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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:39:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Do women have lower incomes (on average) because of discrimination?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (I/O)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 61

Author Topic: Do women have lower incomes (on average) because of discrimination?  (Read 3599 times)
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 08, 2014, 05:20:30 PM »

No. Women have more flexible schedules and don't work as many hours (hence more part-time jobs) so its understandable why they don't make as much. Especially when women have higher education levels than men (again, on average) I reject the premise that the employers just pay women less just because they are sexist.

I know the answer is more complex than a simple yes or no, but for the sake of the poll just pick which way you would lean on more.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2014, 05:32:03 PM »

Assuming you adjust for things such as career choice, job choice, hours worked etc, no... for the most part. I think even after all the adjustments women earn something like 95-98% of what a man does.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2014, 05:34:36 PM »

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.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2014, 05:51:30 PM »

No. The pay gap is 2% for same job, same experience, same credentials.

Women make less because they expect more from work than just pay. Liberals think choice is a human rights catastrophe.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2014, 06:04:34 PM »

I think it's a very complicated question. 

My experience is that men and women tend to see the world in different ways.  Women tend to care more about having a family and a balanced life.  They also tend to have more humility and maturity at a younger age.  Men tend to be more arrogant and willing to work long hours at boring jobs, to the detriment of their families.  There's also this old boys network thing where men bond over sports and golf more naturally, while women need to consciously network to get ahead.  That's just my experience, I suppose some people could see that as horribly sexist.

However, think of it this way.  The two iconic high paying jobs of our time are the tech industry and finance.  Those industries are very male dominated and have some of the highest compensation.  Do we want more of our society to act like rich people in those industries?  I would argue not.  Making the most money is not the singular goal in life.  Women, to their credit, don't give up their lives to work jobs they don't like just for the sake of money and power. 
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2014, 06:29:10 PM »

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?
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2014, 09:55:07 PM »

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.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2014, 10:38:57 PM »

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.

Yeah, that seems a stupid idea to introduce into discussion. I suppose by that definition almost every human activity is compensated. Lucky us that the government is so benevolent as to compensate me for taking out the trash from my room.
Logged
MurrayBannerman
murraybannerman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 756


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2014, 11:57:51 PM »

I think the older class of women's wages were pushed down because of discrimination, and because of that their wages are still depressed today. Modern, younger women do not have these same problems though.

FYI, Pew came out with a study about this today.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/08/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2014, 05:46:50 AM »

Yes (not a complete tool)
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2014, 06:03:22 AM »

Perhaps, but certainly not the 77% number and I can't trust anybody that throws that number out there in argument.  At most a couple of percentage points are from discrimination.  Most of it is because women don't tend to do those dangerous jobs that pay a lot, they don't tend to work in STEM fields that pay a lot and they make choices that are good for them, but bad for their money making prospects...and that's fine.  It's not a great national tragedy that should be the focus of a political party's next election.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2014, 07:32:50 AM »

It's a stupid question. Women have lower incomes for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is discrimination. It also seems like some people still haven't gotten the memo of the Lucas critique, i.e. peoples' behaviour depends on their expectations. So discrimination can have an indirect effect that is much larger than the direct one.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2014, 07:37:22 AM »

those of us who actually talk to women know that they are routinely harassed by men in virtually every setting, including the workplace. This necessarily affects their performance and the career choices that they make.
I asked the wife, she said she's taken much more sh**t from other women than she has from dudes, but she's worked with a lot more women than men.  I'm not saying women don't take sh**t from men at work (just like men do), but I find it hard to believe it's routine and in every setting.
Logged
Randy Bobandy
socialisthoosier
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2014, 10:38:57 AM »

Of course.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2014, 10:57:29 AM »

Yeah, that seems a stupid idea to introduce into discussion. I suppose by that definition almost every human activity is compensated. Lucky us that the government is so benevolent as to compensate me for taking out the trash from my room.

As I recall, Senator TNF brought up the concept of imputed income. He said that domestic work is not compensated, yet the product/services of domestic labor are owned almost entirely by the person doing the work and by the family unit. Imputed income is unique because it is untaxed. Furthermore, if we added all of the untaxed imputed income to GDP (substitution method), many third-world nations wouldn't look so poor, and the revolution would be undermined.

The world works opposite to his characterization, which should surprise no one since revolutionary communism is a reaction to mercantile monarchy. Money and hard assets are the obsession. Imputed income and intellectual property are largely ignored.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2014, 11:26:43 AM »

Yes, discrimination is still a reason, even if it's not as bad as it was in the past.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,222
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2014, 12:51:06 PM »

Yes, but to be fair, a lot of it is unintentional.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2014, 01:11:50 PM »

Yeah, that seems a stupid idea to introduce into discussion. I suppose by that definition almost every human activity is compensated. Lucky us that the government is so benevolent as to compensate me for taking out the trash from my room.

As I recall, Senator TNF brought up the concept of imputed income. He said that domestic work is not compensated, yet the product/services of domestic labor are owned almost entirely by the person doing the work and by the family unit. Imputed income is unique because it is untaxed. Furthermore, if we added all of the untaxed imputed income to GDP (substitution method), many third-world nations wouldn't look so poor, and the revolution would be undermined.

The world works opposite to his characterization, which should surprise no one since revolutionary communism is a reaction to mercantile monarchy. Money and hard assets are the obsession. Imputed income and intellectual property are largely ignored.


As much as I enjoy throwing large, jargon-y words at people, I'm gonna have to ask you to give it to me in English.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2014, 01:15:08 PM »

There is an element to it, but I think it is a complex issue that cannot be addressed in a once sentence post with (normal) behind it.
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2014, 02:22:49 PM »

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. 
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2014, 02:26:06 PM »

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.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2014, 03:33:19 PM »

Matt Yglesias has a good article on why the gender pay gap is real; even if you control for everything else (which is dumb), discrimination is still costing women about 4.5% of their full paychecks (which is a significant amount of money!!); and the other things people control for still probably represent structural sexism that we should strive to do something about.

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/9/5597392/fancy-math-cant-erase-the-gender-pay-gap
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2014, 05:40:03 PM »

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.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2014, 05:45:35 PM »

Single childless women in their 20s are stuck with a mere $1.08 for every dollar a comparable man earns.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2010-09-01-single-women_N.htm
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2014, 10:57:26 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 13 queries.