sailordeac
Well-known member
Women should look at the bright side: when you earn less, you pay less in income taxes. And, of course, you also get hired faster due to your smaller salary.
77% figure is better than the controlled 90ish% figure and it's not close. The decisions that lead to the 90% controlled figure aren't independent of gender discrimination.
The solution should fit the problem. The 77% is not calculated within job, it's calculated as an overall aggregate and average of all jobs. That's why it's incredibly misleading. If you're trying to solve a 77% within job problem, conservatives will not be on board and frankly....those solutions won't work. That's not the problem. Research has shown that women choose different jobs than men, and those jobs pay less. I read somewhere that out of the top 20 occupations chosen by both sexes, only 4 of them overlapped. Research has also shown that women choose to deal with family more than men, and often chose to get sole custody of children in divorce as well. When looking within jobs, the disparity decreases dramatically and last year IIRC a study came out showing a reverse wage disparity among federal contractors, probably because of the emphasis on non-white males for federal contracts.So the conservatives' solution is what, I mean other than denying it exists? Arguing about the size of the crack in the highway seems to have taken precedence over actually fixing it.
The solution should fit the problem. The 77% is not calculated within job, it's calculated as an overall aggregate and average of all jobs. That's why it's incredibly misleading. If you're trying to solve a 77% within job problem, conservatives will not be on board and frankly....those solutions won't work. That's not the problem. Research has shown that women choose different jobs than men, and those jobs pay less. I read somewhere that out of the top 20 occupations chosen by both sexes, only 4 of them overlapped. Research has also shown that women choose to deal with family more than men, and often chose to get sole custody of children in divorce as well. When looking within jobs, the disparity decreases dramatically and last year IIRC a study came out showing a reverse wage disparity among federal contractors, probably because of the emphasis on non-white males for federal contracts.
So I think it would be better to define an actual problem and then see if it warrants a workable solution instead of throwing the "77%" number around like a hammer and advocating one size fits all solutions addressing problems that don't even exist. Just my 0.02.
the problem does exist in overlapping jobs too, though, even up to the c-suite
Didn't Democrats just tout Lilly Ledbetter when they pushed it through a few years back? And yet somehow that bill didn't solve all their woes? It was similarly used to bash Republicans as woman-hating troglodytes.
Pay discrimination has been illegal since 1963 and states all have their own statutes to deal with it. This is nothing more than election year posturing just like the campaign finance amendment was, and just like the Republicans voting 100 times to kill Obamacare was.
Absurd head in the sand post. You could argue the same for civil rights legislation that has yet to solve the entire af-am community's woes. It has made a lot of strides, yes, but the fact that some problems still exist is an example of why it was worthless legislation? You could say this about just about any law passed in the last century. Insanity.
the problem does exist in overlapping jobs too, though, even up to the c-suite
Didn't Democrats just tout Lilly Ledbetter when they pushed it through a few years back? And yet somehow that bill didn't solve all their woes? It was similarly used to bash Republicans as woman-hating troglodytes.
Pay discrimination has been illegal since 1963 and states all have their own statutes to deal with it. This is nothing more than election year posturing just like the campaign finance amendment was, and just like the Republicans voting 100 times to kill Obamacare was.
Absurd head in the sand post. You could argue the same for civil rights legislation that has yet to solve the entire af-am community's woes. It has made a lot of strides, yes, but the fact that some problems still exist is an example of why it was worthless legislation? You could say this about just about any law passed in the last century. Insanity.
77% figure is better than the controlled 90ish% figure and it's not close. The decisions that lead to the 90% controlled figure aren't independent of gender discrimination.
Only we aren't discussing civil rights legislation. We're talking about equal pay legislation, which was apparently resolved back in 2009 with the Mother Of All Equal Pay Bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Oh wait, you mean it wasn't? Why is that? Because the attorneys want more federal involvement in making their lawsuits easier in federal court. What business do the feds have in telling companies they can't encourage employees to keep their salary info private? Where I come from that's just common sense and manners.
My head is hardly in the sand. Nobody gives a shit about anything in DC right now. Everything, and particularly everything two months from a midterm election, is about motivating the base to vote. If you think those shitheads care more about women because they have a D next to their name, you are sadly mistaken.
It's kind of difficult to undercut, marginalize, and sideline women without eliminating the 19th Amendment.
It's kind of difficult to undercut, marginalize, and sideline women without eliminating the 19th Amendment.