|
Helsing posted:
I don't think calling people out/bragging that you ignored them/posting screenshots of the Leper's Colony is kosher by D&D rules either, my fellow intransigent.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't think calling people out/bragging that you ignored them/posting screenshots of the Leper's Colony is kosher by D&D rules either, my fellow intransigent. It's considered cheerleading, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
The wage gap definitely exists because of this 5 year old study done by an academic with lots of completely accurate data from industry. I like to explain the fact that the wage gap is in favor of women now (as of 2015) by the fact that most women who may not be as career focused (eg may not have the most desirable skills, or may not wish to negotiate) self select out of the high-earning years due to childbirth and raising children. 60% of women with graduate degrees only work for 3-4 years after obtaining their degree (yes, even expensive degrees such as JDs and MBAs), which is why you see so few companies rush to give maternity leave (the prevailing thought among executives is why pay them this time off when they will leave the company and workforce in general a few years after having a child). Because of that, the women that are left are the extremely driven women who are very career focused and likely have less family distractions, which means compared to the average male at that level they are able to earn more. The lower levels are statistically equal, its just at the top women are higher earners by far and that contributes to the female-favored wage gap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
anne frank fanfic posted:The wage gap definitely exists because of this 5 year old study done by an academic with lots of completely accurate data from industry. So the wage gap favors women because she has to be a supercompetent uberfrau to compete with any random schlub of a dude. Seems legit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
There's also maybe not so much a "It's A Choice: Case Closed" quality to that business of women leaving the workforce even if they have degrees when childcare is often more expensive than rent
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You seem to have missed the point, which was that there always seems to be a reason why minorities need to play second fiddle to social reforms that, just by happenstance, benefit the white population as much or more than minorities. Your explanation of why they need to take a back seat to women's issues was equally as tonedeaf as those of Berniebros, a common topic of discussion on this forum. The real problem that folks like you continue to ignore is that change doesn't happen unless there is solidarity across large groups to act as one unit. And yes, gender is absolutely something that needs to be dealt with, given the differences in pay between minority men and minority women. Gender alone or race alone won't solve these issue, they must be addressed at the same time. Ever heard of LGBT? Do you not understand how useful it is for members of each group to work together even though their specific issues might be different? This isn't difficult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
ReadyToHuman posted:There's also maybe not so much a "It's A Choice: Case Closed" quality to that business of women leaving the workforce even if they have degrees when childcare is often more expensive than rent If women view having children as more important than career, they shouldn't be surprised when they are shoved aside by people who choose to focus on career.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:29
|
|
on the left posted:If women view having children as more important than career, they shouldn't be surprised when they are shoved aside by people who choose to focus on career. VHEM 4 life, brah.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
on the left posted:If women view having children as more important than career, they shouldn't be surprised when they are shoved aside by people who choose to focus on career. There's a complicated issue here of women being pressured into doing this because of sexist notions of gender roles and the fact many women do this completely willingly. I say this as someone who is currently feeling pressure to give up my career to have children because my wife makes more money, and someone who's mother in law had a Harvard education which she used for about 3 years before she became a full time mom and claims it was the best decision of her life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
There's probably a related issue here of corporate culture often demanding insane working hours. It's kind of surreal when you realize that the economy simultaneously over works people and yet cannot find enough jobs for the entire populace. Some of that can at attributed to a mismatch in skills but I also think part of the problem is that there are people who work to live and then there are people who live to work, and right now much of the world seems to be run by the people who live to work. They are quite happy pulling 60-70+ hour weeks as a computer joceky, investment bankers or lawyers or CEOs because frankly they have no life worth living outside their workplace, but unfortunately they're setting norms that the rest of the economy is supposed to follow. I remember hearing some gossip about a guy who does investment banking but didn't like to work weekends. The rest of his office thought this was totally bizarre and other house wives in his community marveled at the fact that he would be at home with his kids rather than making more money at the office. This is a guy who was already unquestionably in the top 1% of the income distribution (realistically, probably the 1% of the 1%) but people were still confused that he wasn't spending every waking moment trying to get even more cash. At least the old feudal aristocracy seemed to live a life worth envying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's a complicated issue here of women being pressured into doing this because of sexist notions of gender roles and the fact many women do this completely willingly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There's probably a related issue here of corporate culture often demanding insane working hours. It's