A post for Olivia H and Luxury Daphne, and anyone else who cared to ask

[WTF]

For those of you feminist that are willing to actually read what is happening and not what you think is happening which is to say we male chauvinists pigs are trying to hold you down , except to play hide the weenie a couple of times per week. I offer up the simple article below.



http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/0...-the-wage-gap/


The marital asymmetry hypothesis and specifically, child rearing, seems to be of huge importance here. And luckily, there is an easy way to test the importance of it; namely compare the wages of never-married women to that of never-married men. In 1982, never-married women earned 91% of what never-married men did. (12) In 1971, never-married-women in their thirties earned slightly more than never-married men (13). Today, among men and women living alone from the age of 21-35, there is no wage gap. (14) Among college-educated men and women between 40 and 64 who have never married, men made an average of $40,000 a year and women made an average of $47,000! (15)

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

NO YOU IDIOT! What I said is women are paid seventy cents on the dollar. That's true. I never said it was because men held women down. I said it's a complex social construct. Jezus H Fucking Christ. Read! God Damn!

Then why would you post this?

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And you male chauvinists aren't realistic if you think it will go on forever like it has. It will change. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will. .

What is going to change? Men are going to start having kids?

As this thread has proven it is mainly market conditions as the cause of pay disparity not male chauvinists like you implied. Just like I said, you tried to imply that it was the man keeping women down. When I called bullshit, you switched gears to many reasons.

Your problem is the written record. Evidently you are used to lying and there being no record of you doing so. That only works when there is no written record.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

Sometimes the discrepancy IS because of institutionalized discrimination. Sometimes it is Supply and Demand. Sometimes it's due differences between the physical capabilities of the sexes.

You seem to be confusing two different things also.

1) Supply and Demand always determine price.

2) Why the difference in Supply and Demand for women/men and thus different pay scale discrepancy.

Those are two different things. Supply and Demand always determine price. Trying to determine why there is a discrepancy in supply and demand and thus a different pay scale for both sexes is the tricky (pardon the pun) part.

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

It's just too complex to pigeonhole into even a handful of reasons.

Well researchers have done so. They have narrowed it down to 7%. Where it was 30% has been narrowed to less than 7%. So they have made what seems complex ....quite easy. All one has to do is Google.

What you and others seem to be doing is debating the simplicity of say me saying that "Starting a car is simple. All you have to do is turn the key on."

You seem to want to debate that, by throwing in how hard it would be to start a car if I had to build the car before starting it. I agree with you, that would be a complex problem.

But much like researchers have ferreted out the reason for pay discrepancy and auto workers have built start-able cars....figuring out how to either start a car or why there is a pay discrepancy are quite simple.

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

.

On another note, am I the only one that gets inexplicably wet when OLivia calls WTF, "Pet." I'm sorry WTF, but for some odd reason it turns me on...

On the debate at hand, SpicyPants provides the best insight. There are so many factors that result in the salary discrepancy.

In the area of law, female lawyers come out of school and enter the field making the same amount as their male counterparts. But over time, many women follow what we call the "Mommy Track" instead of the Partner Track. They CHOOSE to work fewer billable hours in order to have a family. So overall, when you average salaries, women make less, but it's for a good and legitimate reason.
.

You are good. First you point out Olivia calling others names and then you work in that in the legal field her implication about the reason for unequal pay do not hold water. All the while getting her to agree with you! Kinda like Tom Sawyer getting the other boys to paint the fence. I tip my hat you my dear.

[SpiceItUp]

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

On the debate at hand, SpicyPants provides the best insight. There are so many factors that result in the salary discrepancy.

In the area of law, female lawyers come out of school and enter the field making the same amount as their male counterparts. But over time, many women follow what we call the "Mommy Track" instead of the Partner Track. They CHOOSE to work fewer billable hours in order to have a family. So overall, when you average salaries, women make less, but it's for a good and legitimate reason.

Sometimes the discrepancy IS because of institutionalized discrimination. Sometimes it is Supply and Demand. Sometimes it's due differences between the physical capabilities of the sexes.

It's just too complex to pigeonhole into even a handful of reasons.

I have no idea on incomes of first year lawyers fresh out of law school. But, interestingly enough, according to The American Bar Association report entitled, "A Current Glance at Women in the Law: February 2013" even female equity partners earn 89% of what male equity partners earn.

The 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex" shows female lawyers overall earning 81.6% of their male counterparts, perhaps in some part due to the Mommy Track issue.

An interesting paper out of Vanderbilt University addressed the issues you mentioned and found that career aspirations of female lawyers leading to performance related differences explained the majority of the gap, with presence of pre-school children at home, and discrimination making up most of the rest.

A 2010 study undertaken jointly by the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, the Minority Corporate Counsel Association and the Project for Attorney Retention titled, "New Millennium, Same Glass Ceiling?" examined law firm discrimination in detail and found factors such as billing origination credit discrimination, client succession favoritism, lack of internal referrals, lack of cross marketing opportunities, and unequal opportunity for new client pitches.

As you said Mynx, it's a complex topic that is very real and spans far beyond simple economic supply/demand curves.

Economics is not the science some would have you believe. In the real world outside of textbook theory it shares more in common with psychology than it does with mathematics.

People do not behave in the rational and optimized way economic theories are based upon. That's why Behavioral Economics and Behavior Finance are such growing fields of study.

[Zhivago52]

being in it for just the sex ain't a bad reason for being in it. You'd really be missing out on not a fucking thing. In fact a case could be made that if you are in it for anything other than sex you need to work on your personal life more and seeing hookers less.

