereas a married male may require more if he is the sole provider of a family.
The HR MGR.”s job is to hire the best they can for the lowest ammount of money.
Every business/corp. was started to provide profits for the owners or stockholders, never to provide a paycheck to employee’s.
Most companys will give anyone, male/female a raise upon getting married or having a child, why?, because they pay what they have to to retain that employee.
Posted by: Beagle at April 27, 2005 04:14 PMWomen get payed less because they’re willing to work for less… Employers will always pay the least to their employees as they possibly can without their employees quiting. Lower pay for women is merely something that has been institutionalized and only in recent years been changing (for the better). I would guess that in 20 more years or so the differences in pay will disappear almost completely.
Posted by: Zeek at April 27, 2005 05:01 PMLawnboy
The study says nothing about the jobs they do or the degrees they hold. People working at public relations firms with five years experience might range from the person with the MBA from Wharton to the English major from the University of Wisconsin at Park Falls. Both may be competent, but they command different salaries. We also might be comparing mostly clerical worker with consultants. The website doesn’t specify its sample and gives us no place to go to find out and it is clearly an advocacy site.
Adrienne
That is the so what factor. I know you get mad when I discount links, but giving a link is not proof. It is just a source that has to be assessed as valid or not.
Boys and girls like different things because there are gender differences. I am not certain where they come from (and neither is anyone else) but they are pervasive. Many feminists have come to doubt there believe that they are the sole result of society’s manipulation after having their own children of each gender.
But there is more for you not to worry about. Women are entering college at rates higher than men. The last figure I recall was that around 54% of freshmen are freshwomen. College grads (even in the soft fields) make more than non-college grads, so we may be looking at a reversal sometime in the next twenty years.
Beagle
Married men make more than unmarried men, but I don’t think it is HR doing it. Married men have fewer options. About fifteen years ago, I had a horrible boss. I would have told him to take his job and shove it, but I had a wife and a young family, so I lived with his abuse. Soon he moved on to bigger and better things, and I abided in the job. If I thought I had the option to quit, I think I would have done it, probably to the detriment of my career, since I didn’t have anything else lined up and I did well in my job later. I am sure every married man old enough to have experienced a life of work has a similar experience.
“then apples-to-apples says that wage discrimination is very strong”
I agree Lawnboy.
In the adult movie business, women earn two, three and sometimes up to ten times more than the men.
Maybe it does have more to do with skills and willingness than the “everything is unfair” crowd thinks.
Zeek
Don’t you read the green and blue blogs?
In 20 years, the evil republicans will control the universe, everybody will be slaves and we will all be going to church 24 hours a day.
OR kerry will be elected and nobody will have to ever work again because the great and loving govt will take care us. We won’t have to do it ourselves.
Either way we won’t need jobs anymore and the need to create issues in order to buy or scare votes won’t be needed.
In the adult movie business, women earn two, three and sometimes up to ten times more than the men.
And here’s the daily message from kctim:
Girls!! If you want to make as much money as men or more, don’t look into business, engineering, or anything else your guidance counselor suggests. Go into porn!
:)
I’m sure you weren’t trying to make the point that the only way for women to be valued is to let themselves be treated as sex objects. Or that it’s acceptable that female purchasers and PR professionals aren’t paid as much as their male counterparts because their sisters in porn are well-compensated. Care to clarify?
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 27, 2005 05:31 PMClarify? No need to really, I never said that was the ONLY way for women to be valued, you did.
“Maybe it does have more to do with skills and willingness than the “everything is unfair” crowd thinks.”
Whether you care to admit it or not, the truth of the matter is that men are better at some jobs and women are better at some jobs.
It is quite possible that men are better at being purchasers or PR. Paying a man/woman the same amount of money for doing less of a job than their counterpart because of their sex is wrong.
Zeek made a great point:
“Employers will always pay the least to their employees as they possibly can without their employees quiting.”
If a woman is willing to work for $10 an hour because her spouse also makes $10 an hour and they can live comfortably with that, then why would an employer pay someone else $15 or $20 an hour?
And why is it that nobody is bitching about the wage disparity when its the women who make more?
Posted by: kctim at April 27, 2005 05:47 PMPlease refer to the link in the original post re 8 ways women can earn more. It doesn’t include porn star, but there are some other ideas.
The original logic is still unanswered. If women get paid 80% of what men do and there is no difference in their performance, skills, jobs etc, why does anyone hire men? And why is it not the case that female firms are 20% more profitable than male firms (and I suppose 10% more profitable than mixed ones)? That is the best argument I can think of against the concept of lower pay for same work, even leaving the dueling surveys aside.
I doubt that the women who are getting paid 20% less are the ones calling a press conference about a survey revealing those statistics. The fact is that people are compensated in more ways than just cash. The benefits of having flexible schedules, paid time off, etc. have variable value to most people. Is it possible that women opt out of engineering and business careers because they think down the road how unaccomodating that will be when they want to spend time with their children?
Nursing, teaching, and other schedule friendly jobs are overwhelmingly dominated by women. Ironically, most of those jobs are unionized, which should automatically level the playing field. However, women are underrepresented in unions, but this is purely their choice. I think this is just one example of evidence pointing toward women making choices that might not favor higher pay, but would favor life flexibility.
kctim,
“And why is it that nobody is bitching about the wage disparity when its the women who make more?”
Well, as you said, the only time that really ever happens is in the porn industry. And no one really wants to admit they’re watching porn.
Posted by: Zeek at April 27, 2005 06:33 PMYou know, I REALLY have a hard time thinking women aren’t equal in the workplace. They should shut their yaps, and concentrate on working more, if they want to get paid more.
I was a b2b regional manager before meeting my husband, and I made way more than my male counterparts. I know it’s because I wear skirts and men don’t, but what about when I met with female business owners? I STILL got the sale, because women can be catty, and will turn men down just as competent as I down just to “bond” with their own kind. And, I didn’t mind “selling out” to get the sale. It’s how the world works. The handsome man will always beat out the slob, and a cooly dressed woman strutting into a man’s office will beat out men and “less blessed” women. Whining and law-making doesn’t change human nature.
Men are stronger, and get to get paid performing jobs that require strength as a job skill. Women can bitch all they want, but the very build of the female body which makes them who they are “holds them down”. It just makes me look at my “women empowerment” friends and sigh, we are our own worst enemy. Women just are never happy. If they got paid the same amount as a man for a job they clearly cannot match in skill, they will seek out another problem. Whining and law-making are not going to change the body you were born with.
Also, women that leave the workforce to raise a family cannot realistically command the same salary as a man that’s stayed in the force the whole time. On the flip side most, but not all women typically have a strong parenting instinct, and men’s parenting instincts do lack behind a woman’s. Why fight it? Why make the skills you DO have an enemy? Through out the times, men were the workers, and women the homemakers. I think there’s a genetic reasoning behind it, and women should stop acting like idiots and use the skills they do have, instead of competing against an “orange”.
I do not see a pay difference in the corporate field, and I’ve been there from downtown Chicago to the western suburbs, and there’s no inequality.
The REAL discrimination is in clothing. My thong costs more than my husband’s entire outfit.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 27, 2005 06:55 PMJack, thanks for checking on that for me. I may be missing new updated data, which would be important to have.
You said: “As for the worth of degrees, it is obvious that different degrees are worth different amounts of money. I have an MA in ancient history and an MBA in marketing and research. If I were looking to make money, which would I mention first? To the extent that one group studies history and literature and the other studies engineering and business you will have differences.”
I absolutely agree. However, this statement of fact points to one of the weaknesses of our economic system. Yes, it does have some weaknesses. Specifically, our system promotes myopically in many cases specialization and values it over generalization of knowledge and education. Hence, our society is plagued with a lack of wholistic understanding of complex processes and problems and the subsequent lack of comprehensive solutions and answers.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not knocking specialization. Social evolution has steered the human race in that direction for many, many thousands of years. But, we live in an age where multi-disciplinary comprehension and problem solving are ever more in demand, but, supply keeps falling shorter and shorter as we churn out ever more narrowly focused specialists. This is being compounded by other nation’s educational systems which are also moving toward specialized education.
Engineers would do well to also have physics and history degrees. Diplomats would do well to have a foreign language, deep world history expertise, as well as BA’s in economics, comparative religions, and geographical demographics, not to mention a degree in philosophy, ethics, and logic.