kind of surreal when you realize that the economy simultaneously over works people and yet cannot find enough jobs for the entire populace. Some of that can at attributed to a mismatch in skills but I also think part of the problem is that there are people who work to live and then there are people who live to work, and right now much of the world seems to be run by the people who live to work. They are quite happy pulling 60-70+ hour weeks as a computer joceky, investment bankers or lawyers or CEOs because frankly they have no life worth living outside their workplace, but unfortunately they're setting norms that the rest of the economy is supposed to follow. Achievers (20% of population) include the leaders in business, the professions, and government. Competent, self-reliant, efficient, Achievers tend to be materialistic, hard-working, oriented to fame and success, and comfort loving. These are the affluent people who have created the economic system in response to the American dream. As such, they are the defenders of the economic status quo. Achievers are among the best adjusted of Americans, being well satisfied with their place in the system. Only 5% of Achievers come from minority backgrounds. Achievers are psychologically more advanced than Emulators in having a wider spectrum of values, in being more open and trusting, and in clearly having brought their ambitions into better alignment with reality. Achievers are supporters of technology and are open to progress, but they resist radical change. After all, they are on top and too radical a change might shake them off!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:There's also the counter-trend of men not doing the same for their children, both because they're not expected to, and that there's this assumption that doing so emasculates them - which is something you see both men and women spout. I feel like this it's dying out a bit, though it may be personal anecdotes giving me a false impression. When I first married my wife I was still in the army (which is still in the 1950s when it comes to gender roles) and I got this a bit. But the thing is it doesn't even make sense by the sexist role logic, I always responded by saying "so you think a she should have married some rich super successful guy normally? Okay so the fact that she married me when I had nothing but looks and personality and the salary of an army private it's supposed to make me feel emasculated... how?" Usually the response was a dumbfounded look. The whole concept it's dumb, old school gender roles make being the lesser economic partner an achievement as a man with even the slightest bit of critical thinking. It's kind of amusing though because since I've become part of the student veteran community it seems like I see more and more the exact opposite, I literally walked into a veteran's lounge a month or two ago to about 5 guys gossiping about who had the girlfriend with the most promising or prestigious career. I think the wage gap is a problem, but I honestly feel like it's an artifact of feminism not having been successful enough for long enough for large amounts of women to have moved into leadership roles that can typically take 20-30 years to reach. I know it's easy to say this as a man but I think by the end of this decade this will be all but gone. I also admit my views have been coloured by being married to a women that I had a long and rather ugly fight with because she refused to identify as female in her law school application because she was too proud to stomach the idea of not beating out her male peers by pure academic merit. An argument I only won by playing the "you privileged gently caress this isn't a game, anyone I grew up with would literally kill for this opportunity" card. So I guess I should also say my views are also coloured by having a substantial number of women in my life that are significantly more privileged then I.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I feel like this it's dying out a bit, though it may be personal anecdotes giving me a false impression. When I first married my wife I was still in the army (which is still in the 1950s when it comes to gender roles) and I got this a bit. But the thing is it doesn't even make sense by the sexist role logic, I always responded by saying "so you think a she should have married some rich super successful guy normally? Okay so the fact that she married me when I had nothing but looks and personality and the salary of an army private it's supposed to make me feel emasculated... how?" But things are more complicated than that, even within prestigious careers. I work on labor issues within academia. One of the patterns in academia is that even as gender representation has started to even out across many fields, there is still a huge difference across types of universities. In particular, women are much more likely to be underrepresented in research universities when compared to teaching oriented universities. For a long time the thinking was that teaching oriented universities had lower research expectations, and therefore lower workloads, so women were self selecting into them. After further research, turns out that the workload difference is non-existent. Faculty at research universities work just as many hours as faculty in teaching intensive ones, though they do different things. So how come women end up in teaching oriented institutions much more frequently? One big reason is geographic mobility. To land a research oriented job, the person has to be willing to move across the country for a postdoc, then again for a tenure track job. And as it turns out partners/families are a lot less willing to relocate like this for the wife's job, as opposed to the husband's job. Since there are more teaching oriented universities, and they tend to have less requirements in terms of specialty, they end up being particularly attractive for geographically restricted women. I.e., women end up being a lot more likely to end up at the local community or liberal arts college because they will just want to hire a general biologist, while research universities will have a very narrow specialty requirement that would likely require someone to move halfway cross the country to land at a research university. I personally know a case of a female scientist who gave up a job making 70k+ to teach at a local college making low 40s because her bank manager husband got transferred. Likewise, I know a former harvard associate professor who went to a state school because of her husband's career, despite the fact that harvard paid more than both their new jobs combined. And while my work is focused specifically on academia, this is part of a broader pattern. Lot's of young people say they want their marriages to be egalitarian and share the burden of child-rearing and so on equally. But when that is not possible (be it because one career requires moving a lot, or because one career has long hours, etc), the fall back position still is man becomes the breadwinner. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/upshot/millennial-men-find-work-and-family-hard-to-balance.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
