Not quite (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042200134.html) what you would imagine.

Tuesday marks a very special day: It's Equal Pay Day. Why Tuesday, you ask? Because that's how far into the year the average woman must work to earn as much as a man earned by the end of the previous year.

Lets address what'll be Fyyr's first argument

So let's just get this straight right now, says Murphy: That 23-cent differential is not because some women take time off to give birth or raise children. The pay-gap figure measures only women and men who work full time, for a full year. It does not include women who took time off during the year or worked part time.

But don't women earn less over time because they might more often take time off to give birth or raise a child? According to Murphy, that's an incredibly lame argument. Most women who can take time off and go back to work full-time earn more in the first place. Any drop in salary they might experience would not pull the average down, she argues.

That is not my first argument.

Not even one of them.

There are many reasons why pay scales differ for women. Sexism can play part of it, but statistics also show that:

-Taller people tend to make more money (I kid you not) and men tend to be taller.
-Women statistically are absent twice as much as men. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat46.pdf
-Men average 6 hours more at work than women. http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-table21-2005.pdf
-Men are more likely to have degrees. http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-table8-2005.pdf
-Men are also more likely to negotiate salary than women as well. (probably the largest factor of all)

Most women who can take time off and go back to work full-time earn more in the first place. Any drop in salary they might experience would not pull the average down, she argues.
This statement is so innumerate as to border on the bizarre.

Theres lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Most studies that actually look at the situation fall somewhere between 6-12% difference.

anyone who beleives the 25% non sense is simply misinformed, purposely misinformed, or uses it because it makse the issue look worse then it actually is


Thats not to say 6-12% isnt a signicant, i dont know many people who wouldnt think getting a 6-12% raise wouldnt be substantial..

Panamah,

Do you, you personally, make 23 percent less than your male colleagues, who do the same work as you?

I think that in the past, the female posters on this board, have generally mentioned that they make roughly the same, or sometimes more than their XY counterparts.

All the women I know in the same profession as me make more than me. Meh, its all anecdotal dependant on what point you want to push forward.

The American Chemical Society does an annual salary survey, they break down salary based on gender, industry and degree.

Across the board, women with Bachelor's make significantly less than men with bachelors (abotut 15%). Women with Masters make about 25% less than men with Masters. Women with PhDs make about 40% less than men with PhDs.

I can't speak to the world as a whole, but at least in my profession, women, on average, make less than men. As to the causality of this phenomenon, I can't say, but the numbers are pretty clear cut.

Again, merely going by degree recieved does not take into account the actual wage differences between a man, and a women doing the *same* job.

Again, merely going by degree recieved does not take into account the actual wage differences between a man, and a women doing the *same* job.

At the high end of the educational ladder it must be assumed that the capacity of men and women are pretty much the same. If women still earn 40 pct less than men this means they either are not capable (in which case we should look at the university for graduating women that are not competent), or they are not hired for the high paying jobs men are (in which case we must look at the recruitment policies of the companies involved. If there is a reasonable ground for their hiring policies we should try to correct whatever it is that women are performing so much worse in. If on the other hand it is just gender discrimination then they are very naughty boys under current laws)
And yes, before certain people we all know start foaming at the mouth, If there are jobs where women consistently get paid more than men there too should be a thorough investigation into the hows and whys. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who the victim is.

In all honesty, it does not really matter if it is 10, 15 or 25pct difference. It still is a lot of money and it might perhaps be a good idea to try to figure out why the difference exists and what can be done about it?

Of course the article originally quoted said that the difference in pay remained after compensating for differences in job description... If so that is grounds for an interesting class action suit ;)


Eri

Along the same lines is the ever-widening gap in executive pay and mid-low level employees pay. This article is a good read: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/19/income_gap_mentality/
Income gap mentality

By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | April 19, 2006

AS TREASURY SECRETARY John Snow meandered through his thoughts about the pay gap between CEOs and workers, it brought back memories of 1992 when the first President Bush toured a mock-up of a grocery checkout counter, watched a carton of milk, a lightbulb, and some candy ring up via a scanner and said about the technology, ''This is for checking out?"

The scanner came to mind because, as the average American worker watches corporate America slash pensions and healthcare, as the average American has seen real wages decline in the last quarter century, and as the average American family has to work harder to maintain the standard of living it inherited, Snow talked about this as if it were not much of a problem.

He told Globe reporters and editors yesterday that the pay gap was symbolic of the nation's ''aspirational" compensation system, a star system in which, for example, top baseball players are paid $30 million. But he thinks that the US economy shows there is still plenty of trickle-down money to go around, making our country one that still ''shares the spoils of the game."

Snow was asked by Globe editorial board member Alan Berger about professional football. The National Football League has supplanted baseball as the nation's most popular spectator sport precisely because the NFL's socialist system of giving teams an equal share of television revenues offers more teams a chance to aspire for the championship. Berger mentioned to Snow that the Patriots won three of the last five NFL titles without a star system.

Snow did not address the Patriots. All he said was the ''aspirational compensation system works pretty well. People will get paid on how valuable they are to the enterprise."

All we are left with is our aspirations in a game where the average share of the American dream is being spoiled. The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, the two liberal think tanks that annually chart the gap between CEOs and workers, currently list the gap at 431-to-1, or $11.8 million to $27,460. That compares with a gap of 107-to-1 in 1990. If salaries of the average worker had kept up with that of a CEO, he or she would be making $110,136. Had the minimum wage risen at the same pace as CEO compensation, it would stand today at $23.01. The federal minimum wage of $5.15 has not risen since 1997.

In 1980, the gap was only 42-to-1. Where the spoils go are quite clear. According to 2005 federal data from the Congressional Budget Office, the share of America's income that went to the highest 20 percent of households increased from 45.5 percent in 1979 to 52.2 percent in 2003. The remaining 80 percent of American households all saw their share of the nation's income drop.

