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

[chicagoboy]

I do believe Old-T just out-Thunderfucked™� Ol' Ho' herself. St. C had better increase the bandwidth budget.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Old-T

1. You seem to be confusing "condescending" with "disagrees with you". I can indeed be condescending, and my posts were not even close to doing so.

No, you're quite condescending. The comment in the other thread was quite enough given you were still "embarrassing" yourself at the time. And then congresswomen looking for warts when in fact they were wading through stories told about the "day" thirty years ago, but they couldn't poke holes in long forgotten times let alone details of stories about somebody, somewhere that got promoted. Harvard instituting a program that, according to them, worked well just to deal with vocal students? No and please. Then, thank you very much, women sleeping their way to the top. Get real.

Originally Posted by Old-T

2. Yes, part of these studies were anecdotal, so what? I clearly said that was our fallback FOR THE SEVERAL DECADE OLD PARTS because hard data was not available. We certainly used data where we had it.

My turn to condescend. Really? So what? You expect anyone to put much if any validation into some story written by some guy from 1972 or whatever about some other guy that got a promotion in the mail room? Please.

Originally Posted by Old-T

3. No, I will not give you a copy. It is not mine to give. As with almost everything on any anonymous website this is info and opinions, not a refereed journal. As I said, you are perfectly free to ignore it if it doesn't fit your worldview.

Then what are we even talking about. Some story told by some guy on the interwebs about his great social triumph over congresswomen that lived the antidotal stores about discrimination. Anyone that wasn’t bragging would have said they read some article somewhere and then produced it. Because, you have to know that literally no one would believe something that is contrary to all the other hard evidence and most women’s experiences.

Originally Posted by Old-T

4. You are grossly extrapolating findings well beyond where they are logically sound, and you are criticizing the analysis we did before you even allow me to reply to some of your questions. That doesn't sound like the basis for a good conversation.

Neither does participating in a conversation you declare embarrassing and dead. However, we are talking about this now. I was not on board with much of what you said, though I agree with the mommy track, but you lost me utterly when you said a significant influencing factor on promotion is women sleeping their way to the top. I came up from a data entry clerk in the mid 1980’s. I made it to upper management for a division of a huge multi-national corporation and trust me, I never sucked one guy’s dick. I saw some women that did, but they ultimately either got pregnant or fired, and any event all it got them was child support or grief. You don’t know remotely what you are talking about.

You also never even addressed the middle and lower classes. Financial and social discrimination is alive and well in those demographics.

I’ll read the rest of your response later. I have things to do besides debating whether all women are whores or not.

[WTF]

What Olivia and her merry band of feminist fail to understand is that female pay inequality is due to laws requiring hiring quota's for them. The market then adjusted for this influx of new workers and supply and demand took over. Women are butt hurt z (the feminist amongst us) because the market does not generally value female traits in the business world like they do men. Business care about the bottom line....not sexism or ageism or racism. And the bottom line is that women generally will not commit as much to the bottom line as men will and thus are paid accordingly. This is like wanting female basketball players to be paid like men. The market decides their pay. Is it equal work? Yes but does the marketplace value it? A resounding no. This is what kills our feminist. They need Title IX and still can not compete on a monetary basis.

[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.

.

Should the government set wages or the market?

Is this really not the question?

Do you think all employee's are created equal?

Are some not more valuable than others...even those doing the exact same work?

Should all strippers pool their tips and then split them up in equal parts at the end of the night? Is that fair? After all they are all doing the same job.

Should all salesmen/women at say Dillard's earn the exact same wage?

[SpiceItUp]

Originally Posted by WTF

Should the government set wages or the market?

Is this really not the question?

Do you think all employee's are created equal?

Are some not more valuable than others...even those doing the exact same work?

Should all strippers pool their tips and then split them up in equal parts at the end of the night? Is that fair? After all they are all doing the same job.

Should all salesmen/women at say Dillard's earn the exact same wage?

Interesting how you cherrypick a sentence I wrote which oversimplifies the issue. Yes of course there are human capital differences, I mentioned that too and gave you the opportunity to respond.

Why are you not addressing the actual data I cited? Or the fact that:

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.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

Interesting how you cherrypick a sentence I wrote which oversimplifies the issue. Yes of course there are human capital differences, I mentioned that too and gave you the opportunity to respond. I cherry picked that sentence because I had already addressed your statement below.



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.
:

We have already discussed that the unaccounted for pay discrepancy is at worst 7%.

What you fail to address is that if in fact a business could pay it's workforce 7% less than it's competition , why would it not do so? Because we do know that when business can actually lower their labor costs by an amount as to have an advantage over the competition , they will be so bold as to up and move their factory from this country to another.

You never addressed that rebuttal.

So I address your points and you fail to address mine and then turn around and say I cherry pick.

[SpiceItUp]

Originally Posted by WTF

We have already discussed that the unaccounted for pay discrepancy is at worst 7%.

