homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The trouble with girls (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The trouble with girls
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
If you answer yes to those, what bias are we dealing with when we try to even things up, so that women and men receive equal treatment?

well that would be an egalitarian bias
So seeking to be fair is a form of bias? You lose me at that point.

I'm off an holiday for a couple of weeks, and will be out of internet range for a good deal of that time. But I'll check responses on return.

[ 30. June 2015, 21:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The reason I'm raising this issue is because someone (I think it was Doc Tor) objected to an article from the Mises Institute on the grounds that the Mises Institution was biased.

Given that there is objectively a gender pay gap, and that the Mises Institute deny that there is a gender pay gap, what more can be said about the Mises Institute, but they are stating a falsehood because the facts don't fit their ideological position? If you measure the sky as blue, but I say it's green, you are not 'blue-biased', and I am not 'green-biased'. You are correct in stating that the sky is blue, and I am wrong in stating that the sky is green.

Only when I accept that the sky is blue can we then have a meaningful discussion about why the sky is blue. Anyone who says the sky is green is starting from the wrong place. Like the Mises Institute denying there is a gender pay gap.

Did you actually read the article? The article did not dispute that there is a gender wage gap. The 'Myth' if referred to is the idea that the gap is cause by discrimination. The article discusses various reasons for the gender pay gap. What it did (and what I am) disputing is that the gap is caused to any major extent by discrimination.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And the whining "Why won't anyone research this [Waterworks] "

If that's a reference to me talking about why some wage gaps get investigated and not others then I haven't whined the question "why won't anyone research this?" I've simply given what I think is the answer to that question.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Bibliophile: If that's a reference to me talking about why some wage gaps get investigated and not others then I haven't whined the question "why won't anyone research this?" I've simply given what I think is the answer to that question.
It's the same answer flat-earthers, aura-readers etc. give. "Why won't universities research our claims? It's because they're biased against us." That's how weak your claim is.

Once again, if Mises wants to investigate these things, they can do so. No-one is stopping them, and they have the resources.

If you think that you really have a case showing that the reasons 'feminist' universities give for the gender pay gap are wrong, do the research, and show the results. That's the academic way of approaching these things, and if you manage this I'm sure the same universities will listen to you. Anything else is whining.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Did you actually read the article? The article did not dispute that there is a gender wage gap.

quote:
Some myths die hard. The myth of the gender wage gap is one that’s had particularly long legs.
quote:
It’s all but taken for granted. Women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to what a man makes for the same work. I’ve been taught this since grade school. Indeed, it would seem to be that the only people who disagree with this are actual economists who study the issue.
Yes. Yes I did. It starts with the first quote, moves seamlessly onto the second, and carries on in the same vein. So to say,
quote:
The 'Myth' if referred to is the idea that the gap is cause by discrimination. The article discusses various reasons for the gender pay gap. What it did (and what I am) disputing is that the gap is caused to any major extent by discrimination.
is demonstrably false, since the article goes out of its way to say - there is no pay gap, any data that shows there is a substantial pay gap is wrong, any data that shows there is a small pay gap is better but also wrong, women get paid more in certain jobs than men and isn't it horrid, it's all about the choices women make so it's all their fault.

So, to conclude: your ability to pass off propaganda as analysis has failed.

[ 30. June 2015, 21:56: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Did you actually read the article? The article did not dispute that there is a gender wage gap.

quote:
Some myths die hard. The myth of the gender wage gap is one that’s had particularly long legs.
quote:
It’s all but taken for granted. Women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to what a man makes for the same work. I’ve been taught this since grade school. Indeed, it would seem to be that the only people who disagree with this are actual economists who study the issue.
Yes. Yes I did. It starts with the first quote, moves seamlessly onto the second, and carries on in the same vein. So to say,

Reading comprehension would be nice. The statistics, which the Mises article does not dispute, are that women working full time in the US get paid $0.77 for every $1 paid to men working full time. What is under dispute is if they are being paid that much less
for the same work.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Reading comprehension would be nice.

[Ultra confused]

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Reading comprehension would be nice. The statistics, which the Mises article does not dispute, are that women working full time in the US get paid $0.77 for every $1 paid to men working full time. What is under dispute is if they are being paid that much less
for the same work.

Not exactly. That is only one very narrow aspect of the pay gap. The pay gap is caused by the fact that women are often paid less than men for work of the same value, or even more value, for a variety of reasons:

quote:
Some women are paid less than men for doing the same job. This factor only explains a small part of the gender pay gap, due to the effectiveness of the European Union and national legislation. ...

More frequently women earn less than men for doing jobs of equal value. One of the main causes is the way women's competences are valued compared to men's.