The higher you go in that top 20 percent, the more the rise in their share of the income. The top 1 percent of Americans saw their share of America's income zoom from 9.3 percent in the last quarter century to 14.3 percent. The top 10 percent saw their share go from 30.5 percent to 37.2 percent.

How Snow thinks that 10 percent of Americans holding 37 percent of the income represents a sharing of the spoils is checkout-counter economics. His claim falls especially short considering that 46 of the nation's 275 largest companies, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, the United for a Fair Economy, and another liberal think-tank, Citizens for Tax Justice, paid no federal income tax in 2003. Eighty-two of the largest 275 companies paid no federal income tax at some point during 2001-2003 as the current President Bush cut taxes for the wealthy.

Despite this, Snow went on and on about how corporate governance has actually gotten better. He said ''the marketplace" is the best place to leave the issues of pension and healthcare cuts to workers. ''The best place to leave compensation is set in a market system," Snow said. But as to that pesky pay gap, he said, ''A full explanation is still awaiting a full exposition."

Like the first President Bush, who did not know that checkout-counter scanners had been common in American supermarkets a decade before his discovery, Snow, in the guise of defending the fiscal policies of the second President Bush, talked about waiting for a full explanation of an American condition that for the average American is fully exposed as a betrayal of average aspirations.

I have no problems with CEOs of sucessful profitable companies making a ton of money...

If they do a cr appy job then thats another manner, but it doesnt hurt me that people in charge of some of the biggest overall contributors to the American economy are making bank.

The American Chemical Society does an annual salary survey, they break down salary based on gender, industry and degree.

Across the board, women with Bachelor's make significantly less than men with bachelors (abotut 15%). Women with Masters make about 25% less than men with Masters. Women with PhDs make about 40% less than men with PhDs.

I can't speak to the world as a whole, but at least in my profession, women, on average, make less than men. As to the causality of this phenomenon, I can't say, but the numbers are pretty clear cut.

That does not say much, unless one has the numbers. Is it the average of salary or salaries.

For example, do you Jin, make that much less than your male counterparts. Those with you, right now, who work with you. I am sure you have a fairly good idea of what you make and what your colleagues make.

Do YOU make that much less than the men who work along side you? Comparing job, degree, and length with the company.

I guess Pan does not want to answer the question.

At the high end of the educational ladder it must be assumed that the capacity of men and women are pretty much the same.

Let's consider a situation I was in with a woman who went to the same university as me 5-10 years earlier and gained a similar degree. She had returned to work after maternity leave. She could not pass childcare responsibility onto her husband as he was a long distance lorry driver. Despite the fact that she was better at her job within office hours than me, I may have been seen as better value to the company since I covered the extra-ordinary work for both us. I could attend customer meetings across the country that were 14 hour days including travelling. I could be on-call. I could manage overnight installations. Etc. My capacity for work was greater even though we were pretty much identically placed on educational and career ladders. I don't think our situation was untypical of what can happen to create a pay gap, even though there was no gender bias in our workplace.

Let's consider a situation I was in with a woman who went to the same university as me 5-10 years earlier and gained a similar degree. She had returned to work after maternity leave. She could not pass childcare responsibility onto her husband as he was a long distance lorry driver. Despite the fact that she was better at her job within office hours than me, I may have been seen as better value to the company since I covered the extra-ordinary work for both us. I could attend customer meetings across the country that were 14 hour days including travelling. I could be on-call. I could manage overnight installations. Etc. My capacity for work was greater even though we were pretty much identically placed on educational and career ladders. I don't think our situation was untypical of what can happen to create a pay gap, even though there was no gender bias in our workplace.

Which points us at an issue we can adress, as a society. Not to raise the income of this particular woman, but the fact that she is forced to chose between income and kids.
Assuming that this is the explanation for the majority of cases where a pay gap exists, it apparently is a choice that is consistently being forced on women, and there is no societal solution in place. I can not argue about not being thought of because it is not something that is likely to make headlines across the world (which in itself is indicative how little value is given to this subject that affects the lifelihood and income of half the population in western countries).

Our respective societies are still operating under the unwritten rules half a century and more old, that the husband earned the income and his wife stayed home to clean and take care of the children. The entire way business are operated, how people perform their jobs, hiring policies, even how businesses parks and industrial complexes are planned and zoned, all are primarily focussed at the needs of men doing their jobs (of course the businesses themselves only are interested in making a profit). Any woman seeking to join the club needs to adapt to the way men are running things for the last couple of centuries. This means they must chose between a job and children because it is either impossible or prohibitively expensive, to combine the two. It is women who must make the choice because there is this implicit understanding that men can work 80 hours a week if necessary and can get to work at any time of the day or night should the need arise. If this conflicts with families it typically is expected to be resolved by their wifes (who have to leave early or cancel a meeting to get the child to the doctor because if her husband would do so it would damage his career).

Very few people seem to actually want to think about if this really is the best way to organise our society and if not a vast potential is wasted because we cling to traditions that are almost half a century out of date.


And yes, all of the both is typically true, not universally. There is little point in trying to find examples of situations that are different, companies that do have a different policy and so on. Unless it is a reliable and unbiased nation wide statistic that refutes the above claims.
Or if you find a more prevailing reason why women (supposedly) rightfully earn less than men for doing the same job.


Eri

If this conflicts with families it typically is expected to be resolved by their wifes (who have to leave early or cancel a meeting to get the child to the doctor because if her husband would do so it would damage his career).

As the manager of a 59 bed ICU, I have found this to be true more than once. It always amazed me when I would have a nurse come to me and say "I have to leave, my son is ill at school and I need to go pick him up." I was mind boggled that someone who is saving lives in an intensive care unit had to be the one to leave their job, because the husband couldn't get away from his.

As far as women getting paid less in general, I think it mostly has to do with the woman wanting the job so much that she is willing to take lesser pay. High executive jobs are less available for women, therefore it is more likely that woman would not negotiate her salary as a man would.

Anka, I read your post and understand exactly what you are saying, but it opens another question... completely rhetorical... IF your friend had been male, would allowances have been made for him that weren't made for her?