I know we rely on entrepreneurial and inventive types to synthesize for us, but, when money is the motive, a great many complex problems will not be adequately addressed. Our universities are moving in the wrong direction. 30 years ago, they required a broad general education before permitting specialization. For many, that is no longer true with all manner of fast track degrees that focus on the specialty area and blind the graduate to the matrix of interdependent relationships and dependencies which rest upon their specialized activity.
Education could be a solution for many of our daunting problems today and in the future. Regrettably, we do not value our teachers to entice the best and most capable to the field. In fact, quite the reverse is the current state of education in America.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2005 07:21 PMLisa, I love your argument. It is the best defense for legalization of prostitution I have heard in a long time, based on good sound data, too!.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2005 07:45 PMLisa,
“The REAL discrimination is in clothing. My thong costs more than my husband’s entire outfit. “
Ahahahaha! Actually, I have to say I’m surprised, high-end business suits cost way more than thongs the last time I checked O_O
Posted by: Zeek at April 27, 2005 07:51 PMi’m still waiting for jack to provide proof for his main point, that wage discrimination is negligible…
Posted by: wesley at April 27, 2005 07:57 PMDavid R Remer
On C-Span the other day Sen. McConnell made a point that Sen Kennedy agreed with the Republicans and when did that ever occur. Sen Kennedy’s response was for his St. Patrick Days speech. Everybody got a good laugh. I did too. I say that to get to you, David. I generally disagree with your postings. Today you have one that I must out of common respect say spot on. I think that was a very good post.
Thank you for the opportunity to agree with you.
David
The book lists 29 majors (mostly in the sciences etc) where women are offered higher staring salaries. The source is National Association of Colleges and Employers “Average Yearly Salary Offers” and “Offers to Bachelors Degree Candidates.” Salary Survey: A study of 2002-03 Beginning Offers. September 2003, Fall 2003, vol 42, no.4,9-11.
The webpage for that organization is http://www.naceweb.org.
The biggest differentials are in computer programming, where women are offered $48,943 versus $41,750 for men and in “other humanities” where women get $29,808 versus $22,873 for men. This latter statistic also shows the differences in what you get for various majors.
Based on the same source, he also mentions occupations where the starting offers are higher for women.
Among them is public relations (mentioned in a post above) where female grads are offered $31,441 versus $30,682. I wouldn’t worry too much about this little difference either, but it doesn’t show discrimination against women.
The biggest difference is among lowly paid dieticians where women get $23,160 and men only $17,680. The highest paid, BTW is investment bankers where women get $56,667 to a man’s $48,667.
Wesely et al
The whole book is full of figure and footnotes that show when you compare the comparables, there is no significant difference. Sometimes women earn more, sometimes men.
For example, women part time workers, according to U.S. Census Employment and Earnings, table D-20 in 2004, women earned $1.10 for every dollar men made.
None of this comes as a surprise to me. Just ask around at your own place of employment. Find out what majors people has in school, how long they worked at their current job and their total experience in their field. Also see how many hours they put in.
The woman MBA with five years experience at the firm who puts in the hours gets the same or more as her male counterpart. Of course, her sister who majored in gender studies will be in the typing pool forever until she sues somebody ostensibly for gender bias.
David
Second post
Re the worth of a degree - as I mentioned, I have one of each. I sent my daughter to university two years ago with instructions only to seek truth and beauty, just take a lot of math – as an undergraduate. She is taking my advice and currently majoring in Slavic languages (she thinks that beauty), but also takes statistics and differential equations. Ideally a person should have a broad background. But then he needs some specialty to get his first job. Not everyone has the time, money or intellectual heft to go that route.
Re diplomats and language. They teach diplomats languages. They get full time instruction for six months for easy languages like Spanish or German. Hard languages (Russian, Malay) get 44 weeks and super hard (Arabic, Japanese) get two years. Your government spends a fortune to develop such talent. But it is very hard to learn and maintain a language if you can’t use it regularly, so for some people – and many Americans – keeping up in a language, other than maybe Spanish, is nearly impossible.
Jack, thanks. I was not aware our government spent so much conditioning and training diplomats. Language however is only the root of the cultural knowledge necessary to be an effective diplomat, I would think. I learned Spanish in college, 3 semesters, but the real education was in learning Spanish cultures like Mexican, Spain’s, and Argentina’s. Appreciating the fatalistic and caste oriented beginnings of such cultures still serves me well in understanding S. and Central American politics.
Speaking Spanish does not make one a diplomat. History and culture and the ability to walk in another culture’s mind set, is where the real talent for diplomacy lies I would think. Language is just a vehicle. What is transported is just as, or more important, than the vehicle it arrives in. That is why we both agree a broad educational background with a specialty is better than a narrowly specialized one alone.
Excellent advice and coaxing of your daughter’s education. I am trying to encourage my daughter to take Chinese. She wants to learn Japanese. So, far I have failed to impress upon her that Japanese is a language of the 20th century and Chinese is the language of the future in this century. It’s a tough concept to sell to a 14 year old. Maybe in a couple years it will become clearer to her.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2005 10:30 PMJack, I find it very curious that his focus is on statistical information based on work entry salaries. That is a peculiarly narrow focus in light of glass ceiling effects occuring via the promotional process, not at the entry level hiring period. Looks a bit like selective cherry picking of data to make his point, to me. His data, and therefore premises, entirely ignore the differential in favor of men for promotions and supervisory advances, resulting in men’s salaries overtaking their female counterparts as careers advance in time.
I will see if I can locate some recent data pertaining to career span studies.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2005 10:37 PMI think the statistical information based on entry level salaries is useful in its purity. There are fewer variables that cloud the information. When you start looking at promotions and long term differences you get the murkiness that everyone has discussed in the prior posts (like leaving work for families, career choices, etc.). It is too easy to shoot holes into the comparisons of a man vs. woman after 10 years.
Posted by: Tom C at April 27, 2005 11:59 PMJack - nice job!
For those of you who have been asking for more data, here are some economic working papers on the subject (hint: just read the conclusions):
Solomon Polachek, SUNY Binghamton: How the Human Capital Model Explains Why the Gender Wage Gap Narrowed. He finds that it was not so much outright discrimination that caused the earlier wage gap (and has led to its decline), but the lifetime labor force participation expectation, which is the motivation to acquire a marketable skill.
Polachek & Soo Kyeong Hwang, SUNY Binghamton, Occupational Self-Selection and the Gender Wage Gap. The researchers find both in the U.S. and Korea that the gender sorting actually helps both sexes. Men are paid better in male-dominated professions, women in female-dominated ones. This suggests to them that there are intrinsic skills that wo/men are better at, though it could also suggest a sort of “circling of wagons” in each profession. Maybe male nurses have a glass ceiling?
Orazem, Peter F., James D. Werbel and James C. McElroy, Market Expectations, Job Search, and Gender Differences in Starting Pay. Journal of Labor Research. Their research indicates that women have a lower reservation wage (i.e. the lowest they are willing to work for) than men. They hypothesize that this is due to perceived discrimination, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Weichselbaumer and Winter-Ebmer, University of Linz, Austria, The Effects of Competition and Equal Treatment Laws on the Gender Wage Differential. They look at numerous previous studies and find that both natural competition and government equal-treatment laws decrease the gender wage difference. Thus we should discount neither.
Of course, there are dozens of articles on this topic, but that’s a sampling.
Posted by: Chops at April 28, 2005 09:18 AMI have been out of the workforce for some time, but: when I had a job in hiring for a retail chain I was told to offer a male $.25 per hour more than a female. I applied for a job at a P&G plant and was told that they had their one female, (incidentally black) in management at one of their plants in OHIO. Things have changed for us because women are heading some of their plants, but I am not sure whether salaries have been balanced.
Posted by: Barb Brown at April 28, 2005 09:50 AMFor the past 10,000 years men have been the hunters, gatherers, and providers. Women have been the caretakers. In today’s society, this would account for more male farmers, carpenters, and leadership positions. Women are more prone to nursing, service jobs, and decorating by nature.
Our levels of testosterone and estorgen affect and are affected by our life work. A male home decorater has a lot more estrogen compared to a construction worker. Same reason why women who take steriods carry the same bodily irregularities to those women who are directing traffic and body building.
