Is it still true that women aren't paid as much as

[Renegade]

Thank God!

I wasn't aware that anarchists believed in God!!

I ask: so what? because men can do all those things too and baby-sitting is becoming more and more in vogue.

Because as you said it is all about perceptions. When more men stay at home and baby-sit, then perhaps those preceptions too will change.

[Charles Anthony]

I wasn't aware that anarchists believed in God!!

Why not??? Anarchists are the only honest people who truly promote Peace On Earth and all that stuff. Everybody else just uses it as a cover.

Because as you said it is all about perceptions. When more men stay at home and baby-sit, then perhaps those preceptions too will change.

Hold on.

The realities of family dynamics and childrearing will change. From that, the perceptions will change but in a free labor market, we should always expect a wage gap. I am not saying that it is right or nor I am saying that it is wrong. Rather, I am saying that we should expect it.

Similarly, I think it is disappointing that we have to pay hundreds of dollars for a pair of sneakers despite the fact that they cost a few bucks to make. Unfortunately, sneakers are a glamor item among youth and thus, the market exhibits high prices. People who just want to keep their feet dry are out of luck.

Even if everybody in the whole world wants to go right back to work the instant their child is born, women will inherently be at a disadvantage in the labor force. Rather than thinking "Hmmm... what are the chances that this gal might get pregnant and I will have to replace her for a year's worth of maternity leave...." employers will think "Hmmm... what are the chances that this gal might get pregnant and I will have to replace her for a day while she is going through contractions and labor... " instead. Employers will NEVER think that way for a man. Thus, the woman who accepts a lower salary will be hired faster than a woman who waits for pay equity.

[Renegade]

Why not??? Anarchists are the only honest people who truly promote Peace On Earth and all that stuff. Everybody else just uses it as a cover.

Relax. I was kidding.

The realities of family dynamics and childrearing will change. From that, the perceptions will change but in a free labor market, we should always expect a wage gap. I am not saying that it is right or nor I am saying that it is wrong. Rather, I am saying that we should expect it.

I agree, but how is that different than anything I said? Of course perceptions will change, but never to the point where employers will consider men and women equivalent from a workforce perspective.

Even if everybody in the whole world wants to go right back to work the instant their child is born, women will inherently be at a disadvantage in the labor force. Rather than thinking "Hmmm... what are the chances that this gal might get pregnant and I will have to replace her for a year's worth of maternity leave...." employers will think "Hmmm... what are the chances that this gal might get pregnant and I will have to replace her for a day while she is going through contractions and labor... " instead. Employers will NEVER think that way for a man. Thus, the woman who accepts a lower salary will be hired faster than a woman who waits for pay equity.

You had me on your side until you posted this extreme example. How many children does an average woman have? Let 'say 2. In your farfetched example above an employer would lose the average woman for less than 1 day a year due to pregnancy. (There woudl be some women who would never have kids, some who already had them).

A single day over the lifetime of employement would be such an insignificant factor that it would not even be considered. Not only is the period where the employer would lose the employee small, but the employer woudl assume that the employee woudl catch up for missed work. Replacement of workers on maternity only becomes an issue when the replacement period is longer.

Your farfetched example is not valid to prove your point.

[Saturn]

It is discrimination.

Agreed.

Thus, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will CERTAINLY be in the back of every marginally responsible employer's mind. It is reasonable to expect employers to look down at a potential female employee. It is all about perception.

I would actually expect any marginally responsible employers to look at the actual costs of hiring male and female employees, instead of jumping to conclusions. I haven't seen any studies that have shown that hiring women costs roughly 20% more than hiring men and that it is reasonable to pay women roughly 20% less.

I would also expect them to consider the shit they can get themselves into when word gets around and employees find out that they've been getting less for the same work based on gender and perceptions. WarMart certainly got into a lot of shit there.

From what I've seen the wage gap between men and women is still quite large even the education, experience (which would reflect pregnancies), age, work responsibilities, etc. are controlled for. Do you have any studies that show the opposite?