I have seen a few men actually take the time from their jobs to "deal with" the children issue, or some other family matter. Rather than the "roll eyes at the ceiling" look, the men are praised and even glorified for doing this extraordinary task. People (and bosses) seem to look at a man dealing with children issues as going above and beyond what is required of them in life and they become heroes.

It's going to be interesting when men start taking time away from work en masse to deal with parental issues. It seems that even in this day and age, the "boy" of the family is more likely to be given the responsiblilty of dealing with the "business end" of a parent's financial affairs. Unless of course, there were no boys in the family. But then, it's always easier to leave work for a while if you are in an executive position rather than a clerical position.

Rather than the "roll eyes at the ceiling" look, the men are praised and even glorified for doing this extraordinary task. People (and bosses) seem to look at a man dealing with children issues as going above and beyond what is required of them in life and they become heroes.

I've heard people -seriously- ask married (female) friends of mine "but.. who's babysitting your child(ren)?" if they dare show themselves outside after the streetlights are on.

In this milennium apparently noone raises an eyebrow if the husband/father has a weekly beer or two with his pals, but if the wife/mother goes, apparently such questions are prompted. A man minding his own offspring, give the guy a ****ing medal, huh?

And Fyyr: I think your memory is shaky, last debate I remember on the issue was full of anecdotes about how we consistently personally earned less than our male counterparts at work. Even some stories about women being promoted, and when training the man who'd take over their old job discovered that the freshly hired, lower-on-the-ladder male was earning more than she was after she'd been promoted. I'd dig up the link, but it's too sunny outside to sit here and search :)

Despite the naysayers and the apologists, there is systemic compensation discrimination against women in the workforce. Equal pay for equal work does not apply in many cases. No amount of rationalization and explanation can explain away the numbers. In my opinion, there is no reason or excuse for this.

In terms of caring for children, my views are different. Go beyond cultural norms and opinions about what the role of men and women should be. I think women are biologically programmed to be more nurturing to children than men. Yes, there are exceptions. No, I'm not saying that's the way it should be... but that's the way it is.

You'll have as much success at changing women's child-caring biological programming as you will turning a gay person into a straight person.

There is one way to settle this once and for all...

That is to look at the incomes of men and women who have no kids and have the same job title.

There is one way to settle this once and for all...

That is to look at the incomes of men and women who have no kids and have the same job title.Been there, done that. There is discrimination. Refer to my post in the thread Tinsi was mentioning to Fyyr. And MY qualifications for the job were higher as was my tenure with the company.

I'd dig up the link, but it's too sunny outside to sit here and search :)
Man, where you live, you'd better git on outside girly! Make some Vit. D!

I guess Pan does not want to answer the question.
Well, I was only allowed to post once every day and I must've blown my allotment for the day on another topic.

Anyway...

I have no way of knowing except I trust my current boss. Y'all think I'm liberal? He makes me look like a red-neck. :p A guy like that is going to bend over backwards to make sure it doesn't happen. I love him to pieces.

But this isn't about individuals, it is about women as a group.

I have no problems with CEOs of sucessful profitable companies making a ton of money...

If they do a cr appy job then thats another manner, but it doesnt hurt me that people in charge of some of the biggest overall contributors to the American economy are making bank.
The thing is though... well two things really:

1) CEO compensation is growing out-of-proportion to anyone elses salary.
You're really ok with that? Should you be ok with that as a stockholder?

2) CEO compensation is growing despite how well or poorly the company is doing.

Anka, I read your post and understand exactly what you are saying, but it opens another question... completely rhetorical... IF your friend had been male, would allowances have been made for him that weren't made for her?

The question doesn't need to be rhetorical. He would probably have had less allowances. A role was found for her within the company when she returned to work from maternity leave, and thereafter roles were always tailored for her rather than her meeting the full requirements of the role. I've no problem with that and neither did our employer. In fact everyone was happy including her and her family. I'm sure there are plenty of people though who can compare our work records and use it to demonstrate sexism in the workplace.

Anka, I read your post and understand exactly what you are saying, but it opens another question... completely rhetorical... IF your friend had been male, would allowances have been made for him that weren't made for her?

I have seen a few men actually take the time from their jobs to "deal with" the children issue, or some other family matter. Rather than the "roll eyes at the ceiling" look, the men are praised and even glorified for doing this extraordinary task. People (and bosses) seem to look at a man dealing with children issues as going above and beyond what is required of them in life and they become heroes.

That's because you ****ing women have been hounding men for decades to work less and spend more time with the family.

You ****ing ingrates stopped being thankful for a husband who works and now we're expected to work 60 hours a week and still take the woman out to the ****ing ballet and the kid out to the ballgame until finally we snap and beat the **** out of the harridan and shoot the kid.

Now we're bad men for trying to do both, because through some stretch of the imagination the fact that men working 60 hours a week get a salary higher than the woman who leaves every day at 4:30 to pick her kids up from school is a bad thing? ****ing bull****.

I've heard people -seriously- ask married (female) friends of mine "but.. who's babysitting your child(ren)?" if they dare show themselves outside after the streetlights are on.

In this milennium apparently noone raises an eyebrow if the husband/father has a weekly beer or two with his pals, but if the wife/mother goes, apparently such questions are prompted. A man minding his own offspring, give the guy a ****ing medal, huh?

Speak for yourself. Nowdays, a man who dares to go out with his friends once a week after work for a beer is a ****ty husband who has dared not to surrender both of his balls to his wife. Conversely, a woman who goes out a couple times a week with her girl friends is 'empowered'.

**** women.

That's because you ****ing women have been hounding men for decades to work less and spend more time with the family.

You ****ing ingrates stopped being thankful for a husband who works and now we're expected to work 60 hours a week and still take the woman out to the ****ing ballet and the kid out to the ballgame until finally we snap and beat the **** out of the harridan and shoot the kid.