In a stereotypical point of view, many of my VP-position mentors complain a lot about female employees being very emotional. A guy who just got dumped extroverts their stress into productive work, as opposed to a female who is more introverted and focuses on the mental stress.
Posted by: Josh at April 28, 2005 10:09 AMWell, as you said, the only time that really ever happens is in the porn industry. And no one really wants to admit they’re watching porn.
So if only girl on girl porn is legal, that will at least level the playing field.
**This whole thread is a real piece of work.**
Posted by: Taylor at April 28, 2005 10:43 AMThanks Josh. I think phrenology has a lot to say about the differences between men and women, too. Also, the estrogen-carrying blood is different. You definitely don’t want a blood transfusion from a female. :/
**This whole thread is a real piece of work.**
I’ll second that. Barb, I can tell you first hand that kind of discrimination still exists.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 28, 2005 11:25 AMMaybe one reason for the wage gap is that a woman is twice as likely to take a day or two off when a child is sick than a man.
Of my 31 employees 14 are women and I find it to be the case with me.
Now why should I pay them the same as a man who is twice as likely to be there?
Lisa:
“You know, I REALLY have a hard time thinking women aren’t equal in the workplace.”
Better think harder then, because they aren’t. Not quite yet.
“They should shut their yaps,”
It’s when we stopped shutting our yaps that things improved. And we’re not shutting them until we have equal pay for equal work.
“and concentrate on working more, if they want to get paid more.”
Women do work hard, but often that doesn’t matter in the least.
I speak as one who was the most productive and efficient worker for my former employer, who never did manage to make the same wages the men were making. In fact, I didn’t start getting my fair share until I started my own business.
“I know it’s because I wear skirts and men don’t, but what about when I met with female business owners? I STILL got the sale, because women can be catty, and will turn men down just as competent as I down just to “bond” with their own kind. And, I didn’t mind “selling out” to get the sale. It’s how the world works. The handsome man will always beat out the slob, and a cooly dressed woman strutting into a man’s office will beat out men and “less blessed” women. Whining and law-making doesn’t change human nature.”
What twisted logic. You’re describing the kind of women who never make it to the top. The truth is, looking too good and appearing to be a clothes-horse can be a huge liability on the path to success, because women like that are often (sometimes mistakenly, sometimes not) taken for Bimbo’s, rather than taken seriously.
The most successful women I know in sales tend to have very engaging personalities, but have also learned to tone their looks down while on the job in order to focus on what is truly important to their success. Namely: complete knowledge of the product, honesty with the customer, attention to detail, and total customer satisfaction.
In fact, one of the most successful women I know happens to be extremely overweight — formerly a sales rep, she is now a principle director for the entire west coast operations of a high-end department store whose corporate headquarters are located in San Francisco. She’d be the first one to admit that she didn’t get where she is simply for being attractive. She’d also say that it is obvious that some women worry far too much about stupid shit and not nearly enough about the quality of their minds.
“Men are stronger, and get to get paid performing jobs that require strength as a job skill.”
Sure men are bigger and stronger, but those aren’t the kind of jobs we were talking about. We were talking about the kind of jobs that women and men can do equally well, but that still don’t have equal pay scales among the sexes.
“Women can bitch all they want,”
I really hate it when women use the word “bitch” in regards to our striving to be treated equally. It’s as though certain women want to reinforce every stereotype ever created to describe us, simply because they don’t have the ambition to do what other women want to do. It always strikes me as catty and needlessly derogatory.
“It just makes me look at my “women empowerment” friends and sigh, we are our own worst enemy. Women just are never happy.”
That is not only a lie, but an extremely pathetic thing to say.
You sound very unhappy and I think you may be projecting here.
“If they got paid the same amount as a man for a job they clearly cannot match in skill, they will seek out another problem. Whining and law-making are not going to change the body you were born with.”
If a woman honestly cannot do a job then they should move on, but if the only reason they cannot do it is because men won’t give them the chance to prove themselves, they should stay and fight and force their fellow workers acknowledge their true ability. The women who follow them into that occupation will appreciate it, and so will the girls who whose dreams of the future can now include yet another career that men formerly claimed we somehow couldn’t handle.
“Also, women that leave the workforce to raise a family cannot realistically command the same salary as a man that’s stayed in the force the whole time.”
Some women don’t leave the workforce to raise their family, some prefer to do so. No one ever said that experience shouldn’t be a factor when it comes to a fair wage scale.
“men’s parenting instincts do lack behind a woman’s.”
That is also a lie, and another pathetic thing to say. I think men can be equally as good a parent as any woman — they just have to want to. Just like we have to want to be more assertive and want to do something in addition to caretaking to succeed in the working world.
“Why fight it?”
Because it is a stereotype.
“Why make the skills you DO have an enemy?”
First one has to try to see if they have a skill, or can learn a skill. Living between the narrow parameters of a stereotype is a sure way to never find out whether one has them or not.
“Through out the times, men were the workers, and women the homemakers.”
Times change. And the majority of men cannot afford to keep us at home anymore. We cannot fault them for this, for it is simply an economic reality. They need us to be strong and to be their partners in pulling that economic weight. We are equal to that task, and don’t mind doing it — as long as we don’t have to get shat on, or robbed of our fair share just for proving that we can be as skilled as they are.
“I think there’s a genetic reasoning behind it,”
Historically playing the genetic card is always weak, as well as unfounded. In addition to being mothers and caretakers, women have been heroic warriors defending their people and their land, Queen’s, Presidents, and Prime Minister’s in charge of their armies and their countries, we’ve been ambassadors and diplomats, scientists, doctors, lawyers, leaders in business, etc., etc., etc.
Our muscles may often be weaker than a man’s, but unless we honestly believe we are inferior, our wills and our brains certainly don’t have to be.
“women should stop acting like idiots”
I agree — some of us should.
“I do not see a pay difference in the corporate field, and I’ve been there from downtown Chicago to the western suburbs, and there’s no inequality.”
And your one experience is all there is, right?
“The REAL discrimination is in clothing.”
Yes, they also charge us more to have our car’s fixed and more for our dry cleaning, and more for whatever, whenever they get the chance. Yet another reason we should fight hard for equal pay for equal work — we need the money a lot more than people may realize.
“My thong costs more than my husband’s entire outfit.”
Maybe if he shops at K-mart while you go to Bloomingdale’s I’d believe that. As for thongs — you might want to loosen yours along with your view of a woman’s true capabilities. When both of those things are too tight and restrictive, they can really cut off circulation to the brain.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 28, 2005 01:23 PMThere is little NET discrimination against women these days.
We all can agree that the 80 cents figure is just silly because you are comparing groups with different work characteristics. So at least we should all agree to give up that piece of propaganda.
The book I refer to has all sorts labor statistics. I quoted some of them.
Off the top of my head, I can name several incidents of overt, unsubtle discrimination I suffered just for being a man. We can all trade anecdotes. Women talk about covert glass ceilings and stereotypes. Men can point to programs that excluded them, quotas and subtle harassment too.
But when you compare the comparables, you don’t find a difference.
Jack:
“That is the so what factor.”
Maybe to you, Jack. Not to me. I don’t approve of the fact that: “Young women and girls face widespread sex discrimination in high school vocational and technical education programs across the country. Pervasive sex segregation, sexual harassment in the classroom, discrimination in counseling and recruiting, and other gender-based bias are creating serious barriers to their future earning power,”
“I know you get mad when I discount links, but giving a link is not proof. It is just a source that has to be assessed as valid or not.
I think the National Women’s Law Center is a valid source to be assessing things for other women. No doubt you don’t.
I’ve noticed your tendency over the past few months to post articles about the limitations and differences you and others perceive regarding women’s capabilities and choices, and I’ve drawn some very unfavorable conclusions about your overall viewpoints.
“Boys and girls like different things because there are gender differences.”
Some of the time, perhaps. The rest of the time however, may have much more to do with the help and guidance they receive from those in authority.
“I am not certain where they come from (and neither is anyone else) but they are pervasive.
And I think they are not quite as pervasive as some people would like to believe.
“Many feminists have come to doubt there believe that they are the sole result of society’s manipulation after having their own children of each gender.”
Yes, but at least they are giving them full and equal chances and opportunities — that is all that is important.