This article1 has an interesting paragraph on how women value themselves in comparison to men:quote:This is more than just conjecture. The fact that women undervalue themselves (and by extension, the work they do) has been amply demonstrated in carefully designed experimental economics studies. The two most frequently studied economics games are the dictator and ultimatum games. In the dictator game, one individual is given full authority to keep or share a sum of money with another player. On average, women keep less for themselves than men do. In the ultimatum game, one person is allowed to make an offer as to how the money should be divided, and the other party is given the opportunity to accept or reject the offer. If the offer is rejected, no one gets any money. Both men and women make lower offers to women than to men. Other studies have found that women negotiated harder when they were working on behalf of others rather than for themselves, which implies a reluctance to push their own interests. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Has Child Care been brought up? Child care is crazy expensive, that unless you have a decent-paying job, it can be easier or even cheaper for the wife to become a stay-at-home mom for several years. Dropping out of the job market for years will stop progress in building your career and lower your pay substantially if/when you return to the workforce. There are also crazy welfare cliffs for single moms. If you are making less than 70K, it makes more sense to work a job that pays less than 30K than it does something between 30-70K. Single moms under 30K are likely to qualify for EITC, CCAP, Food Stamps, LEAP, Housing assistance, TANF, Medicaid and other benefits that are worth more than 40K/year in addition to the <30K earned. Not many people can jump from a job that pays 25K to one that pays >70K even with the addition of a college degree, so they often hit a brick wall in their career until the child(ren) are 18+ and non-dependant. I feel that the income restrictions from these benefits needs to be higher, and the benefits themselves gradually going to 0 rather than binary so that single moms actually have incentive to move up in their career instead of being punished for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:But things are more complicated than that, even within prestigious careers. I work on labor issues within academia. One of the patterns in academia is that even as gender representation has started to even out across many fields, there is still a huge difference across types of universities. In particular, women are much more likely to be underrepresented in research universities when compared to teaching oriented universities. For a long time the thinking was that teaching oriented universities had lower research expectations, and therefore lower workloads, so women were self selecting into them. After further research, turns out that the workload difference is non-existent. Faculty at research universities work just as many hours as faculty in teaching intensive ones, though they do different things. So how come women end up in teaching oriented institutions much more frequently? One big reason is geographic mobility. To land a research oriented job, the person has to be willing to move across the country for a postdoc, then again for a tenure track job. And as it turns out partners/families are a lot less willing to relocate like this for the wife's job, as opposed to the husband's job. Since there are more teaching oriented universities, and they tend to have less requirements in terms of specialty, they end up being particularly attractive for geographically restricted women. I.e., women end up being a lot more likely to end up at the local community or liberal arts college because they will just want to hire a general biologist, while research universities will have a very narrow specialty requirement that would likely require someone to move halfway cross the country to land at a research university. Interesting, my anecdotal experience has been the exact opposite, though just that: anecdotal. It's also shocking to me that people would choose geographic priority on anything other then who makes the most money unless the disparity is inconsequential. (edit: of course I mean if you're locating based on career instead of picking a location based on where you want to live)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:Has Child Care been brought up? Yes it has, on this page and well i guess the conclusion is: shoulda thought about that before having children. Though weirdly, this does not adversely impact fathers, and instead, the opposite happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Im some (if not most) work places in America this will literally gently caress you. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Your manager could be in your poo poo - other employees might freak out - you get odd / fewer shifts, etc. Basically anything they can to punish you for talking turkey and possibly organizing short of the legal thresholds of retribution. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Your manager could be in your poo poo - other employees might freak out - you get odd / fewer shifts, etc. pretty sure that post was a boring throwaway comment about your use of the word "literally"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