Now we're bad men for trying to do both, because through some stretch of the imagination the fact that men working 60 hours a week get a salary higher than the woman who leaves every day at 4:30 to pick her kids up from school is a bad thing? ****ing bull****.
Just for that, Aidon, make your OWN frikking dinner tonight and you can do MY laundry next time you do yours as well. And when you finish that, I have some little errands for you to run for me. I'll be working late. Don't forget to pick up the kids before 5 pm and remember that the day care charges $10.00 for every minute you are late past 5.

Oh... almost forgot. There's some saddle soap in the bathroom cabinet I got for you so that you can recondition the leather on your blinders. But then... it doesn't seem that they need any more conditioning. They're working quite well.

Just for that, Aidon, make your OWN frikking dinner tonight

Hell I don't know a woman who still cooks dinner for her family every night...or even three times a week.

and you can do MY laundry next time you do yours as well.

Ditto with the ironing. There's a generation of men out there with wrinkled ****ing clothes because women have done gone gotten lazy and aren't being beaten often enough.

And when you finish that, I have some little errands for you to run for me. I'll be working late.

Women don't work late. If woman has to work late its sexual harrasment or sexual discrimination.

Don't forget to pick up the kids before 5 pm and remember that the day care charges $10.00 for every minute you are late past 5.

Put the ****ers in a latchkey program after work. If you hadn't lied about the birth control I wouldn't have had to marry you in the first place you miserable wench.

Oh... almost forgot. There's some saddle soap in the bathroom cabinet I got for you so that you can recondition the leather on your blinders. But then... it doesn't seem that they need any more conditioning. They're working quite well.

Where's my pot pie?

congratulations on the marriage Aidon and Arrienne!

My boss, a woman, has been putting in about 60 hours a week at work lately, compared to my 40 (which is what the vast majority of people put in where I work). She insists that I leave on time, even though she is unable or unwilling to! Maybe she felt bad after a couple of my voluntary all-nighters last year, or something.

(Both of us are single with no children, and we do not get overtime. I'm sure she's paid quite a bit more than me--being about 20 years older than me, she has a lot more experience--but I make enough to live quite comfortably.)

Not that it makes a difference, but our company is owned by a woman, although a majority of employees and managers are male.

congratulations on the marriage Aidon and Arrienne!
LOL! There's a match made in hell. :devil-lau:

congratulations on the marriage Aidon and Arrienne!Premature, MadroneDorf. I got it annulled because he thought extracurricular late night activities were part of the deal.:deal: :sleep:


Hell I don't know a woman who still cooks dinner for her family every night...or even three times a week.I cook a FULL breakfast and a FULL dinner every day of the week whether I eat dinner at home or not. I'm not a breakfast eater at all... just coffee for me.Ditto with the ironing. There's a generation of men out there with wrinkled ****ing clothes because women have done gone gotten lazy and aren't being beaten often enough./shrug. If that generation of men could learn to get their clothes out of the drier and fold or hang them the same day they dried them, they wouldn't have that issue. I know it's a modern concept and hasn't gotten around to everyone yet, but perma press is now available in most stores. If you want your 100% cotton pinpoint oxfordcloth shirt starched and pressed, do what I used to do... iron it yourself or drop it off at the cleaners on your way into work. Better yet, next time you get a girlfriend, look for someone who is old enough to understand what you are asking and doesn't just cover her face and giggle.Women don't work late. If woman has to work late its sexual harrasment or sexual discrimination.Got me there!!! I don't "work late" any longer. It's a good thing, too. After years of going in at 7:30 or 8 am and leaving the office at 8 or 10 pm on an average workday, it did get a bit wearing. I used to love my travel time because despite the even longer hours, I didn't have to be "on" 24/7. Now that I don't "have a job" I start work at 5:30 am and finish up at 9 pm.Put the ****ers in a latchkey program after work. If you hadn't lied about the birth control I wouldn't have had to marry you in the first place you miserable wench.Lied? You never even bothered to ask.Where's my pot pie?At the grocery store, I suppose. Didn't you get yourself groceries this week? You really ARE helpless.

AIt seems that even in this day and age, the "boy" of the family is more likely to be given the responsiblilty of dealing with the "business end" of a parent's financial affairs.

Very rarely would the boy have the opportunity to marry a woman who would take care of him financially.

While not all women have access to that opportunity and choice, women do.

If the boy were to take over the business it would make him more attractive to females in general. A daughter would not generally increase hers attractiveness or 'value' by doing so. A smart attractive woman can be smart and attractive and be unemployed and poor. Men do not have that quality, in general. A smart attractive man who is unemployed and poor is still very unattractive to most women.

While some may say that those are 'societal' or learned forces primarily, which I once believed as well, it may just be a genetic behavior. It's near universal quality implies that it is genetic.

Ithink your memory is shaky, last debate I remember on the issue was full of anecdotes about how we consistently personally earned less than our male counterparts at work.
It may be. That is why I am asking NOW. Notice that there are no takers.

Tinsi, are you today, making less than your comparable male colleagues, and if so, by how much?

At the grocery store, I suppose. Didn't you get yourself groceries this week? You really ARE helpless.

I am sure that you missed the cultural reference and allusion.

I am sure that you missed the cultural reference and allusion.Fine! YOU feed him! :p

Very rarely would the boy have the opportunity to marry a woman who would take care of him financially.

While not all women have access to that opportunity and choice, women do.
OMIGOD Fyyr! Get a GRIP! I didn't say "inheritance". I said "financial affairs"... ie managing their finances to get them through the time in their life when every day in nursing care, every surgery, hospital visit or doctor's visit is likely not to be a "break even" deal. It can be pretty time consuming and often take a big chunk out of a workday.

Tinsi, are you today, making less than your comparable male colleagues, and if so, by how much?

While I'm not Tinsi, I'll answer the question, since you seem to be inferring that due to the fact that women aren't terribly keen to post their incomes on this board publicly, that obviously means there is no pay gap.