“But there is more for you not to worry about. Women are entering college at rates higher than men. The last figure I recall was that around 54% of freshmen are freshwomen. College grads (even in the soft fields) make more than non-college grads, so we may be looking at a reversal sometime in the next twenty years.”
I agree that things are getting better for women who are college grads. This is why I gave a link that had to do with other sorts of careers. Things may be improving in some areas, but we have a long way to go when it comes to guiding the young women who aren’t going to go to college.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 28, 2005 02:13 PMAdrienne:
NO, I have three experiences with Chicago, and three in the burbs. Yes, all in the same industry. I’m at the top of my game, right there with the men, no problem. I think the examples of inequality in the workplace are over-rated and get too much attention.
If you have experienced wage discrimination, has it ever occured to you that you just might not be as good as your male counterparts? If you’re a star, you are treated as such. If you are not, well how can you possibly command more pay? I walk into an employer, and lay out my terms, and because I, (as a woman) HAVE the EXPERIENCE (just as a man can), I usually get what I want, if not more, if there is competition.
Some women have to seek out blame, and can’t look at themselves, so they say “it’s the man keeping me down”. THAT’s the lame & weak argument. Show me the same education, the same performance on paper, along with the same results with different pay, and I’ll believe you. Everytime I hear this pathetic “It’s not me it’s the man” argument I think “prove it”. Usually there’s a reason behind it, because my husband is an employer, and we’ll pay through the nose in salary, if the person is worth it, regardless of anything. No employer with dollar signs in his eyes is going to put himself in a wage war, if this person can be a benefit.
There, straight from first-hand experience. All this statistical BS from liberal surveys is nauseating. If it wasn’t for the fact that I WORK for my living, perhaps I could find the extra time to quote surveys to the contrary.
Oh, and my thong line was a J-O-K-E, lighten up people!
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 28, 2005 04:00 PMI’m with Jack. White men face far more discrimination than women. The courts will almost always award custody of children (in a divorce) to a woman, even if she works like the husband. Men can’t have scholarships that exclude women, but women can. White men don’t have laws protecting them from discrimination, but all other minorities do. What about them? Oh, according to people like Adrienne, they are inferior and deserve what they get.
Women have all these laws and programs, and they still bitch. I’m happy with what I have, and I know it’s because of my experience. If I want more, I have to work harder, although I suppose it would be easier to sue, right?
This “poor women” crap stinks
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 28, 2005 04:11 PMAdrienne
It is important to treat individuals fairly. What becomes of the group depends on what the individuals do. I am not sure what an ideal society would look like and I am not sure what choices people should make. For every choice a person makes, he/she opens some options and closes others.
What do you value? Few people on their deathbed are going to wish they had spent more time in the office. What counts are relationships and what counts increasingly as you get older are relationships intergenerationally. The childless CEO of a major corporation, who spent his life successfully climbing the corporate ladder but never developed a personal life, is a pathetic creature. When he retires he is just he ex-CEO. Has his life been a success? A mother is a mother all her life.
As for study you cite, it is imprecise and one sided. It concentrates on the problems of girls. I have a daughter and two sons. Girls do have problems, but boys are higher risk. But the boys are many times more likely to commit suicide (although they talk about it less). They are many times more likely to end up in jail or be victims of violence. They are many times more likely to drop out of high school and they are less likely to go to college. Those are hard facts that you can check in multiple sources. So we also have a long (longer) way to go guiding young men who aren’t going to college. Maybe it is best to offer them options.
Lisa
I got your joke:)
So what your saying is:
You take pride in yourself
You believe fair pay is earned and not given
You have self-respect
You don’t blame others for your problems
You don’t expect somebody else to do it for you
Your willing to work to succeed
If that is the case, I guess it’s safe to say you didn’t vote for kerry then. (at least not on purpose)
Very well said ma’am.
Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2005 04:20 PMI think it’s funny how there is really is little point in arguing with you Lisa — because most of what you say always comes back to you and your personal experiences — and your tendency to discount the experiences of others.
“If you have experienced wage discrimination, has it ever occured to you that you just might not be as good as your male counterparts?”
No it didn’t, because I was the top producer for four years running and everybody knew it. I was both privately and publicly complimented by my boss, but that meant nothing because I simply wasn’t getting the kind of raises that acknowledged my performance, while guys who were lazy and not very productive were getting paid more than I was. Even some of them admitted to me that they thought it was unfair.
“If you’re a star, you are treated as such.”
It wasn’t that way in my world — and it isn’t that way in the world of many women I’ve known. Perhaps you’ve simply been very fortunate, and don’t fully comprehend that fact.
“Some women have to seek out blame, and can’t look at themselves, so they say “it’s the man keeping me down”.”
It WAS a man keeping me down, but no longer. I’m in charge now, and it’s all good.
“my thong line was a J-O-K-E,”
Hey, so was mine!
Posted by: Adrienne at April 28, 2005 04:32 PMAll this statistical BS from liberal surveys is nauseating.
Is there any way to read this besides “I’ve made up my opinion based on my experiences, and there’s nothing anyone else can do to change it! I don’t care if science disagrees with me, because I have my personal anecdotes! I don’t know if I’m an example of the exceptional rare case, but I’ll assume that my experiences are the only relevant ones! If you show me that not everyone experiences the world the way I did, I’ll call it BS! Don’t bother me with facts, I have my opinions!”
Oh well.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2005 04:50 PMAdrienne
Nobody thinks they are paid enough. Most people think they are stars. Most people think their bosses have told them they are stars and think that their co-workers are less so. I recall reading a statistic that 85% of the people polled said that they were above average. Self-esteem, unfortunately, does not guarantee success.
It is good that you have opened your own business and are making the big bucks. There is another fact of life and it is a tautology. Working for someone else means you are working to achieve someone else’s priorities. They hire you so that you can help make them rich. They are usually also interested in your success, but that is not the main goal. Now that your success is in your own hands, you can take all the credit or blame.
Systematic NET gender discrimination is in the past. We all have our problems. When you look at the actual figures, which I quoted with sources above, you don’t find a pattern. Most studies now that show discrimination are based on self reported feelings. EVERYBODY feels oppressed and underappreciated sometimes. Look at what happens, not what people say happened.
kctim:
THAT’S IT!!! Jeez, that’s the real minority, people with disipline and work ethic. I want a social program to protect people like me from the lazy “i want to eat my cake and have it, too” crowd.
I suspect some of the women on here the bitch about inequality still want a man to open a door for them, too.
Not even 10 minutes ago, we had an appraiser over for our home. He didn’t know the kids and I were home, and he said to my husband: “Your wife’s an excellent housekeeper”. I want to know the reaction Adrienne would have given to that statement, lol.
Lawnboy:
You know if I had the time I could come up with just as many statistics that say women ARE “MORE” equal than men. You know it, so who’s BS’in?
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 28, 2005 05:17 PMLisa,
You’ve had the time to post here three times today.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2005 05:33 PMJack:
“Nobody thinks they are paid enough. Most people think they are stars. Most people think their bosses have told them they are stars and think that their co-workers are less so. I recall reading a statistic that 85% of the people polled said that they were above average. Self-esteem, unfortunately, does not guarantee success.”
Look, I don’t like to talk about my personal experiences in a political blog because I don’t think they often matter as much as looking at the larger picture — hence my appreciation of links that might back up what someone is trying to assert as the truth. But in this case, I’ll break that rule and just describe to you what I experienced.
In my former job I broke every record that the company had ever had in sales. I gave my boss ideas to improve his business by sharing former workplace experiences with him and those suggestions lead to changes that increased productivity all across the board. It came as quite a surprise to me when I discovered that after all my hard work, and after all I had done to help improve his business, that I wasn’t going to be getting the kind of raises that the men were getting. It was an even greater shock (and the last straw) when I discovered that a man who had been hired after I was, and who had far less experience than I did, had been hired on at much more than I had been initially and had been getting raises comparable to the other men there.
Purely and simply, I was being discriminated against for being a woman — and it didn’t matter how well I had performed or how hard I tried to make his business a success.
When I confronted him with this, he tried to make the excuse that the others had been there longer, which was fine with me (even if I felt I had earned the right to get the same increases), but he had nothing to say about the new hire — in fact he turned bright red when I confronted him with my knowledge of that — because he knew he had been completely caught out by his own bias.
I am not unique, nor is this experience — because it happens all the time. Despite the many advances we have made, bias does exist and we can still be cheated out of our fair share. Maybe it isn’t as prevalent as it once was, but it certainly has not disappeared completely.