WTF, I couldn't disagree more. Some are in it just for the sex, and that's fine for them. Hell, it's fine for me sometimes. But as far as hobby friendships that can last for years, it's different. My current sig line states there's a class of courtesan that goes far beyond the slam bam thank you mam and can be very enjoyable to spend time with.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Zhivago52

WTF, I couldn't disagree more. Some are in it just for the sex, and that's fine for them. Hell, it's fine for me sometimes. But as far as hobby friendships that can last for years, it's different. My current sig line states there's a class of courtesan that goes far beyond the slam bam thank you mam and can be very enjoyable to spend time with.

Are you talking about this bullshit?

From old Italian.....thecortigiana onesta...a woman refined in the art of courtisanerie. Well-educated and worldly more so than most, and often holding simultaneous careers as performers or artists. The cortigiana onesta were typically chosen on the basis of their "breeding"--social and conversational skills, intelligence, common sense, and companionship--as well as their physical attributes. It was usually their wit and personality that set them apart from regular women.


Sounds like this is the woman you need to marry and then then it will be just about the sex when you cheat on this lovely lady with another!


You married the wrong woman, you should not have married a regular woman, Jesus.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

As you said Mynx, it's a complex topic that is very real and spans far beyond simple economic supply/demand curves.

.

With Google, it seems to be getting simpler.

Have we now switched to a philosophical discussion?

Because wages are determined by supply and demand. A very simple concept.

Why the supply and demand fluctuates is more challenging. Open to a more philosophical discussion?

[SpiceItUp]

Men and women both engaged in the same occupation for the same employer working the same hours but earning different incomes has nothing to do with supply and demand.

Yes its easy to Google things, harder to discern their meaning. Hence the tendency to over simplify.

Frankly I have no idea what this discussion is about I lost the plot 4 pages ago of rambling, half cocked, fallacy filled arguments. I was merely addressing the data points mentioned.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

Men and women both engaged in the same occupation for the same employer working the same hours but earning different incomes has nothing to do with supply and demand.

Of course it does. Why you might ask? Because you are assuming the fallacy that all things are equal. They are not.

Damn , is this really that hard?

Supply and Demand is just an equation. All it accounts for is the wage price. It takes into account all the factors and spits out a wage for both male and females.

Do you really think that there is some huge real wage difference? It is a feminist line of bullshit. Do you think sports teams discriminate? They used to but they can no longer afford to. The same would happen with women if in fact they were paid less than men , a business would hire all women.

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/0...-the-wage-gap/


“Suppose you’re an employer doing the hiring. If a woman does equal work for 25 percent less money, businesses would get rich just by hiring women. Why would any employer ever hire a man?”




(4)

[SpiceItUp]

Your understanding of the market theory of wage determination is flawed.

Are you suggesting that gender/race/age or any other type of discrimination doesn't exist and never has existed but is due to natural market forces?

It's all due to true differences in human capital?

I'm giving you gems of "google"-able key words here. Wow us with your insight.

[WTF]

Everything you mentioned is a natural market force which effect wages.The question was how much they effect supply and demang. As it turns out, very little because of gender and way more because of the productivity of said gender. That is business 101. Factories do not move to China because they hate America and love Chinese. The move their because of good old fashion green as in green money.

[SpiceItUp]

Originally Posted by WTF

Everything you mentioned is a natural market force which effect wages.The question was how much they effect supply and demang. As it turns out, very little because of gender and way more because of the productivity of said gender. That is business 101. Factories do not move to China because they hate America and love Chinese. The move their because of good old fashion green as in green money.

Again, you betray your lack of understanding. Labor economists have been studying gender gaps for decades using wage regression models that hold productivity constant.

It is senseless to argue against decades of labor statistics which show clear gender gaps. Its like arguing the sky is red. Year after year decade after decade of data shows men and women in the same industries earn different incomes even when controlling for productivity, education, experience, family life, marital status, and numerous other factors. The question is why.

I'm not making the discrimination argument at all, merely pointing out that the data is the data.

The why is much more nebulous and often solely attributed to a discrimination-effect but that's intellectually lazy, it's more complicated than that. It could be partially due to women's career goals, how they view work-life balance compared to men, how much they fight for salary increases, or any host of other gender difference but non-discriminatory and not easily quantified factors. The point is that it is COMPLICATED. You can't just explain it away by saying "oh well, supply and demand, it's simple".

Either way, we don't know the reasons behind it, but when even female equity partners of law firms earn 89% of their male counterparts's salaries I'm intrigued by it.

[Zhivago52]

WTF, judging by your posts and your sig line, you are indeed quite the comedy, thank you.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Zhivago52

WTF, judging by your posts and your sig line, you are indeed quite the comedy, thank you.

Judging by you sig line you are quite the mark.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

The point is that it is COMPLICATED. You can't just explain it away by saying "oh well, supply and demand, it's simple".

.

I did not do that. I just pointed out that it was supply and demand.

Olivia implied that it was due to discrimination. I pointed out that the data, as complicated as it is, simply does not support that notion. It supports many other factors which may include discrimination though very little of that notion.

I also said it was simple to find that complicated data on the internet. What I have said is that the research complicated as it may have been to gather is now simple to understand. So the complicated research has made it simple for most to understand. I will concede that it appears it is not simple for some to understand.

It is like figuring out the distance to the moon. Were it not for the internet, that would be complicated for me to find out, with the advent of the internet, it is just a click away.