Based on the numbers I could find, the average male lab manager makes around 80-100K. I make about 48K. That's around 60% of males. The average female lab manager makes around 60K, so a bit more than I do, but still less than her male counterparts.

OMIGOD Fyyr! Get a GRIP! I didn't say "inheritance". I said "financial affairs"... ie managing their finances to get them through the time in their life when every day in nursing care, every surgery, hospital visit or doctor's visit is likely not to be a "break even" deal. It can be pretty time consuming and often take a big chunk out of a workday.

Hey, I do that too. :p Not only do I have to pay my bills but I've also been paying my parents bills and investing their money for them.

Heh, bill paying, in many many Jewish households, is the woman's job.

The man just brings home the money.

Depends on the company Panamah.


If the company is doing really well, then as an investor I would not mind the CEO getting paid a ton.

GE, citigroup Walmart, Intel, J&J, most of the oil companies etc etc have good profits and profit margins.


if a company is barely making a profit, or is loosing money/market share over a course of more then a year then yea i'd be upset.

Depends on the company Panamah.


If the company is doing really well, then as an investor I would not mind the CEO getting paid a ton.

GE, citigroup Walmart, Intel, J&J, most of the oil companies etc etc have good profits and profit margins.


if a company is barely making a profit, or is loosing money/market share over a course of more then a year then yea i'd be upset.

Does a CEO really need to earn over 400 times as much as the average employe?
Or is 200 times as much enough (which they did a few years back)?
Or perhaps 80 times as much (about a decade or two ago).

The Neocon economy is increasingly concentrating money in a dwindling number of companies and families.

Keep in mind that most of those benchmarks can, and will, be doctored by the company's accountants. Profit is taking a steep dive? Fire half the employees, or sell of significant parts of the company's assets. It will look good for the profit, which will make the shareholders happy. That in the long run it is not good for neither company nor economy is next year's CEO's problem.

This actually one of the reason why European economies seem to be doing worse than the US (there are also legitimate reasons why they actually do). Both the European and the US central bank aim to keep the economic disaster of the 1930s from repeating itself. Only in Europa that means preventing (hyper)inflation while in the USA it means preventing the collapse of the stockmarkets and the mass unemployment that followed. That is why unemployment figures are seen as vital in the US while they are a point of concern but not really that essential in Europe. On the other hand, economic policy in Europe is to keep inflatin down, which is not much of an issue in the USA as long as the economic growth and employment figures look good. This means that European economies can not grow inflatory (i.e. growth expressed only in the stock values but not necessarily in economic production) to the same extent that the US economy can. The same way, much of the actual value of European companies does not show up on the stock markets and is therefor not 'seen' in the kind of economic indicators that the Americans use. It makes European companies appear to perform worse when in fact they invest their money in untangible resources (like resources, employees and loyalty) that in the longer run may be more valuable than the short term 'cashing in' tendency that is forced upon American companies.

The two economies are fundamentally, socially and culturally different, and even within the EC countries are vastly different too. And people are increasingly unhappy about the Neocon direction their own governments are forcing them in (with the extreme but largely unfounded belief that a free market is the solution for everything, that the state should not regulate anything at all and that people must take of themselves because they have no responsibility towards each other. Globalisation has not yet made anybody better of, except for the officers and directors of the companies that ditch one group of employees in favour of another even less able to defend themselves from exploitation.)

Oh well, time to see who put that soup box under my feet...


Eri

Oh well, time to see who put that soup box under my feet...


EriCampbells? ;)

Speak for yourself.

I do. (duh)

A daughter would not generally increase hers attractiveness or 'value' by doing so.

"what happened to the dream of a girl president? She's dancing in a video, next to 50cent"?

Tinsi, are you today, making less than your comparable male colleagues, and if so, by how much?

Yes, and I always have. Variyng between about 15% to about 30% less. No maternity leave, no kids I have to leave early for, none of the usual lame excuses that are being made to "explain away" the difference.

I hope that answers your question.

(p.s. wtf is up with my signature? It suddenly stopped working properly..)

(p.s. wtf is up with my signature? It suddenly stopped working properly..)

They have changed the boards - they no longer allow HTML see this link http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=13837

The use of HTML in Sigs (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showthread.php?t=13837)

You need to swap it to use BBcode now.

e.g. for yours,
[ center ][ url=http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1199882 ]Tinsi, hobbit druid[ /url ]
[ url=http://www.teamlootwhore.com ]Queen of TLW[ /url ][ /center ]

(Take out the spaces around the brackets to get it to work.)

Thanks, guys <3

Does a CEO really need to earn over 400 times as much as the average employe?
Or is 200 times as much enough (which they did a few years back)?
Or perhaps 80 times as much (about a decade or two ago).

The Neocon economy is increasingly concentrating money in a dwindling number of companies and families.

Keep in mind that most of those benchmarks can, and will, be doctored by the company's accountants. Profit is taking a steep dive? Fire half the employees, or sell of significant parts of the company's assets. It will look good for the profit, which will make the shareholders happy. That in the long run it is not good for neither company nor economy is next year's CEO's problem.

This actually one of the reason why European economies seem to be doing worse than the US (there are also legitimate reasons why they actually do). Both the European and the US central bank aim to keep the economic disaster of the 1930s from repeating itself. Only in Europa that means preventing (hyper)inflation while in the USA it means preventing the collapse of the stockmarkets and the mass unemployment that followed. That is why unemployment figures are seen as vital in the US while they are a point of concern but not really that essential in Europe. On the other hand, economic policy in Europe is to keep inflatin down, which is not much of an issue in the USA as long as the economic growth and employment figures look good. This means that European economies can not grow inflatory (i.e. growth expressed only in the stock values but not necessarily in economic production) to the same extent that the US economy can. The same way, much of the actual value of European companies does not show up on the stock markets and is therefor not 'seen' in the kind of economic indicators that the Americans use. It makes European companies appear to perform worse when in fact they invest their money in untangible resources (like resources, employees and loyalty) that in the longer run may be more valuable than the short term 'cashing in' tendency that is forced upon American companies.