[Melanie_]

When more men stay at home and baby-sit, then perhaps those preceptions too will change.

Men don't babysit their own kids - they parent them.

Career interruptions happen, and will certainly have an impact on future earnings. But employers who factor in the possibility of pregnancy occuring sometime in the future, and base their hiring decisions on this, are discriminating on the basis of gender. Whatever may or may not occur in the future, you have to hire the candidate who presents the best combination of education and experience for the job. I ran a business for a couple of years, varying between 10 - 14 employees; as a woman, I could never justify basing my hiring decisions on an assumption of what they might do sometime down the road. Maybe if more women were in the position of making the hiring decisions, we wouldn't see as much gender discrimination based solely on speculation. (Hypocritical, perhaps, but we could give it a shot and see how it works.)

[Charles Anthony]

Relax. I was kidding.

I know. I was trying to stretch out the comedy but sometimes humor does not come across predictably in writing.

I agree, but how is that different than anything I said?

It is not.

Your farfetched example is not valid to prove your point.

The reason I supplied that extreme and implausible scenario is to demonstrate how unlikely the disparity in wages will ever get closed. The closest the wage gap will ever get is with my ridiculous example. Yet, even with my ridiculous example there is technically going to be a small gap. Ergo, my far-fetched example proves my point.

I would also expect them to consider the shit they can get themselves into when word gets around and employees find out that they've been getting less for the same work based on gender and perceptions. WarMart certainly got into a lot of shit there.

I believe stereotyping and discrimination in hiring practices is actually a LOT easier and more pervasive than we want to believe. Have you ever seen joe-jobs that require resumes handed in person to the manager? The manager wants to get a glimpse of the applicant before "wasting" time on an interview.

From what I've seen the wage gap between men and women is still quite large even the education, experience (which would reflect pregnancies), age, work responsibilities, etc. are controlled for. Do you have any studies that show the opposite?

No. I believe your ascertion is correct.

But employers who factor in the possibility of pregnancy occuring sometime in the future, and base their hiring decisions on this, are discriminating on the basis of gender.

Correct. It is discrimination but it is a real risk: women might possibly get pregnant. On the other hand, men most likely will NOT get pregnant. There is no other trait between men and women that is so extremely black and white. I am not saying it is right.

Whatever may or may not occur in the future, you have to hire the candidate who presents the best combination of education and experience for the job.

You should also check their references. What if their previous employers all said: "Gee, you know, we really liked Frank but he seems to get the flu all year round. We did everything to accomodate his schedule but he started to get embarassed about missing so much work. Poor guy. Eventually, he resigned so that he could look for a part-time job. We love him dearly and we wish him all of the best." Fair or not, over the course of Frank's entire working life, he will never reach wage parity with other people who are generally healthy for the simple reason that he tends to miss work.

I ran a business for a couple of years, varying between 10 - 14 employees; as a woman, I could never justify basing my hiring decisions on an assumption of what they might do sometime down the road.

If you ever had to deal with an employee going on maternity leave you would know that people-who-might-go-on-maternity-leave cost more to employ than others.

Maybe if more women were in the position of making the hiring decisions, we wouldn't see as much gender discrimination based solely on speculation. (Hypocritical, perhaps, but we could give it a shot and see how it works.)

I would not discourage that at all. In my mind, I believe it is an extension of chivalry and opening doors for women and serving women first at restaurants. However, it comes at a cost to the employer but it is an honorable cost. The bitter truth is that most individual women have very little bargaining power in the work-force. As a result, the aggregate statistics will reflect a cold-hearted disadvantage.

[Renegade]

The reason I supplied that extreme and implausible scenario is to demonstrate how unlikely the disparity in wages will ever get closed. The closest the wage gap will ever get is with my ridiculous example. Yet, even with my ridiculous example there is technically going to be a small gap. Ergo, my far-fetched example proves my point.