botany posted:pretty sure that post was a boring throwaway comment about your use of the word "literally" More productively, there are ways to share salary that don't involve potential problems since you can maintain anonymity. Writing down numbers and throwing them in a hat is an old fashioned method.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:It was, though it was particularly odd in the context of a discussion on sex discrimination. The stigma against people knowing your salary is only part of the issue, though, and it's not even the biggest part. The real risk is that your employer knows you're sharing your salary - just being part of the hat-sharing circle is enough to brand you as a troublemaker. And, while there are rules against explicit retaliation for organizing (including salary-sharing) there aren't any rules against management suddenly deciding you're not cut out for plum assignments and that you deserve to have the book thrown at you for the stuff in the back of the employee conduct policy nobody ever pays any attention to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:VHEM 4 life, brah. You've got a problem with American capitalism, not antinatalism. Please though, blame the people that must adapt to our system, versus the system itself that rewards people for choosing not to have children. Radbot fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:It was, though it was particularly odd in the context of a discussion on sex discrimination. They could do it in the same way that my mother sorted out disputes between me and my brother. One of us would divide it in half, the other one would get to pick which half we wanted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Instead of having slapfights about whether race or gender wage gaps are more important without providing any data, let's post a bit about the US racial wage gap as well. Here's what I can find from looking around, anyone who's more knowledgeable on the subject please chime in. Here's a source comparing different races and genders' pay grades over time. This information is from multiple US government sources. As of 2015, black men make less than white women before controls. Black women fare worst of all, making 64% of a white man's salary before controls. A study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison argued that about half of the black-white pay gap was due to "human capital and region", 20% was explained by the concentration of blacks in low-status occupations, and the rest is unexplained (but probably at least partially due to direct discrimination). Another in Social Science Quarterly found that blacks made less than whites working in the same industry. These studies are over 10 years old, though. In discussion on other races, White Latinos were found to make more than non-white Latinos (see the last link, this is regardless of immigration status). Obviously, discussion of Latinos has much to do with immigration in the general case, though. There doesn't seem to be much information on Native Americans, although they are the poorest of all. Asian-Americans are the only race that make more than whites. There are many issues to discuss here. Besides discrimination, we have to take into account the concentration of different races in different fields, globalization, region (blacks are concentrated in the South which is backwards economically), poverty and access to education, cultural attitudes and expectations. Here's a few statistics on Western countries that I dug up just from googling around. This is all just about the general gap regarding gender. Please examine these sources and discuss whether or not they're a pile of poo poo, or come up with alternative studies: - The figure of 4-10%, 6%, or thereabouts was brought up by many as the accepted figure after controls are applied. This appears to be based on data from CONSAD, the OECD, AAUW and the US Department of Labour. I believe this only applies to the US? - Effectronica mentioned the 2015 Pew study on the US gender wage gap. Here it is, as you can see s/he was telling the truth about the gap being 16% before controls. For younger women, however, they only make 7% less. The uncontrolled gap seems to be narrowing over time. This study doesn't say anything about people in the same job with the same qualifications. - Here's a Guardian article about the UK study mentioned upthread, where it was found that women in their 20s outearned men of the same age. This study was based on data from the Office of National Statistics. It was found that after 30, the trend reversed, suggesting that social expectations may have more relevance than discrimination in this case. The overall unadjusted gap appears to be 19.7% in the UK. If you follow that link, you can also see a map of the unadjusted gap across Europe. - The Australian Government claimed that the unadjusted gap was 17.87% in 2009. A 2010 article that examined the gap while controlling for occupation and qualifications found that "major part of the earnings gap is simply due to women managers being female... [despite the] characteristics of male and female managers being remarkably similar, their earnings are very different, suggesting that discrimination plays an important role in this outcome." An organization called Catalyst found that occupations traditionally dominated by men actually had a smaller pay gap than those traditionally dominated by women, while economist Paul Miller found that the gap was much larger among high earners (those in the 95th percentile). The gap also seems to be more severe in Western Australia. Stuff people should provide more info on: - Is there better information about the pay gap after controls in countries that are not the US? - Anyone got any info on non-Western countries? I also want to hear more about the racial pay gap in countries other than the US. - More up-to-date info on black women- most of the relevant stuff I could find was from the 90s. - Anne Frank fanfic just said women outearn men at the top levels of corporate infrastructure, while other posters literally said the exact opposite, and the statistics I posted above seem to favour the latter. I'd like people to post their source for both. - Anybody got any interesting statistics about different fields that have particularly large or small pay gaps?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Ughhh I'm not editing again it takes too long to re-copy in the links. Please pretend I said "as of 2013" in that second paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 04:02
|
|