male and female salaries?

[glen]

I swear you cannot trust a damn thing you hear in the news. Reporters either cannot or will not critically analyse data, and they are are crap at statistics. Anyway, what is the real scoop on male and female salaries? I am sure someone could skew the number anyway they wanted to, but in my experience, pay seems at least close to equal. I know you hear stories all the time about women getting paid less, but hell I never noticed it. Maybe I am just insensitive. Anyone got some good numbers or studies?

 

[Incorruptible]

The pay is equal, its just that liberals love to lie and mislead facts to spout there nonsense and agenda

 

[Zargon]

I swear you cannot trust a damn thing you hear in the news. Reporters either cannot or will not critically analyse data, and they are are crap at statistics. Anyway, what is the real scoop on male and female salaries? I am sure someone could skew the number anyway they wanted to, but in my experience, pay seems at least close to equal. I know you hear stories all the time about women getting paid less, but hell I never noticed it. Maybe I am just insensitive. Anyone got some good numbers or studies?

I dunno.

I feel like some of its skewed by the fact that women didnt enter the workforce EN FORCE till what, late 80's early 90's?

the differences due to experience from that alone will cause some issues that people can fail to account for.

but I work in GOV where everything is pretty well slated out and all that matters is job class for pay

 

[schneiderguy]

Women do get paid less but it's not because there's a vast conspiracy to discriminate against women. They choose easier and less dangerous jobs typically, which aren't paid as highly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

If women really got paid less for doing the EXACT same work as a man then corporations would only hire women to get a competitive advantage over the competition (lower labor costs).

Here's a quote from a Department of Labor study that was done in 2009:

This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

Unfortunately the mass media chooses to ignore this and berates the evil Republicans for waging a "WAR ON WOMEN" when they block shitty "fair wages for women" bills like with what happened this week.

 

[xBiffx]

Sorry but women can pose a huge labor liability for a company simple due to the fact that at anytime they can get pregnant and then be forced into maternity leave. This could happen very soon after being hired, could happen multiple times, and there is not a damn thing an employer can do about it besides pay accordingly. This costs the employer in productivity since they continue to pay the mother when she isn't producing squat while on leave.

I have always attributed this simple fact as to why the average for women is lower. Until companies are allowed to prevent women from going on maternity leave and/or getting pregnant (which will never happen and never should), this is going to stay the same IMO. Perhaps its the wrong way to look at it but that's life, literally.

 

[Incorruptible]

Women do get paid less but it's not because there's a vast conspiracy to discriminate against women. They choose easier and less dangerous jobs typically, which aren't paid as highly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

If women really got paid less for doing the EXACT same work as a man then corporations would only hire women to get a competitive advantage over the competition (lower labor costs).

Here's a quote from a Department of Labor study that was done in 2009:



Unfortunately the mass media chooses to ignore this and berates the evil Republicans for waging a "WAR ON WOMEN" when they block shitty "fair wages for women" bills like with what happened this week.

This is completely true but the idiots in Democratic party dont get it, its actually the Democrats who are waging the War On Women

 

[schneiderguy]

Sorry but women can pose a huge labor liability for a company simple due to the fact that at anytime they can get pregnant and then be forced into maternity leave. This could happen very soon after being hired, could happen multiple times, and there is not a damn thing an employer can do about it besides pay accordingly. This costs the employer in productivity since they continue to pay the mother when she isn't producing squat while on leave.

I have always attributed this simple fact as to why the average for women is lower. Until companies are allowed to prevent women from going on maternity leave and/or getting pregnant (which will never happen and never should), this is going to stay the same IMO. Perhaps its the wrong way to look at it but that's life, literally.

Also they cost the company money in sexual harassment lawsuits and take more sick/vacation time.

 

[Triumph]

Yeah, the wage gap is a farce and does not need to be corrected by any heavy handed legislation. They try to justify it by saying that women "in the same profession" make less than men, which is still waaaay to broad of a definition. They may say that women engineers/doctors/lawyers make less than male engineers/doctors/lawyers, but there are more male engineers in senior positions, so this skews the numbers. Next they'll start advocating affirmative action laws to place more women in senior level positions, which is a very scary thought.

Sorry but women can pose a huge labor liability for a company simple due to the fact that at anytime they can get pregnant and then be forced into maternity leave. This could happen very soon after being hired, could happen multiple times, and there is not a damn thing an employer can do about it besides pay accordingly. This costs the employer in productivity since they continue to pay the mother when she isn't producing squat while on leave.

I have always attributed this simple fact as to why the average for women is lower. Until companies are allowed to prevent women from going on maternity leave and/or getting pregnant (which will never happen and never should), this is going to stay the same IMO. Perhaps its the wrong way to look at it but that's life, literally.

That's why men should be allowed equal maternity leave allowances as women. If she ain't breast feeding, it doesn't need to be the mother that stays home.

 

[postmortemIA]

Also they cost the company money in sexual harassment lawsuits and take more sick/vacation time.

BS. For society to thrive, women do need their maternity leave. And it should be LONG.

It is another thing that corporations are sucking us all dry and brainwashed us in the process. Even here some believe everything should be centered around them.

 

[xBiffx]

That's why men should be allowed equal maternity leave allowances as women. If she ain't breast feeding, it doesn't need to be the mother that stays home.

Perhaps but that doesn't fix the fact that a man, no matter how hard he tries, will not get pregnant and therefore poses less of a liability. Also, this doesn't fix the single mother or those who choose to go the artificial route.