The two economies are fundamentally, socially and culturally different, and even within the EC countries are vastly different too. And people are increasingly unhappy about the Neocon direction their own governments are forcing them in (with the extreme but largely unfounded belief that a free market is the solution for everything, that the state should not regulate anything at all and that people must take of themselves because they have no responsibility towards each other. Globalisation has not yet made anybody better of, except for the officers and directors of the companies that ditch one group of employees in favour of another even less able to defend themselves from exploitation.)

Oh well, time to see who put that soup box under my feet...


Eri

well said.

Wow! Well said, Eri. What an excellent perspective. *applause*

OMIGOD Fyyr! Get a GRIP! I didn't say "inheritance". I said "financial affairs"... ie managing their finances to get them through the time in their life when every day in nursing care, every surgery, hospital visit or doctor's visit is likely not to be a "break even" deal. It can be pretty time consuming and often take a big chunk out of a workday.

Obviously, I misunderstood your point.

And then you mine.

Let's just wash that whole section of discussion out, we are not even in the same book, let alone the same page.

"what happened to the dream of a girl president? She's dancing in a video, next to 50cent"?

What do you mean by this?

My point is that in terms of what makes a woman attractive or desirable, the money she has, or more specifically what she does not have, has little to nothing to do with it. From both males and females.

Even socially, women will look at other women, and not judge them 'unfit' even though they are broke and unproductive. If they were males, they would be viewed, by women, as bums; and not at all attractive.

If Richard Gere, portraying a young prostitute in American Gigilo were as poor as Julia Roberts, a young prostitute, was in Pretty Woman. You would not have had a movie. Well I guess I need to take that back, ya you would have, it would have been Midnight Cowboy.

Of course, there are notable exceptions to this. But it is so universally evident, that genetics can be the only explanation for it. That is my underlying point. Sociologists will look at a social group and see a pattern and see only the social aspects and deduce that it is all learned behavior(and then teach this fallacy to students), I no long think that it is. And I also think that the reason why 'learned' is so acceptable is because genetic fatalism is so unacceptable.

If anyone gave a damn about the point, it could be equally argued, that women have it much easier, because they require a man to be financially successful, productive, to become attractive. And that in order for her to keep her attention, he has to go out and work for her. Her little franchise, if you will.

The stickler with this has always been, that there has always been a SUBgroup of woman, who were not attractive enough, to grab onto one of these franchises, they were left out in the cold and damp, and demanded that the 'system' be changed. The problem is, that it is not a system in and of itself, the 'system' reflects what is already there, genetic behavior. That is why when you have very successful, intelligent, and self attained women now, demanding the same sh1t, but just at a higher level, from men that they wish to mate with. They don't go and turn off the so-called learned behavior then automatically, not generally, there is always higher up to go the diva ladder.

Men are pretty simple creatures, most of them are brutes. When you gals sold us on the idea of 'equality', we bought it. We thought you really did want equality. But it is not equality that you really want. If you had just spent the effort to sell what you really wanted, we would have bought that, I am sure, for men are simple creatures...but you would not have had so many of the good ones wandering aroung in confusion saying to themselves, "Do I open the door for her, or do I not open the door her?" "If she wants to be equal that means she wants to open her own door, right?". And in those few moments of confusion and sensitive indecision, he missed the boat, and the pussy faucet just got turned off nice and tight.

Women are clearly superior. Not only that, they have what men want, and they have no problems using it to get the man to work his ass off for her, to donate his life and labor, to get it. Typical male female relationships are not equal, not by a long shot. Women definately have the upper hand. If some green Martian came down to Earth, with no cultural or sexual context of us, they could only come away with the notion that one set of creatures have it made, making the other labor, fight, and build for them, things they generally don't really want to do. And all it takes for this submission, is a little pelvic grinding between them every once and a while, of which the superior creatures want to do anyways.

Our Martian anthropologist friends would shake their heads, noting the clear superiority of the dominant creatures, and how stupid the hairy submissive ones are, as they speed their saucer and get the fvck away from us.

Your entire post seems to be based on the misunderstanding that if you ask for equality in the work force, you at the same time ask to be treated in a specific way in a romantic relationship.

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such thoughts. This debate is about equality in the work force, if you want to discuss relationships, by all means, go ahead, but it seems hard for people to seperate the two, so it'd probably be smart to do so in a seperate thread.

You also didn't follow up on the replies to your questions regarding wages. Please do so - there has to be a point to your asking, a clarification and all that would be nice.

Equality doesn't come in a vacuum, Tinsi. Women want equal pay..but still, generally, insist that their man makes more than they do. They want equal opportunity, but insist the man picks up the tab during courtship. They want harrassment free work places but still sleep with the boss (or sleep with their students and get off scott free). The list could go on.

Equality doesn't come in a vacuum, Tinsi. Women want equal pay..but still, generally, insist that their man makes more than they do.

(Assuming for a minute that you are correct) That's a personal-love-relationship-issue, NOT an equal pay issue though. The "solution" to this is not to change the idea that one should get the same pay for the same job, but to adopt ones views on personal relationships to deal with a new financial reality.

They want equal opportunity, but insist the man picks up the tab during courtship.

(Assuming for a minute that you are correct) That's a personal-love-relationship-issue, NOT an equal pay issue though. The "solution" to this is not to change the idea that one should get the same pay for the same job, but to adopt ones views on personal relationships to deal with a new financial reality. (cut'n'paste 4tw!)

They want harrassment free work places but still sleep with the boss

Uhm, yes? Why is this a problem? And what do you propose the solution to be? (please keep in mind while answering this, that the debate is about equal pay for equal work, nothing else. A general rant about the horrificness of women will not do as an answer to this question.)

(or sleep with their students and get off scott free).