“Now that your success is in your own hands, you can take all the credit or blame.”
Damn right. And in my business, fairness and equality will always prevail.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 28, 2005 06:01 PMThis is totally off-topic, but I recently stumbled on the roll-call for a vote on the recent Senate vote to provide an additional $213 million in funding to produce armored Humvees. It passed 61-39, and 38 of the “nays” were Republicans, including a lot of men I thought would have known better (Hagel? Dole?)
It seems like a worthy cause to me - hell, I’ll gladly pay my $1 share, I spent more than that today on soda pop. Does anyone here know WHY those support-the-troops Republicans tried to vote this down?
Posted by: William Cohen at April 28, 2005 06:11 PMI am furious.
Females are discriminated heavily in American society. Fact.
For any male to declare that the discrimination is only in the numbers is egregious and preposterous. First, where do you get off? You’re already higher on the societal pecking order than a woman. You can’t say discrimination doesn’t exist when you benefit from it. You don’t know anything about discrimination against women. I don’t care how many numbers or studies you quote, it’s very different to list statistics (lies, damn lies, and …) than to personally experience discrimination based on your sex and gender.
Females work harder than men in America. Fact.
You want to talk about who works more, and the labor marketplace? The male population has been stealing from women their time and energy by devaluing their honest hard work in places like the home. What would it cost a (lousy) male to hire someone to clean his house or cook him food? A hell of a lot. Also by subjugating women to those work environments, males keep them out of jobs that they would probably excel at. It’s all a nicely package control structure, when you think about it.
I’m not taking any part of that crap. You have to realize that a women are the vitality of our society, and to pay them less (or even offer a cost savings to employ them? shame on you), or punish them where they should be rewarded, and you are disgracing yourself and your fellow males.
Posted by: David at April 28, 2005 06:45 PMLawnboy,
I really only have two-minute intervals to post. If I had longer, I could “bolster” my case better chock full of studies from Berkley, and wherever else you could sight as “credible”. After all, a first hand experience such as myself doesn’t count, right? Only contradictory studies that show a problem might be occuring, and only on a minority level. Wage discrimination is NOT the norm, only in isolated cases. That said, men can say the same thing against women on other causes such as divorce! OR white people against blacks, or vice versa, etc… So, this whole thread is stupid, since everyone can come up with their own experiences, or “studies” or “links” to prove their point. I use personal experience, because it’s REAL, and not formulated from some stupid vague question to get biased answers.
No matter what ANYONE says, wage discrimination is NOT the norm, and life just isn’t fair on all levels is it? I hate how Atkins made the price of beef go up, but GET OVER IT! (ok, and while that’s true, it’s still a JOKE! like my thong analogy!!!)
Adrienne:
How can you honestly say you were discriminated against? Did you see your male co-worker’s W-2’s? Did you see his resume? Did you contact his former employers to get his records? Did you see his reviews? That’s the only way you can prove your point, and only if you were better, and if you DID see them, you most likely violated company policy, making you a dishonest employee that doesn’t deserve top pay. (Unless you were THAT good that the company would oversight it, which happens).
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 28, 2005 07:18 PMAfter all, a first hand experience such as myself doesn’t count, right?
Yes, it does. Your experience definitely matters. However, if you wish to perform the serious analysis that is necessary to make informed decisions for public policy, one would need to consider your experience as a single data point within a much larger analysis.
For the individual, of course, one’s experience is most important. For society, we need to look more broadly.
Only contradictory studies that show a problem might be occuring, and only on a minority level.
No. Did you notice my far-from-ringing endorsement of the rebutal I presented? Even though the data presented supports my position, I said the data was shaky and might not be trustworthy. I’ll let the dog wag the tail.
Wage discrimination is NOT the norm, only in isolated cases.If you could substantiate that with anything other than anecdotal evidence, you’d be making a worthy contribution to the discussion (like Jack does). Instead, you again repeat that your opinion is final no matter anyone says. Where’s the objectivity in that?
Normally, I wouldn’t need expertly cited research to find an opposing argument worthwhile. However, with prose like “They should shut their yaps,” “Women…still bitch,” and “This ‘poor women’ crap stinks,” you make it hard to take your arguments seriously.
Show me the same education, the same performance on paper, along with the same results with different pay, and I’ll believe you.
Considering that you dismissed such research when already presented as “statistical BS from liberal surveys,” why would you believe it when we present it again?
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2005 07:38 PMNo matter what ANYONE says, wage discrimination is NOT the norm, and life just isn’t fair on all levels is it?
Why didn’t you just acknowledge it’s a problem and you just don’t care a long time ago?
And I love your blog. I always find it amusing what well-to-do Republican women have to say about social inequity, “Chicago is nothing but a dirty, lazy, career welfare machine.” Nice.
BTW, is it you, or your husband who posts under the name Paw Paw?
Lawnboy
What statistics? I read your source, which is a liberal pressure group. The source didn’t give any other clues to its information. I quoted information from an organization that just studies wages and offers to help colleges and college grads find better jobs. I also quoted and cited information from U.S. Census Employment and Earnings. Chops linked to other more or less neutral sources. The weight of the evidence is that discrimination is no longer a major problem for younger women. The residue of earlier discrimination still impacts older women.
You can argue that women are conditioned to make choices that keep them down. But if you go the non-free will route, you also have to say that men are similarly conditioned. And if people are choosing what they want they think they want, who are you to tell them they are choosing wrong.
I know scores of women who have left the labor force to care for their families of just to “down shift”. They seem happy with their choices. I personally down shifted and sacrificed career for family and time. It was a good choice. But it wouldn’t be fair for me at this late date to demand to be put where I would have been had I continued to run in the fast lane of the rat race.
AP:
You read my mind, I was wondering who Paw Paw was myself. I know of only three Paw Paws in the US, in IL, MI, and WV. SO, your guess is mine. My husband thinks chatting/posting on the internet is a waste of time, so I guarantee it wouldn’t be him. Paw Paw should let us know why he/she chose that name so it’s not associated with me (not that I disagree with him/her)
I’m glad you like my comment on Chicago, because I’m right. The mayor is trying to take my handgun to “protect” his nasty city, and I’m 1.5 hours away, which makes my gun none of his liberal business.
AND… who said I’m “well to do”??? I’m dead set in middle class, my home just looks nice from my own two damn hands if you took the time to READ it, not just look at the pretty pictures.
Let’s bash the woman who honestly WORKS for her living and family (and home, and job, and community) because God knows people like me would mean death to the democratic socialism machine. You make me laugh, when are we meeting at the Rockefeller’s again? ;)
Jack,
What about Adrienne’s link? I admitted that I couldn’t vouch for the unsourced statistics in my link, but can you dismiss hers with ad hominem attacks, too?
Here’s more:
A report from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics that shows that men make more than women in almost every occupation studied, including traditionally female roles like education (which is in conflict with one of Chops’s citations).
A Census Bureau report that wage gaps persist despite similar educational attainments.
There’s a lot more out there, but I don’t feel like getting into a game of dueling statistics (maybe I’ll be up for it in the morning). I know I’m not qualified to weigh the merits of contradictory credible reports on labor issues. I doubt anyone else on the board is, either.
The main point I was trying to make in my response to Lisa (I think that’s the source of your address to me) is that we need to take such reports seriously instead of focusing on anecdotes.
Lisa seems to think that we’re saying that her personal experience doesn’t matter. Actually, no one has said that. What is true is that she and Adrienne have completely opposite experiences. I’m not saying that Lisa’s is invalid because I want to believe Adrienne’s. I believe that both are valid (assuming neither is lying) despite being so different. This shows that we need to look at credible statistics instead of looking at just personal experiences.
In contrast, Lisa for some reason would have us reject Adrienne’s experience as invalid (or Adrienne’s own fault) simply because it disagrees with hers. I reject that notion.
So, where are we? There is no doubt that the median female income is lower than the median male income in America. This holds even within most occupations (and by some reports within similar education). I haven’t seen on this board or elsewhere a large, credible study that successfully controls for all factors besides gender. I don’t know if such a report would be possible.