 

[schneiderguy]

BS. For society to thrive, women do need their maternity leave. And it should be LONG.

It is another thing that corporations are sucking us all dry and brainwashed us in the process. Even here some believe everything should be centered around them.

Why should companies be forced to equally compensate employees who don't contribute equally?

IMO for society to thrive women should be at home raising the kids, not in the workforce. But that makes me a sexist chauvinist pig, so what do I know.

 

[her209]

Sorry but women can pose a huge labor liability for a company simple due to the fact that at anytime they can get pregnant and then be forced into maternity leave. This could happen very soon after being hired, could happen multiple times, and there is not a damn thing an employer can do about it besides pay accordingly. This costs the employer in productivity since they continue to pay the mother when she isn't producing squat while on leave.

I have always attributed this simple fact as to why the average for women is lower. Until companies are allowed to prevent women from going on maternity leave and/or getting pregnant (which will never happen and never should), this is going to stay the same IMO. Perhaps its the wrong way to look at it but that's life, literally.

Completely untrue. Women can go on maternity leave but its unpaid. Equally, men can go on paternity leave. Both fall under the FMLA. The reason why would get paid is if they use accrued leave in lieu of the unpaid leave.

 

[her209]

Perhaps but that doesn't fix the fact that a man, no matter how hard he tries, will not get pregnant and therefore poses less of a liability. Also, this doesn't fix the single mother or those who choose to go the artificial route.

The man is entitled to paternity leave.

 

[xBiffx]

Completely untrue. Women can go on maternity leave but its unpaid. Equally, men can go on paternity leave. Both fall under the FMLA. The reason why would get paid is if they use accrued leave in lieu of the unpaid leave.

I'm not sure where you are getting this. Every company that I have worked for had paid maternity leave, usually six weeks minimum as do most others. Still collecting a paycheck, regardless of how you label it, is paying for zero production from the employer's standpoint.

I have already addressed the paternity leave. Its hardly an equalizer since it does not apply to every scenario and less companies are covering paternity leave than maternity leave as well.

 

[her209]

I'm not sure where you are getting this.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/

Every company that I have worked for had paid maternity leave, usually six weeks minimum as do most others. Still collecting a paycheck, regardless of how you label it, is paying for zero production from the employer's standpoint.

I have already addressed the paternity leave. Its hardly an equalizer since it does not apply to every scenario and less companies are covering paternity leave than maternity leave as well.

company policy != federal/state law

 

[xBiffx]

The man is entitled to paternity leave.

Yes, but that doesn't mean he is going to get paid. Most companies have paid maternity leave, as a benefit, but less have paid paternity leave. Both the mother and father are entitled to leave, that doesn't mean the company has to pay for it. But many choose to pay for the leave.

 

[xBiffx]

company policy != federal/state law

No shit Sherlock. But the law doesn't say that it has to be paid leave, just that they are required to give leave and keep your job for you. As soon as companies pay for the leave as a benefit, this is where they start looking at salaries to even out that benefit. Hence one reason why women, on average, make less.

 

[blankslate]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_1...complete-myth/

That's an opinion piece and therefore suspect. The pay gap is real, although if you do take into account and correct for the factors that the author of the opinion piece brings up... it's smaller than 7%

 

[Matthiasa]

This seems a bit relevant here.
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-1
Numbers don't lie.
Even for the the same positions there is a difference (usually), some of them quite large.

 

[glen]

This seems a bit relevant here.
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation

Numbers don't lie.
Even for the the same positions there is a difference, some of them quite large.

Number do lie when they are presented by a non-neutral agent. In this case, The Women's Policy Institute, and the study ASSUMES inequality from the outset:The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation.

The solution is to find and identify a neutral group, and read their study.

 

[her209]

I'm not sure where you are getting this. Every company that I have worked for had paid maternity leave, usually six weeks minimum as do most others. Still collecting a paycheck, regardless of how you label it, is paying for zero production from the employer's standpoint.

I have already addressed the paternity leave. Its hardly an equalizer since it does not apply to every scenario and less companies are covering paternity leave than maternity leave as well.

Weird, every company I've worked for didn't pay for paternity leave. I've never heard of a company having different leave policies for a woman than a man either. See how anecdotal evidence works!

 

[Matthiasa]

Number do lie when they are presented by a non-neutral agent. In this case, The Women's Policy Institute, and the study ASSUMES inequality from the outset:The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation.

The solution is to find and identify a neutral group, and read their study.

The numbers are from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Here we go again...
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm
Happy now?
Or are you going to say they are biased as well?
As stated before... numbers don't lie.

 

[nehalem256]

From the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/14iht-letter14.html

And a study shows that in most U.S. cities, single, childless women under 30 are making an average of 8 percent more money than their male counterparts, with Atlanta and Miami in the lead at 20 percent.

If there was large scale wage discrimination against women that would be impossible.

 

[nehalem256]

The numbers are from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Here we go again...
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm
Happy now?
Or are you going to say they are biased as well?

Except those numbers tell you nothing about discrimination.

The fact that you believe those numbers are meaningful show that you do not care about discrimination but on forcing your marxist-feminst view of male-female sameness on society.

 

[Matthiasa]

Those numbers say there is a difference... are you going to deny that?
The law of large numbers states that given enough trials(in this case workers) things should average out to the expected result.
If there was no bias the expected results should be the same.
Which based on those numbers is clearly not the case.