Here's why it doesn't. There are a variety of of conditions which affect men but not women. For example, a man might have to lose work time to undergo an operation for testicular cancer. That is a condition which a woman will never be faced with. For your far-fetched example to stand up, you would have to prove that the days lost by women (in your far-fetched example) still outweigh any time lost by men-only conditions.

Here's another reason why your far-fetched example doesn't work. Job-hiring and raise-determination decisions are made by humans. Humans to simplify decision-making, will ignore all but the most significant criteria. When a criteria becomes insignifcant, as it is in your far-fetched example, it will be ignored. Now, if it was a computer making those decisions and it considered all factors, then maybe you have a point.

[Charles Anthony]

For your far-fetched example to stand up, you would have to prove that the days lost by women (in your far-fetched example) still outweigh any time lost by men-only conditions.

Correct. I would have to collect such statistics. I do not have such statistics and thus, I can not prove it. All I can do is postulate as I stated originally.

I will now re-formulate my belief:

It is not reasonable for an employer to believe that the potential days lost by a male employee due to men-only conditions will reach one continuous year and be required to re-hire that same man in his exact same job.

When all other labor characteristics are held equal, men and women differ in terms of women-only conditions and men-only conditions. When looking at the incidence and probability of all potential disruptions in the workforce, I am convinced that the women-only (pregnancy being the main one) conditions outweigh work disruption than do men-only conditions throughout the entire population. I am convinced that potential employers consider this before hiring an employee.

Humans to simplify decision-making, will ignore all but the most significant criteria. When a criteria becomes insignifcant, as it is in your far-fetched example, it will be ignored.

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of pregnant women tend to step out from work (as they would for a coffee) to give birth and then step back into work? I think not. For my "criteria" to become insignificant, that is what must be assumed.

Forgive me but you are missing the point of my far-fetched example.

My far-fetched example will not likely ever occur. Even if it does, I am saying that historically (from which we are observing a wage-gap) it did not. The reality will differ from my example by leading to a great "significant criteria" and thus, a wider wage gap. I am now suggesting that historically, employers will look at potential employees and wonder: "What is the chance that this candidate will be out of work for an extended period of time?" and women will always be discriminated against due to women-only conditions (pregnancy being the main one) compared to men-only conditions.

[Renegade]

It is not reasonable for an employer to believe that the potential days lost by a male employee due to men-only conditions will reach one continuous year and be required to re-hire that same man in his exact same job.

When all other labor characteristics are held equal, men and women differ in terms of women-only conditions and men-only conditions. When looking at the incidence and probability of all potential disruptions in the workforce, I am convinced that the women-only (pregnancy being the main one) conditions outweigh work disruption than do men-only conditions throughout the entire population. I am convinced that potential employers consider this before hiring an employee.

I agree.

Humans to simplify decision-making, will ignore all but the most significant criteria. When a criteria becomes insignifcant, as it is in your far-fetched example, it will be ignored.

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of pregnant women tend to step out from work (as they would for a coffee) to give birth and then step back into work? I think not. For my "criteria" to become insignificant, that is what must be assumed.

No, I'm not suggesting it at all, but your far-fetched scenerio is. The logical conclusion of your far-fetched scenario is that the lost time due to pregnancy, becomes insignificant (A single day lost is insignificant). I agree in the real world that doesn't happen so the possibility of pregnancy is a significant criteria.

Forgive me but you are missing the point of my far-fetched example.

My far-fetched example will not likely ever occur. Even if it does, I am saying that historically (from which we are observing a wage-gap) it did not. The reality will differ from my example by leading to a great "significant criteria" and thus, a wider wage gap. I am now suggesting that historically, employers will look at potential employees and wonder: "What is the chance that this candidate will be out of work for an extended period of time?" and women will always be discriminated against due to women-only conditions (pregnancy being the main one) compared to men-only conditions.

Yes I may have missed the point of your example, and end up picking at nits. sorry.