Jobs requiring similar skills, qualifications or experience tend to be poorly paid and undervalued when they are dominated by women rather than by men. For example, the (mainly female) cashiers in a supermarket usually earn less than the (mainly male) employees involved in stacking shelves and other more physical tasks.
...

The gender pay gap is also reinforced by the segregation in the labour market. Women and men still tend to work in different jobs. On the one hand, women and men often predominate in different sectors. On the other hand, within the same sector or company women predominate in lower valued and lower paid occupations.

Women often work in sectors (for example in health, education, and public administration) where their work is lower valued and lower paid than those dominated by men. When we look at the health sector alone, 80% of those working in this sector are women.

Way down at the bottom of the list is this:

quote:
Women experience greater difficulties than men when it comes to balancing work and private life.

Family, care and domestic responsibilities are still not equally shared. The task of looking after dependent family members is largely borne by women. Far more women than men choose to take parental leave. This fact, together with the lack of facilities for childcare and elderly care, means that women are often forced to exit the labour market: only 65.8% of women with young children in the EU are working, compared to 89.1% of men. ...

What are the causes?

In other words, the lack of child care and elder care, and the apparent reluctance of men to perform their share of those duties, is what causes some women to leave the workplace or work part-time. Those things are easy to fix, but they can't be fixed by women alone.

And please, please, don't bother trying to argue that it is impossible to determine whether work is of "equal value". Human resources professionals have many tools to evaluate education and training; physical, mental, interpersonal, and communication skills, to name a few; environmental and working conditions; workplace risks and hazards, etc. to classify jobs. Here are some examples of jobs that have been found to be of equal value in actual discrimination cases:

quote:
The question of whether two jobs are of equal value involves a weighing and balancing between the features of different jobs. Examples of claims between different jobs, which have been successful at tribunal or settled in favour of the applicant(s) include:
  • Primary school classroom assistant - library service driver messenger
  • School nursery nurse - local government architectural technician
  • Wholesale news distribution clerical assistant – warehouse operative
  • Cook – shipboard painter
  • Head of speech and language therapy service – head of hospital pharmacy service
  • Nursing home sewing room assistant – plumber
  • Motor industry sewing machinist – upholsterer
  • Canteen workers and cleaners – surface mineworkers and clerical workers

Work of equal value

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is, of course, a structural, biological difference between men and women when it comes to raising children. Only women get pregnant, and only women lactate. This provides a natural biological bias in favour of primary care of infants being the woman's job.

There are couples who have decided (either because the woman has a higher earning power than the man, or because of strong preferences in the individual man and woman) that the father take on primary care of even very small infants while the mother undertakes paid employment. We number stay-at-home fathers among our shipmates.

But this choice is relatively unusual. In a couple where both partners have similar jobs, with all other things being equal, it makes sense for the woman to have the primary childcare role, because she has the breasts.

And once you make that choice once, the incentives shift further in favour of continuing to make that choice. If you begin with a man and a woman who have the same career, and equal abilities, and then the woman takes time off work to be the primary childcarer, then by the time she's ready to go back to work, she has less total experience than the man, and less recent experience, and therefore she's worth less, and so the couple's financial incentives shift further in the direction of keeping the woman at home.

When the couple choose to place their small infant in childcare, this effect can be minimized; if the couple prefers not to use childcare, the effect will be quite strong, and will become increasingly stronger with each further baby they have.

So I think I dispute your assertion that "these things are easy to fix". They are fixable in those couples who choose to feed their babies formula milk and subcontract their care to childminders. They are somewhat fixable in couples who choose to use childcare, and have the woman pump milk for their child. I think they're mostly unfixable in couples who prefer not to use childcare - the inherent biological biases will make it on average make more sense to have the woman stay at home.

All this is, I think, true for the case that the man and woman have similar jobs. In practice, the gender segregation of the labour market means that the woman probably has a lower-paying job, so she's even more obviously the first choice for parent-who-stays-home-with-children. That part is in principle fixable at least to some degree.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is an assumption bound up in that process about the worth of having the father largely present during the early months of the child's life.

Looking after a small child and its family is not just about who feeds the baby.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The statistics, which the Mises article does not dispute

No. That second quote is Mises disputing that statistic directly.

quote:
It’s all but taken for granted. Women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to what a man makes for the same work. I’ve been taught this since grade school. Indeed, it would seem to be that the only people who disagree with this are actual economists who study the issue.
"Reading comprehension" (sic) would indeed be a good thing, but you've failed even in that basic task. Do you have anything substantive to add to this conversation, or shall we all just scroll past your posts from now on?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept that Women's Studies university departments are so saturated with a concept of radical feminism that they are incapable of producing reliable information.

The problem is that these departments are not the only places producing studies which show the pay-gap between men and women. Are these departments producing the hard-edged statistics which are being quoted by everyone in the debate? Not normally.