So, can we definitively say be have found the cause of the 23% wage gap? Unfortunately, no. It’s very difficult to separate a cause from results data. There is some evidence that personal choices regarding family, etc. account for much of the difference. There is some evidence that there is still a discrepancy when those personal choices are accounted for. Maybe I’ve just missed a definitive study that answers these questions, but I haven’t seen it.
There are still other questions that I think haven’t really been addressed. Assuming for the moment that the gap is caused largely by women choosing female-oriented careers that pay less, the question then becomes why are female-oriented careers compensated less? Minnesota used this analysis in 1982 to see if “male” jobs that pay more than “female” jobs deserved the extra pay. The study found that the disparities were unwarranted. For example, they determined that both driving a delivery van (a male-dominated job) and being clerk typist (a female-dominated job) were evaluated to be worth 117 difficulty points (I’m sure we could argue about that methodology for pages). However, the typists made on %73 of what delivery van drivers were paid. Why?
So, I think the question is still up in the air. I’ve seen more evidence that the wage gap is justifiable than I expected to see, but there’s enough contradictory evidence for me not to switch camps yet (maybe I’m just stubborn).
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2005 11:48 PM“How can you honestly say you were discriminated against?”
Because I was — and because my former boss, the scumbag, admitted it to me after I mentally backed him into a corner.
“Did you see your male co-worker’s W-2’s? Did you see his resume?”
I saw nothing — I learned these things directly from the men themselves, because they realized I was being totally taken advantage of. These guys and I were very good friends and this information was related to me in two different segments when having a drink with them after work like we often did on Friday evenings.
Understand, I didn’t really begrudge the guys who had been there longer than I their wages, I just felt (and obviously, so did they) that I had done more than enough to earn the boss’ respect, as well as the same increases they were getting. I did however, begrudge the fact that the newly hired guy (even though I liked him personally) had gotten such a hefty salary to start and was getting raises comparable to the others, especially since he knew absolutely nothing about the work when he was hired, and I was the one who had trained him to do his job.
The scumbag had been damn lucky to have me working for him, but quite obviously he didn’t appreciate that fact. Instead, he shat on me for no good reason, after I’d helped him in every single way I knew how.
That was a bitter pill to swallow, but of course, it’s all behind me now. And yet, there has been a bit of poetic justice, too — since I’ve heard from those old friends that the business hasn’t been doing at all well since I left — while mine is blooming very nicely, indeed!
Let’s bash the woman who honestly WORKS for her living and family
No bashing, Lisa, just trying to figure out why you’re so full of hate for lefties who just want to cherish and nurture you. Bashing’s not allowed on WatchBlog. :)
I actually have read several of your posts, but I still have no idea what you guys do for money. You and your husband always seem to be taking the day/afternoon off to work in the yard.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 29, 2005 02:07 AMI’ve heard from those old friends that the business hasn’t been doing at all well since I left — while mine is blooming very nicely, indeed!
So as a result of you utilizing your right to quit the company and start your own business, you gained more than you would have by staying at the company in the first place. Is that correct? Of course, there are individuals who discriminate. Ultimately they end up screwing themselves over. As an economic libertarian though I don’t see why the law should get involved. The law’s choosing not to get involved will simply create more female entrepreneurs like yourself. If it does get involved, it will create discrimination where it did not exist previously.
Business owners don’t hire male receptionists because it doesn’t look professional and they lack the personal skills. They don’t hire female construction workers because it doesn’t look professional and they can’t lift heavy objects. Is that discrimination? Start your own business. Think you’re missing a raise because of racial discrimination? Start your own business. That’s the beauty of Adam Smith’s free market; the market itself is the best equalizer.
Since discrimination in the PUBLIC services sector has ended, discrimination today does little to inhibit arbitrary concepts of equality. Societal demographics (i.e. Southern redneck culture, which includes both whites and blacks) have much more to do with it. Correlation isn’t causation.
Re: Barb’s $0.25: The one statistical reason I could suggest for this is that women are statistically less likely to stay at a job as long as men, perhaps because they are more likely to become pregnant and work at home. The $0.25 difference isn’t brilliant - a smart employer should consider individual cases - but for a business owner with 100,000 employees who asks a mathematician for models on how to increase efficiency and retain employees for the company, such a discrepancy is perfectly logical. I’d complain that such treatment is impersonal before I’d call it gender discrimination, though. Discrimination doesn’t start until you ignore qualifications, as in Adrienne’s alleged situation.
Sorry if this post is a little verbally dense; it’s 2:30 in the morning here and I’d rather not take the time to unpack it more.
Posted by: Gandhi at April 29, 2005 02:42 AMAP:
The “bashing” line was just a sarcastic remark. I’m a sarcastic person (though one with a point).
My husband and I own a State Farm agency. Our time off is at the mercy of having competent staff and appointments. At any rate, we flip back and forth who is home with the kids, and who’s at the office. We’re rarely there together, but if whatever staff person is there can hold the fort, chances are none of us are there, lololol. But, our staffperson is fully licensed and has 8 years experience, so we’re not guilty about it. As a business owner, you have to take advantage of half days here and there, because we haven’t had a week vacation in years, it’s not possible.
We’d rather stroll with the peacocks in our yard and spend time with the kids. ;)
In all seriousness, I’m sure there ARE women that have been discriminated against, but I’m quite sure that men, whites, blacks, or whoever have been, too. There are bad people out there and sometimes life gives you hard knocks, learn from them, as it looks like Adrienne has (and had sweet justice indeed if her business has done better than her former employer’s), but don’t say it’s a widespread problem. It’s not. Only if more then 50% of the nation’s women can report discrimination will I acknowledge it’s a problem, but it isn’t so. To turn this into a crusade is bogus.
AP (again):
I know what I have (and I am of course flattered by your comments), and do to child-support and busines expenses, we bring home less than people might expect. I left the industry I was in because I had children, and we figured it would be best to apply my sales skills to my husband’s business, and also have the freedom to be more of a family unit, not otherwise attained by me working at a more “structured” environment. It’s not what I wanted, because I loved what I was doing and the income was great, but I’m certainly not going to throw the “women empowerment” card out and say “I’m going to get mine at the expense of everyone”. We downsized our home, moved to a village of 850 people for our children to have a safe environment, and I’ve resigned myself to do what I can for my husband’s business and my children. Now I’m flattered to have the appraiser say I’m an excellent housekeeper. I could say “women have it so unfair”, but that’s not the case. I’ll jump back in when the kids are older, it’s just what women should do, instead of bitching and whining they’re not “equal”. To me, they’re “more” equal, because they have the power of the courts. Men do not.
Adrienne did what was right by just starting her own business and trouncing the man that crossed her, but my issue with that is now she thinks all women are treated the same way as her, and it’s just not so. There ARE more good men than bad, but liberal women HATE it when they hear it, blinded by their own petty ambitions.
Lawnboy:
I have the day off today, I can play all day on here. I’m not quoting studies and surveys, and it’s your perogative to think I’m the dumber for it. But I’m not going to believe a study done by college students at a phone bank, where people can say whatever someone wants to hear. People that take those studies for gold without cross-checking are the real idiots. You need an honest study done by comparing W-2’s, or by attaining a business’s W-3’s. Otherwise, it’s all bogus.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 29, 2005 10:21 AM…it’s your perogative to think I’m the dumber for it.It seems you’re projecting some personal insecurities on me, because I never said that.
But I’m not going to believe a study done by college students at a phone bankHow do you know which studies use this method? Or do you say this just to be able to dismiss any studies you don’t like? Posted by: LawnBoy at April 29, 2005 10:30 AM
It’s strange that we all forget that at the very core of our beings we are a bunch of self centered greedy people. We claim to think everyone is equal and we convince each other that this is true. But at hart we like to get everything for ourselves. Thats why I started working for only 0.11 cents an hour in 1970. For these 11 cents I was expected to know how to kill people, use explosives, get shot at and die when ever it was convenient for the pay master. My pay master was the American People, the government only issued the check each month, and I know of at least 3 months they forgot to issue me any pay.
Why do the left hate the right and the right dislikes the left? Heck it?s not all that hard, its cause they can, they like it, they want to and it?s natural. It?s un natural not to feel this way; it?s all we can do to think otherwise. But we must try and try our very best.