What you fail to address is that if in fact a business could pay it's workforce 7% less than it's competition , why would it not do so? Because we do know that when business can actually lower their labor costs by an amount as to have an advantage over the competition , they will be so bold as to up and move their factory from this country to another.

You never addressed that rebuttal.

So I address your points and you fail to address mine and then turn around and say I cherry pick.

I didn't think it required a rebuttal because anyone with an actual understanding of economics knows why that wouldn't work. The markets are fairly efficient, what you suggest would have already happened were it possible.

Simply put, if businesses attempted to hire all women then the demand for women specifically would be increased and thus the supply/demand equilibrium wage rate would be affected, raising their wages and eliminating any advantage. The fact that a 7% difference persists despite this indicates other obstacles or unaccounted for differences.

Also, that wouldn't solve the issue of the unaccounted for differences which I already mentioned. For these reasons also, any attempt to hire only women would not result in any economic advantage:

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 there IS a gender gap despite free markets largely determining wages. That's why the issue is curious to labor economists and also why the unaccounted for difference is often lazily attributed to discrimination.

Honestly, much of this discussion between us is a semantic debate about what constitutes "supply and demand". Your application is so broad as to be almost useless in a real discussion in the sense that literally anything related to prices of goods and services is related to supply and demand in the broad sense.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

What Olivia and her merry band of feminist fail to understand is that female pay inequality is due to laws requiring hiring quota's for them. The market then adjusted for this influx of new workers and supply and demand took over. Women are butt hurt z (the feminist amongst us) because the market does not generally value female traits in the business world like they do men. Business care about the bottom line....not sexism or ageism or racism. And the bottom line is that women generally will not commit as much to the bottom line as men will and thus are paid accordingly. This is like wanting female basketball players to be paid like men. The market decides their pay. Is it equal work? Yes but does the marketplace value it? A resounding no. This is what kills our feminist. They need Title IX and still can not compete on a monetary basis.

IF, and I say IF, I understand what you are thing to articulate, then it's utter bullshit. Very hard to follow your train of thought since you didn't bother breaking your thoughts up into separate paragraphs and don't tie your thoughts together but instead you've opted to jump from one ADD thought to the next. But whatever.

I'm going to go with your thesis statement and assume it's quotas (no apostrophe in case you were wondering) that have you so worked up. I do not agree with affirmative action. It may have been a good bit of social engineering, thought I'm not sure that it was, back in the day, but it is an idea that has outlived any possible usefulness it ever had or seemed to have. So in short, we are in agreement.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

Honestly, much of this discussion between us is a semantic debate about what constitutes "supply and demand". Your application is so broad as to be almost useless in a real discussion in the sense that literally anything related to prices of goods and services is related to supply and demand in the broad sense.

Yes I agree with you and I addressed this a while back.

Originally Posted by WTF

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?**

**a more philosophical discussion around the 7% mark.

- - -n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

That's why the issue is curious to labor economists and also why the unaccounted for difference is often lazily attributed to discrimination.

Exactly.

Maybe you can convince Olivia that the wage gap is not mostly based on male chauvinism.

In fact


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)

http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/09/21/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-the-wage-gap/

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

Maybe you can convince Olivia that the wage gap is not mostly based on male chauvinism.

I ABSOUTELY NEVER said that. As usual, that's what you wanted to hear.

Originally Posted by WTF

In fact


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)

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

So, let me get this straight, you are now asserting that it is the Mommy Track is the primary cause of the sexual financial dimorphism? Interesting.

[WTF]

No you did not get that straight.

[Guest062114-5]

I thought we already decided it was women sleeping their way to the top...

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by LilMynx69

I thought we already decided it was women sleeping their way to the top...

Oh shit THAT'S it! The Mommy Track coming in now, according to the social anthropologist WTF, at Reason 1.5. Followed closely by women being too fucking stupid to wait for a better offer or some shit like that. Maybe it was go on strike.................Errr... .............something like that - kinda-ish.....................

[Guest062114-5]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Oh shit THAT'S it! The Mommy Track coming in now, according to the social anthropologist WTF, at Reason 1.5. Followed closely by women being too fucking stupid to wait for a better offer or some shit like that. Maybe it was go on strike.................Errr... .............something like that - kinda-ish.....................

I don't doubt that execs interviewed claimed that some women slept their way to the "top." However, I'd bet just about anything that these instances are more likely Urban Legend than truth.

I've NEVER known a woman who slept with someone to get ahead that had a truly favorable outcome.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I ABSOUTELY NEVER said that. As usual, that's what you wanted to hear.

That is wtf you implied....


For example when I write this...

Originally Posted by WTF

Nobody is trying to keep a woman down....The market determines monetary worth.

You reply with this....

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

. And I might add that the oppressors aren't all the willing to let go of the reins.


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. .

This is a huge implication that you think men are trying to keep women down. Do you no longer believe this?

This thread has not shown that to be true. It has shown that there is a very small % that is unaccounted for in the pay gap.