Suggesting that the information linking a pay gap to discrimination against women is only produced by ideologues is to say that everyone - sociologists, statisticians, government departments, etc and so on - are engaged in some monumental con.

That is the space occupied by conspiracy theory nuts who simply want to avoid dealing with the truth.

[ 01. July 2015, 08:06: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Suggesting that the information linking a pay gap to discrimination against women is only produced by ideologues is to say that everyone - sociologists, statisticians, government departments, etc and so on - are engaged in some monumental con.

Though, to claim feminism is culturally dominant is to say that everyone - sociologists, statisticians, government departments, etc and so on - accepts this view and won't allow any alternative narrative.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, to claim feminism is culturally dominant is to say that everyone - sociologists, statisticians, government departments, etc and so on - accepts this view and won't allow any alternative narrative.

Quite so, it is to postulate that everyone is living in a delusion apart from Bibliophile, who alone can see the truth.

Sorry, no dice. An easier explanation is that Bibliophile doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And to underline the point, the burden of proof of bias and distortion rests with the claimant. Since the given aim of egalitarians is equal rights and opportunities for all, the burden of proof of bias in those aims also rests with the claimant. Assertions are not good enough. (Sent by iPhone).

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Soror Magna

Firstly I have to point out that you have linked to articles from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the European Commission. I have to point out that neither of these bodies peer review the articles on their website! Apparently this is a problem!

Now as for the issue of work of equal value I think it is more problematic than you assert. For a start I don't think you can simply equate the level of skills, training and effort involved in each job, however precisely measured. For example if you had two jobs that require the same level of skills training and effort but one is in an area were there is an oversupply of labour in the market whilst the other is in an area that where there is a shortage of labour in the market then the market value for the second job will tend to be higher than that of the first job.

Even leaving that issue to one side for the moment I have to be sceptical about how this 'equivalent value' has been calculated. For example one quote from The European Commission article

quote:
Jobs requiring similar skills, qualifications or experience tend to be poorly paid and undervalued when they are dominated by women rather than by men. For example, the (mainly female) cashiers in a supermarket usually earn less than the (mainly male) employees involved in stacking shelves and other more physical tasks.
Well if shelf stacking involves more physical effort than cashier work then its not equivalent, at least not in the area of physical effort. There have been cases where Kitchen Assisent jobs have been judged equivalent to refuse collectors. Now clearly the latter job involves far more physical work than the former so they are not equivalent in that way. This difference must have been judged to be offset by some other difference but judging what other difference is equivalent is even more of a subjective judgement.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The statistics, which the Mises article does not dispute

No. That second quote is Mises disputing that statistic directly.

quote:
It’s all but taken for granted. Women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to what a man makes for the same work. I’ve been taught this since grade school. Indeed, it would seem to be that the only people who disagree with this are actual economists who study the issue.
"Reading comprehension" (sic) would indeed be a good thing, but you've failed even in that basic task. Do you have anything substantive to add to this conversation, or shall we all just scroll past your posts from now on?

[brick wall]

Lets go through this again shall we. The statistic, that no one here is disputing is that women working full time in the US get paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men working full time in the US. What the Mises article (and myself) are disputing is that women are paid $0.77 for every $1.00 men are paid for the same work. What the article argues is that the reason for the pay gap is precisely that it isn't the same work but that it is different work. In other words women working full time get paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men precisely because its not the same work.

Even if you were to argue that female dominated professions get paid less than male dominated professions of equivalent value in order for the ratio to be exactly 0.77 to 1.00 you'd have to argue there is an exact mirroring of these values, in other words that the average value of male jobs is exactly equivalent in value to the average value of female jobs. That would be quite a remarkable coincidence if true and I haven't seen anyone try to demonstrate that it is true.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The thing is that the jobs which are overwhelmingly done by women are overwhelmingly worse paid than those done by men. It isn't that "men's work" is more strenuous (as if men are all ironworkers and miners) and "women's work" is for feeble people. That's bunk.

The vast majority of people who work in clothing factories are women. Sewing Machinists are one of the worst paid jobs anywhere - but I dare you to spend some time working in a clothing factory and then say that there is some gender reason why women are more suited to it than men. Because that's bullshit.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept that Women's Studies university departments are so saturated with a concept of radical feminism that they are incapable of producing reliable information.

The problem is that these departments are not the only places producing studies which show the pay-gap between men and women. Are these departments producing the hard-edged statistics which are being quoted by everyone in the debate? Not normally.

Suggesting that the information linking a pay gap to discrimination against women is only produced by ideologues is to say that everyone - sociologists, statisticians, government departments, etc and so on - are engaged in some monumental con.

That is the space occupied by conspiracy theory nuts who simply want to avoid dealing with the truth.