Why does our government treat everyone different, you can?t be seen as equal if you have to have laws and rules just for you (when I say government I mean the American People). Either one law that says every one gets treated the same is good enough or everyone is not equal. We have spent Billions on programs, laws, rules and enforcement of equal rights and have accomplish very little in return. It?s not so much as everyone being equal as it is to everyone being given the same equal chance. What we make of ourselves or agree to work for is what we get. Life is not equal; it would not be so even if Humans were all gone or had never been here.
Not every male gets paid the same for the same job and not every woman gets paid the same for the same job. No one makes you accept this pay, you either agree to work for it or you walk away. In my last job, I was paid $ 6,000.00 less than a new person with less qualification than I and at a pay band lower then me. My wife earned $ 8,000.00 more than I did. But I had no complaint as this was what I agreed to work for, no one made me accept this pay, I was given the choice to take it or look else where.
Sure I accepted it, worked for 12 years then retired at a young age. I even arranged it so that my youngest grand kid receives my retirement pay (75 % option) after I pass away. The grand kid is now three years old, I may make it until she is 18, she in return may receive this pay until she passes on also. That?s about 60 years.
Paw Paw:
Just to erase confusion, why do you post under that name? I’m assuming it’s because you’re a grandfather, but I think people want to know that you’re not associated with me (because I live in Paw Paw, IL).
That way AP doesn’t think you’re married to a 25 year old, lol.
By the way, you have great points.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 29, 2005 11:09 AMLawnboy,
Most studies are done by universities, therefore done by college students, therefore done in a room at the college with alot of phones. It wasn’t hard to come to that conclusion.
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 29, 2005 11:11 AMWe claim to think everyone is equal
I don’t know about anybody else, but Democrats just think everyone should get an equal opportunity. It’s obvious that not everyone is equal.
And very few people on either side actually “hate” the other, Paw Paw. Certainly not on WatchBlog, where hate is against the rules. :)
Lisa,
“I suspect some of the women on here the bitch about inequality still want a man to open a door for them, too.”
You can keep up your nasty diatribes if you want to Lisa, but any person with a brain in their head should realize that inequality on the job, especially where men and women are doing the exact same work, is inexcusable.
Re: door-opening
The only man I expect to open a door for me is my husband, especially when I’m wearing heels and the restaurant has one of those fancy, overly-heavy doors. The rest of the time I don’t even think about it — he’ll get it for me, I’ll get it for him, whatever, as long as we make it inside where we’re going, that’s fine.
I’m not hung up on that “princess treatment” stuff, but I must admit I don’t like it when people are purposefully rude to each other. Also I feel that people should always give their seat to pregnant women and to old people, be they man or woman, when they’re on the bus, or in the subway.
“Not even 10 minutes ago, we had an appraiser over for our home. He didn’t know the kids and I were home, and he said to my husband: “Your wife’s an excellent housekeeper”. I want to know the reaction Adrienne would have given to that statement, lol.”
Since you want to know, I’ll tell you. I have no wish limit any woman’s choices in any way. If they want to be housewives they should be housewives — as long as they don’t turn around and show disrespect for the choices of their more ambitious sisters who wanted to do something else with their lives — whatever that may be.
Happily for me, my husband doesn’t mind sharing our housekeeping chores. We do have our specialties, of course — for instance, Himself likes dealing with the cars, while I love to cook. He hates doing the laundry (and admittedly he’s a lousy folder), so usually I take care of that. I hate scrubbing the tub because it gives me a crick in my lower back, so he’ll do that, though I don’t mind doing the shower stall. The rest we do together.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 29, 2005 11:12 AMMost studies are done by universities, therefore done by college students, therefore done in a room at the college with alot of phones. It wasn’t hard to come to that conclusion.
Ahh… There’s the rub. Quick conclusions are often wrong. I didn’t understand your point because I wasn’t accounting for your invalid assumptions.
There’s no reason to assume that the studies are based on telephone surveys. Actually, for an issue as sensitive as salarys, phone surveys would be considered completely unreliable.
Instead, the reports are mostly based on government reports from the likes of the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For many of the reports, the government uses the very methods you require.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 29, 2005 11:32 AMGandhi:
“So as a result of you utilizing your right to quit the company and start your own business, you gained more than you would have by staying at the company in the first place. Is that correct?”
Well it didn’t happen overnight, but yes. But that’s not the point.
The point is discrimination on the job shouldn’t be tolerated in this society.
“Of course, there are individuals who discriminate. Ultimately they end up screwing themselves over. As an economic libertarian though I don’t see why the law should get involved.”
Equal opportunity laws do exist, and yet discrimination still exists. It shouldn’t. When people do the exact same job, they should get equal pay, yes?
“The law’s choosing not to get involved will simply create more female entrepreneurs like yourself.”
Not every woman can do that, and they shouldn’t have to, especially if they don’t want to. Also, not all people can run a business successfully, are they to be short changed simply because they can’t?
“Business owners don’t hire male receptionists because it doesn’t look professional and they lack the personal skills.”
That’s bunk. Either sex could handle that job professionally.
“They don’t hire female construction workers because it doesn’t look professional”
Says who?
“and they can’t lift heavy objects.”
Some can, some can’t. Those that can should have the chance to prove whether they can handle the rigors of their job.
If they can’t do it, it isn’t discrimination, it’s just common sense to tell them they need to find other work because they aren’t cutting the mustard.
“Think you’re missing a raise because of racial discrimination? Start your own business.”
Separate but equal? Screw that. This is America.
“the market itself is the best equalizer.”
Bullshit. People fighting for their rights is the best equalizer.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 29, 2005 11:40 AMMy final post on this thread comes from George Carlin:
“Being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything”.
Amen!
Posted by: Lisa Zeimetz at April 29, 2005 01:43 PMAdrienne, Lawnboy et al
The studies you cite (Lawnboy) don’t take into account experience, hours spend, type of degree etc. They are precisely the studies that mislead people into thinking women are paid less. They are not wrong, just incomplete.
The study you cite (Adrienne) is soft. It takes results, assumes those results come from the behaviors of the teachers and then assumes behaviors not in evidence. You may recall a study done about ten years ago that proved that boys were advantaged in grade schools. Anyone who had ever attended school knew this was wrong and the statistics from grades, to dropout rates, to suicides to reform school, showed that if this was an advantage it was better not to be so treated. Nevertheless, it took a couple of years to show why it was a bogus study. The study made the front pages (and is still cited) the rebuttals are largely unknown.
Re women lifting heavy weights. The problem comes up less than it used to, but it really is a problem. Even when they are about the same size, men are significantly stronger than women in the lifting muscles of the upper body. AND men are usually bigger than women, so it is even more pronounced. Most physically tough jobs are held by strong men, not average ones. A strong (but not extraordinary) man who lifts weights regularly can bench press more than 300. You can find thousands if you just walk into gyms. Only the very best of the best of women athletes in the world can do this. Your chances of running into one at the average Gold’s Gym are small.
Time to stick my nickle’s worth in and you can keep the change. I am 64 years old. For 50 years I have been discriminated against in all kinds of ways. When that happened I just said there has to be another way to succeed in this venture. For instance. I worked for Motorola some time ago. I applied for internal upgrades on three occasions. Each time I was the best candidate but they did not have a hispanic, black or woman. So someone with lesser credentials got the job. I chose to leave the company a little later for a better position. Now, the hard question to answer is with all the work force out there who makes exactly the same wage for the same company doing the same job. Only in a facility where organized labor is involved. Ten people working the same job with the same qualifications in the same company are probably making a different wage. That is life. Good post Lisa. I disagree with Adrienne most of the time but, I understand you have your own business now? Go for it girl!!
Posted by: tom at April 29, 2005 02:19 PMEqual opportunity laws do exist, and yet discrimination still exists. It shouldn’t. When people do the exact same job, they should get equal pay, yes?
No in fact. They should not necessarily always get equal pay for the same job. They should get equal opportunity for equal pay yes but to think that there should be some standard that all who do the same job should get the exact same pay is just not right. I believe that was Ghandi’s point…
There are too many variables that dictate how the pay is achieved to make it at all reasonable to say that they should be equal. Their experience, resume, expectancy to remain on the job (such as leaving to raise a family) have been raised already in the thread.
In addition to those there is the fact that an individuals negotiating skills also play a big part in the salary determined in the hiring process. If one person is willing to accept a certain salary for a job and another person negotiates a higher salary for the same job because they have better negotiating skills does that mean that the hiring manager was discriminatory to the first?