Just like I do not assume every man is a pedophile **** simply because some are, I assume you have the intelligence to be able to not judge all by the actions of a minescule number. Nor do I think you to be so dumb as to think "some women sleep with students, and therefore it is okay to pay all women less than men." We were what.. about 10 (?) when we progressed past that stage in learning logics.

The list could go on.

Please go on, and also explain why on earth this all should lead to it being ok to pay someone a higher wage on the SOLE basis that it has a penis.

Uhm, yes? Why is this a problem? And what do you propose the solution to be? (please keep in mind while answering this, that the debate is about equal pay for equal work, nothing else. A general rant about the horrificness of women will not do as an answer to this question.)

Men can't sleep with the boss for promotion. Besides, its disingenuous to say its ok to sleep with the boss for advantage if you want to, but its not ok for the boss to offer you advantage for sleeping with him.



Just like I do not assume every man is a pedophile **** simply because some are, I assume you have the intelligence to be able to not judge all by the actions of a minescule number. Nor do I think you to be so dumb as to think "some women sleep with students, and therefore it is okay to pay all women less than men." We were what.. about 10 (?) when we progressed past that stage in learning logics.

No...its not because they are sleeping with students, its because they are doing it with no punishment compared to what would happen if a man slept with a student. Inequality. Personally, I'd be fine with noone getting in trouble for sleeping with their students...but neither women nor men will countenance a 25 year old male teacher sleeping with a 15 year old girl.



Please go on, and also explain why on earth this all should lead to it being ok to pay someone a higher wage on the SOLE basis that it has a penis.


For the same reason its ok for someone to get a free ride through life because they have breats. Or get away with slapping a member of the opposite sex because they have a pussy. For the same reason why a pair of tits gets you instant preference for custody and a share of a man's finances in a divorce. For the same reason having overies seems to allow women all of the choices in whether or not to have a child and make a man pay for it. The list goes on.

I am no fundamentally opposed to equal wages...but women have to embrace equality across the board. Until then, so long as they insist on equality where they want it, and special privledges where they want it, I'm going to stand against feminist attempts to further subjugate men.

Men can't sleep with the boss for promotion. Besides, its disingenuous to say its ok to sleep with the boss for advantage if you want to, but its not ok for the boss to offer you advantage for sleeping with him.

First of all - noone mentioned "for promotion" until now. My question was "if they feel like having it on, why is that wrong?" Secondly - of COURSE men can sleep with the boss for promotion. I don't condone it, regardless of the sex of the people involved, but that is totally irrelevant to the debate regarding equal pay for equal job. However, should someone feel like they've been passed over because someone had sex with someone else, they are - as they should be - free to voice their complaint however they see fit.

No...its not because they are sleeping with students, its because they are doing it with no punishment compared to what would happen if a man slept with a student. Inequality. Personally, I'd be fine with noone getting in trouble for sleeping with their students...but neither women nor men will countenance a 25 year old male teacher sleeping with a 15 year old girl.

Fine, it doesn't matter. To the discussion at hand - equal pay for equal work - this is a total derail and has nothing to do with it. If you want to discuss when it's ok for whom to have sex with whom, please let us know - in a thread of it's own. Unless you're a prostitute, who you have sex with, and what rationalisation you spin on that choice, has absolutely no bearing on how much you should earn compared to your colleagues of the oposite sex.

For the same reason its ok for someone to get a free ride through life because they have breats. Or get away with slapping a member of the opposite sex because they have a pussy.

And exactly, pray tell, -is- that reason? I can't for the life of me find it.

For the same reason why a pair of tits gets you ... a share of a man's finances in a divorce.

Aha, the reason is "because he earns more"? If he earns LESS than her, surely you do know this is not true. So women should earn less because men earn more? Fantastic logic!

For the same reason having overies seems to allow women all of the choices in whether or not to have a child and make a man pay for it.

I'm not going down this road again. I cannot fix biology, and I have no wish to change the fact that both parents are and should be responsible for their offspring once they are born.

I am no fundamentally opposed to equal wages...but women have to embrace equality across the board. Until then, so long as they insist on equality where they want it, and special privledges where they want it, I'm going to stand against feminist attempts to further subjugate men.

You are smarter than that, Aidon. You are fully aware that saying "I think getting roses are romantic" or "I'd rather cook dinner than do the lawn, is that an ok division of the next hour's labour with you, mister husband of mine?" is not the same as saying "I deserve to take home less money than the guy in the cubicle next to me". Nor should it be seen as such. It is possible for evolved minds to think two thoughts at the same time. Your arguments are also so circular that several ancient Greek mathematicians would be proud of you - for instance - alimony, afaik, goes both ways, if you fixed the issue in this debate (equal pay for equal work) you'd actually see that in practice too. But to say "omg women get alimony, therefore they should earn less" when the fact that they earn less, get promoted slower etc etc are the REASONS that alimony usually goes that way.. really - come on..

I am no fundamentally opposed to equal wages

Then wtf are you on about? Unless, of course, you disagree with the basic principle that "what you want from a boss might NOT be the same as what you want in a lover/spouse, and that's perfectly okay."

If you were female, I'm assuming that you PERSONALLY would do none of those horrid things you accuse women of doing when justifying your lack of support for equal pay for equal work. You'd throw a coin to decide custody, you'd let the father be "unknown" should the man not want offspring, you'd not slap anyone with neither hand nor harassment suits ever ever (etc etc). You'd be Aidon's perfect woman. Except one thing - you gotta eat now that you're divorced and have no alimony or trust fund - so you gotta work. But unfortunately, you ARE a member of this horrid sex, so you have no choice but to accept the fact that even though you personally did none of these awful bad things, the rule of Aidon ("equality across the board or no equal pay for you") still applies to you PERSONALLY. So - Exactly how much less money than you currently earn would you ask for to do the job you're currently doing. If you're uncomfortable using proper real numbers, a percentage will do nicely.

You keep attempting to seperate issues of equality when they cannot be so seperated, necessarily.

You want equal? Lets do equal, across the board. Equal pay. Equal choice in child bearing/raising. Equal standards.

