Do women have lower incomes (on average) because of discrimination?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Women on the whole make less than men because women experience different things in the workplace and often are not directly employed in some of the highest paying sectors of the economy. At some point or another most working women are going to become pregnant and need to take time off for that. The fact that the United States does not subsidize maternity (or paternity) leave means that women, on the whole, are going to lose money there and incur a gap in earnings with men. Going a bit further, we have the crucial issue of childcare, another area in which many working women are at a disadvantage compared to men, because a lot of them are going to drop out of the workforce and devote time to childrearing. Again, we don't have publicly funded or administered alternatives in the United States, and so that earnings gap is, yet again, reinforced as men don't typically drop out of the paid labor force to take care of children on a daily basis. In addition, a whole host of women do very important and rewarding work as houseworkers, something they are not at all compensated for, which once again goes toward reinforcing the gap in earnings between men and women. A guaranteed basic income policy would do a lot to help out in that regard, helping pay for vital work that is often forgotten or not regarded as actual work, even though without it, no other work would be possible.

It is, I think, faulty to ignore these things when discussing wage parity between men and women. I think that at the present juncture there's far less discrimination involved when it comes to women being hired on an individual basis and individual pay rates, but that, on the whole, it is not off-base to recognize that capitalism itself is a system which subjugates women and discriminates against them by not providing the necessary services which would allow women to maintain wage parity. This is chiefly because capitalism has no interest in women achieving wage parity, because doing so would mean that women could no longer be used as cheap labor to fuel the profits of those who benefit from exploiting them.

The federal government offers subsidized day care. Also most companies give maternity leave anyway. 

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Women on the whole make less than men because women experience different things in the workplace and often are not directly employed in some of the highest paying sectors of the economy. At some point or another most working women are going to become pregnant and need to take time off for that. The fact that the United States does not subsidize maternity (or paternity) leave means that women, on the whole, are going to lose money there and incur a gap in earnings with men. Going a bit further, we have the crucial issue of childcare, another area in which many working women are at a disadvantage compared to men, because a lot of them are going to drop out of the workforce and devote time to childrearing. Again, we don't have publicly funded or administered alternatives in the United States, and so that earnings gap is, yet again, reinforced as men don't typically drop out of the paid labor force to take care of children on a daily basis. In addition, a whole host of women do very important and rewarding work as houseworkers, something they are not at all compensated for, which once again goes toward reinforcing the gap in earnings between men and women. A guaranteed basic income policy would do a lot to help out in that regard, helping pay for vital work that is often forgotten or not regarded as actual work, even though without it, no other work would be possible.

It is, I think, faulty to ignore these things when discussing wage parity between men and women. I think that at the present juncture there's far less discrimination involved when it comes to women being hired on an individual basis and individual pay rates, but that, on the whole, it is not off-base to recognize that capitalism itself is a system which subjugates women and discriminates against them by not providing the necessary services which would allow women to maintain wage parity. This is chiefly because capitalism has no interest in women achieving wage parity, because doing so would mean that women could no longer be used as cheap labor to fuel the profits of those who benefit from exploiting them.

Domestic work is compensated. It isn't taxed. You were saying?

Not being subject to taxation does not compensation make.

Women do get compensated, they are pretty much a shoe in to win a divorce settlement.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Women do get compensated, they are pretty much a shoe in to win a divorce settlement.

I would laugh if that wasn't so sad.  For better or worse, the idea that divorce is an automatic golden parachute for the woman is long dead and has been for quite some time, even in circumstances where the husband was philandering and/or abusive.  Now it is somewhat true that women do tend to be favored in custody disputes, which in many cases means they get to take care of the kids while their biological father is late or totally non-compliant with the child support, but alimony is not at all the usual result of a divorce these days.

I didn't say it was automatic. It depends on the judge. Around here the woman wins every single time. Unless you have a prenup be prepared to lose half your stuff.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Obviously as a divorce lawyer you have an advanced understanding of this issue.

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

Or what?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Ironically I am related to a divorce lawyer. But anyway I have seen almost every guy I have ever known get screwed.

Or what?

Or he'll think even less of you that he currently does, if that is possible.  I'd think his meaning was abundantly clear.

I could honestly care less. Didn't Tiger pay over a 100m to his ex? I would call that getting pretty seriously screwed.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

I thought it was pretty well-established that the answer to the OP question is yes?

Yes. The only people who disagree are Tea Party-types with their heads in the sand and Internet teenagers who've never lived in the real world.

And not that there's anything wrong with being type #2 per se. We've all been there.

Nice job insulting those who disagree with you. Anyway as I have said before, women mke less because they choose less dangerous jobs. How many women do you see studying to be a nuclear engineer?