Many employers also do not keep the wages of their current workers up to date with what new hires are making… It is much easier for them to give a current employee nothing or next to nothing for a raise than it is to lure prospective new hires with that same low rate. I’m not saying that this is right or wrong but it is life as we know it in the workforce right now (Unless your in a union - They will keep everything equal until they force the whole company to shut down :-))
Both of these situations create inequalities but are not necessarily discriminatory against one specific type of person.
Lets not make the mistake of thinking that every time something is not completely equal that someone is automatically being discriminated against.
Of course we can find examples of someone who is legitimatly discriminated against. That said however, I have to agree with the folks on this thread that say that on the whole when it comes to discrimination (against women in particular) in the workforce I just don’t see that it is nearly as widespread of an issue as some are making it out to be.
Posted by: Brad at April 29, 2005 02:51 PMLisa:
“My final post on this thread comes from George Carlin:
“Being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything”.”
Pretty damn illogical final post — as women are the majority.
I’ve got a better one from George Carlin:
“The status quo sucks.”
But just to balance this out lets give a quote from a woman, too. How about one from Gloria Steinem:
“Any woman who chooses to behave like a full human being should be warned that the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of a dirty joke. That’s their natural and first weapon. She will need her sisterhood.”
Unfortunately, I’d have to add that far too often such women will not find her sisters among female conservatives.
Lawnboy, my friend…
I’ve learned that any info I give to Jack will always be inadequate if he doesn’t agree.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 29, 2005 03:38 PMJack,
Great aritcle.
Do you see what I meant about the “garbage can lid” comment now?
Its a very complex issue.
I’ve read comments here that tell someone to discount their own personal life exp.’s and believe something else that conflicts with everything that life has proven to be correct, based on things they can’t fact check.
Very few will ever do that.
Anyone can get ahead in in life, or the business world by praticing one simple fact of human nature;
Everyone has a basic need to be liked, respected, and accepted. Its both as simple and complex as that.
A bad boss or employee is no different that a bad child, If you praise the good and ignore the bad, you can train anyone to do what you wish.
If your boss bitches about how you preformed a task/job, ask them to teach you how to do better, almost nobody could ever resist because you respected both their position and knowledge.
The only way any form of discrimanition will ever be ended will be to just end it, reversing it will make it worse and prolong its end.
I have no links to post to prove my point, just the (personal exp.) that if you argue with your wife,girlfriend,boss,co-worker you will likely get negative results, if you discuss the issue at hand it will likely come out better.
Thats why I like this site, even a dumb-ass like me, with limited writeing skills can post a comment, read by many, responded to by few, and still get it into print by following those simple rules.
Posted by: Beagle at April 29, 2005 03:50 PM“if you discuss the issue at hand it will likely come out better.”
Afraid I have to disagree with you Beagle.
I’ve been married 15 years now and my personal exp. tells me that the wife/girlfriend discusses the issue and we listen. :)
Adrienne
That is a tautology. Of course one will find information inadequate if he/she doesn’t agree. Otherwise, we would agree.
I am very critical of information sources. You can’t prove a point by citing a source. You have to explain why that source is valid and why it proves the point. When we were talking about taxes in anther posting, the source you cited actually had numbers that contradicted your point. In this case, we all have sources that seem to say different things.
In the case of Lawnboy’s link, I accept and agree with his information. It just doesn’t go far enough. The sources I mentioned provide additional information that helps clarify his. Your source didn’t supply useful information to prove or disprove the point. And I told you why I thought it was soft.
On the other hand, I provide links to all sorts of date gathered by reputable government agencies and firms. I explained why I thought they made the case. You didn’t address them at all.
Do you disbelieve census figures that indicate that women are paid the same or more than men when we correct for factors such as time on the job, hours spent, type of degree etc? Or do you disbelieve the salary survey that shows that women’s starting salaries are higher than men’s in some fields? Or in what way do you believe I presented the data incorrectly?
I understand that I have stepped onto an article of politically correct faith by bringing up this subject at all. In the liberal game plan, I am supposed to slink off after being confronted with the righteous indignation of the designated victimized group. I don’t slink off.
There are legitimate grounds for debate on all the issues I raise. There are many people who I regularly disagree with on this blog, but I understand their underlying reasoning. We can debate what should be done in the face of the facts or whether we are looking at the right facts to make judgments. But I don’t accept oral histories, alleged propensities or how people feel about something as facts. When these things are aggregated into a study, they come to look like the truth, but conclusions are only as good as the premises.
Social scientists all suffer from physics envy. One of their biggest sins is to aggregate soft data and then analyze it as if it was hard data as in the physical science. The resulting has the look and feel of real research, but isn’t. These are the kinds of studies they mention on CNN. They fool some of the people all of the time. Many of the studies you link have precisely that.
Your article on Warren Buffet was very good. It made me think and I agreed with his empirical facts (as I wrote in the post). I disagree with his normative conclusion.
Here Jack, you can claim this is soft all you want, but perhaps first you should actually take a look at the full study made by the National Womens Law Center — it looked like it was comprehensive to me. Following up on their findings, they called on the Dept. of Education to do their own study, but they’ve refused. Also, they’ve called on the president as well, though it seems nothing is going to be done. Why am I not surprised?
NATION’S HIGH SCHOOLS STILL OPERATE “SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL” VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOR MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS Just scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the pdf link to look at the study.
Dept. of Ed. Office for Civil Rights �Abdicates Responsibility� for Gender Discrimination in Vocational and Technical Education, Says NWLC
NWLC Calls on Bush Administration to Do More to Ensure Gender Equity in Vocational Education Programs
Adrienne
That is NOT a study. It is advocacy.
Studies have a section on methodology. Studies have some appendixes with data. Did I miss them? A study also rarely starts with a exhortation.
Some of what is included is undoubtedly true. There is no reason to doubt it when they give numbers such as 80% of vocational classes are male etc. What they fail to address is how this has come to pass or why. This is where it gets soft. So the study goes from identifying a problem to proposing a solution without figuring out why or how or even if it is really a problem amenable to solution. They could just as easily have proven that 90% of the strongest weight lifters were male. It would probably be true, but it wouldn?t give us much to go on.
With all due respect, this is EXACTLY the type of thing I am talking about. They state first their conclusions, then they figure out how to prove it and then they call on other to take political action.
Even if it were a valid study, it doesn?t address the main point of my post that explains that men and women, when they have similar backgrounds and experience and when they put in similar hours, get similar wages.
So even if we accept that girls are not given good advice in vocational school, you still are left with the fact that discrimination in the workplace is not evident.
You really don?t see these limitations? You are a businesswoman. If you got a report like this from a market research firm (describing the current situation and telling you to engage politically, without telling you about the market or why it was like that) would you really know what action to take and trust that the research was accurate?
Jack you have completely missed the point.
That study proves that too many of the states are in non-compliance with the law about collecting the data that is needed — in other words, their study was the about the BEST THAT CAN BE DONE — UNTIL THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION STEPS IN, and forces compliance with the law about collecting that data on the states, then looks at that data for an in-depth study to actually be undertaken!
The Dept. of Education has refused!
The president has refused!
To call the National Womens Law Center study soft is to entirely miss the point — the Dept of Education and Bush are being soft — because they don’t care whether that data is ever collected! And from what they’ve been able to gather, nothing has been made any better for the income earning prospects of young women who are choosing vocational school instead of college.
Advocacy by a bunch of women lawyer’s is exactly what is needed in this instance — because the laws that were put in place to protect young women in our highschool vocational settings, is being completely IGNORED.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 29, 2005 07:52 PMIt may be true, but it is not the point.
We find that women with similar experience, educations etc. earn amounts similar to men.
Since women now make up a majority of college freshmen, it looks like we have won that battle (or maybe we now need afirmative action for young men).
The lawyers’ group has a wonderful ciruclar argument (as you quote it) we say there is a problem. You have to study it to prove there is a problem. If you don’t study it you are wrong. If you don’t find in our favor you are wrong.
And whether or not the can help it, the study is very soft. It is actually not a study at all.
I gave you hard data.
I can concede that women may be given bad advice in vocational school, althought the “study” doesn’t prove it.
You have to concede - based on the data - that women suffer little or no NET discrimination once they reach the workforce. That is what the numbers say. Do you disbelieve them?
Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2005 08:06 PM