You keep attempting to seperate issues of equality when they cannot be so seperated, necessarily.

You want equal? Lets do equal, across the board. Equal pay. Equal choice in child bearing/raising. Equal standards.

Answer my question, please.

Based on the numbers I could find, the average male lab manager makes around 80-100K. I make about 48K. That's around 60% of males. The average female lab manager makes around 60K, so a bit more than I do, but still less than her male counterparts.

I think Tinsi asked me to follow up with your post.

These are the numbers from your male coworkers?

At the organization you work for.

I am not asking for average numbers. I am asking about you specifically. Do YOUR male counterparts, with equal education, certs, qualifications, seniority, etc make more than YOU?

Your entire post seems to be based on the misunderstanding that if you ask for equality in the work force, you at the same time ask to be treated in a specific way in a romantic relationship.

For most males the two are inextricably tied. If you do not realize that, you understand males very little, and women even less.

You also didn't follow up on the replies to your questions regarding wages. Please do so - there has to be a point to your asking, a clarification and all that would be nice.

The ulterior point is that I am gathering facts, hopefully to change my opinion if the facts warrant doing so. I need more information, honestly.

Yes, and I always have. Variyng between about 15% to about 30% less.
For the sake of argument and simplicity...

There are three workers working at your company.
You, Employee A.
Fred, Employee B.
Joe, Employee C.

You are all three equally qualified, have the same experience, and credentials, and time with the company.
Joe makes 100K a year.
Fred makes 85K a year. The difference between 30 and 15%.
You make 70K a year.

Let's just forget about your 70 for a moment(we can get to that later)...How do you account for the 15K a year that Fred is not making?

Why is Joe making more than Fred, if they are equally qualified for the work they are doing?

First of all - noone mentioned "for promotion" until now.

Pay is always tied to promotions. What someone makes is directly affected by it. It is an integral part of this discussion.

So - Exactly how much less money than you currently earn would you ask for to do the job you're currently doing. If you're uncomfortable using proper real numbers, a percentage will do nicely.

Exactly!

How much money one makes, is based on what they ask for, and what they are willing to hold out for to do the job; as much as qualifications, degrees, etc.

It is a negotiated factor, just like you are saying here.

For most males the two are inextricably tied. If you do not realize that, you understand males very little, and women even less.

I prefer to work for a boss with a hands-off approach. I'll be damned if I believe that should imply I want the same in a boyfriend. ;P

(fred/joe-example) Of course pay is to an extent related to what you actually ASK for. No boss with a fraction of business sense is going to insist that you accept more than what you ask for. However, that cannot explain away the entire issue here. I've personally seen examples where a company was hiring two people at the same time, to do the same job, straight from college, and the initial pay that was offered to the two were far far apart. I know that for a fact, since I was one of them (and my college results were actually better than the guy's). And regardless of gender, it IS harder to negotiate one's way up to (random number) 100k if you're initially OFFERED 60, than if the initial offer from the boss is 80K.

OMG, I think we actually have a bit of agreement.

However, that cannot explain away the entire issue here.
I even agree with that.
I just think that salary negotiation is one of the largest factors.

The last company I worked for that paid me salary, I stated what my pay was going to be during the hiring process, and got it. And asked for a 10K raise at the 6 month eval. I did not get the 10K, but I got 10%, instead.

In my last job, I made the same as my female coworkers.

Before that, I made the same as my female coworkers.

Before that I owned my own business. And made thousands of deals and negotiations. There is a pattern in how people negotiate, buy, and sell, or do not negotiate, buy, and sell.

Do very many women know that they can ask for a 10% raise after only working for a company for 6 months? How many have the 'balls' to do that?

I know my GF does, she makes 30% more than the going rate for what she does, and what her fellow equally qualified, male or female, colleagues make.

Answer my question, please.

Tinsi, just give it up. Neither Aidon, nor Fyrr, is arguing rationally when it comes to this particular topic (of equility that is). They have formed their opinion and will filter their perceptions to support their beliefs.
Debating this with them is an excercise in futility. It might be good for the soul to practice patience, but it gets rather boring after a while. We have already read all the logical fallacies, pointed them out time and again and still see them trotted out to obscure or derail the discussion next time the subject comes up (and I do not think they are even doing so intentionally, it is just what they believe).
You already asked the vital question: "What does this have to do with the principle of equal pay for equal work?" There has been no coherent answer to that, just a rehashing of the same points. Insisting on an answer is not going to do anything constructive to the discussion at hand.


Eri

People work for three major reasons: To eat, for shelter, and to provide for/improve their social standing.

Women, still, predominantly insist 'their man' make more money than they do. The easiest way for men to comply with such a ridiculous notion is to ensure that they, as men, make more than women.

I can guarantee, that if I approached a single woman making double my salary...I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. The opposite is not, and never has been true. Women actively seek out men who are more successful than they are.

I can guarantee, that if I approached a single woman making double my salary...I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

And yet, that has f*** all to do with the fact that she should be taking home just about exactly what her colleagues do.

And answer my question please.

But it doesn't have **** all to do with it.

Wages are not created in a societal vacuum.

Men make more because its expected by everyone, including women, that they should make more. Indeed, its insisted upon by women, tacitly, through their actions.

I expect equal pay will come about. I also expect that at the same time you'll see alot more 'sugar mommas'.

I suspect every reader of this thread has now concluded why you so stubbornly refuse to answer a simple question, so I'll let you off the hook now. *shakes head at how incredibly easy THAT was*

What the hell was the question if I haven't answered it yet?

I can guarantee, that if I approached a single woman making double my salary...I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

Hehe.

I know soommethiing that yoouu don't know.

Tinsi, just give it up. Neither Aidon, nor Fyrr, is....

I dunno if that is entirely accurate.

Tinsi has changed my opinion before.

I would not put it past her to do it again.

Hehe.

I know soommethiing that yoouu don't know.

You're supposed to...you're what, 273 years old or something? =P