If the dispute was over the raw data you'd have a point. I'm sure that even the most ideologically committed university department is capable of producing accurate raw data (one should not rule out the possibility of individual academics responding o social and economic pressure to 'cook the books' in order to produce the desired results I have seen no evidence that this is occurring on a systematic
basis)

However raw data doesn't interpret itself. The theoretical framework that any academic uses to interpret that data will inevitably be influenced by any ideological positions they hold in that area. The tendency will be to overlook weaknesses in parts of an argument that confirm that ideology whilst focusing far more on the real or perceived weaknesses of arguments and analysis that go against that ideology. That doesn't require and 'conspiracy' (indeed I'm rather doubtful it could work as a 'conspiracy'). Its just human nature.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:


However raw data doesn't interpret itself.

That's right, that's why we have statisticians. Funny that.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The theoretical framework that any academic uses to interpret that data will inevitably be influenced by any ideological positions they hold in that area. The tendency will be to overlook weaknesses in parts of an argument that confirm that ideology whilst focusing far more on the real or perceived weaknesses of arguments and analysis that go against that ideology. That doesn't require and 'conspiracy' (indeed I'm rather doubtful it could work as a 'conspiracy'). Its just human nature.

How about a little consistency? You earlier claimed that it was impossible to quantify or measure the effect social pressure had on women's decisions, so your solution was to simply proceed as if there was no such thing. Now you claim prior ideology and peer pressure are significant factors? How exactly did you measure this factor, to sling your own previous demand back at you?

Why doesn't the same reasoning on social pressure you applied to the gender wage gap (that it can't be measures so it therefore doesn't exist) apply to academics? I mean besides the fact that your previous position is now inconvenient?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Lets go through this again shall we.

No, let's not. Find a better analysis. Or even an analysis that actually says what you think it says.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And to underline the point, the burden of proof of bias and distortion rests with the claimant. Since the given aim of egalitarians is equal rights and opportunities for all, the burden of proof of bias in those aims also rests with the claimant. Assertions are not good enough. (Sent by iPhone).

Did you read the statement from the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University. They don't even pretend to be neutral between egalitarianism and anti-egalitarianism, they're quite open about being ideologically committed to egalitarianism. If you were to look at other Universities you'd find a similar story.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
They don't even pretend to be neutral between egalitarianism and anti-egalitarianism, they're quite open about being ideologically committed to egalitarianism. If you were to look at other Universities you'd find a similar story.

There is no middle position between the two. Either you are committed to equal access for all, or you're not.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Lets go through this again shall we.

No, let's not. Find a better analysis. Or even an analysis that actually says what you think it says.
Right lets go though this again.

The undisputed statistic is that women working full time in the US get paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men working full time in the US. This statistic is consistent with three possibilities

1)That women are being paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men for the same work, i.e. for identical work of identical value.

Now no one is suggesting this

2) That women are being paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men for the same work, i.e. for different jobs but for jobs of identical value. This is what the Mises Institute is disputing

3) That women are being paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men for the different work, i.e. for different jobs of non identical value.

To sum up, just in case I haven't been clear enough. Th undisputed statistic is that women working full time are paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid for full time working men.

This statistic is consistent with the possibility that women are being $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men for the same work (i.e. for work of the same value). It is also constistant with the possibility that women are being paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men for different work i.e. for work of different value.

Therefore it is entirely consistent to acknowledge that full time women are paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men whilst disputing that the work women are being paid this $0.77 is of the same value as the work that the men are being paid $1.00 for.

I hope that clarifies things.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
They don't even pretend to be neutral between egalitarianism and anti-egalitarianism, they're quite open about being ideologically committed to egalitarianism. If you were to look at other Universities you'd find a similar story.

There is no middle position between the two. Either you are committed to equal access for all, or you're not.
Exactly. Its impossible to be neutral between egalitarianism and anti-egalitarianism. Any institution with either be biased in favour of one or be biased in favour of the other.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The statistic, that no one here is disputing is that women working full time in the US get paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men working full time in the US. What the Mises article (and myself) are disputing is that women are paid $0.77 for every $1.00 men are paid for the same work. What the article argues is that the reason for the pay gap is precisely that it isn't the same work but that it is different work.

Yes, that's the raw data. But, the question isn't "is it the same work?", it clearly isn't. The question is "do the differences in the value of the work done by men and women explain the difference?", with the implicit additional question of "if that doesn't, what is the remaining difference due to?". Which is where the statisticians get to play with the data to see what it actually says.

First, we need to quantify a "value" to work. Which also means a definition of "value" - and, if what we want to do is compare salaries the amount someone is willing to pay someone to do that work is an inappropriate metric. Necessary academic qualifications, skills, experience, manual strength, and so on all get pulled into that definition of "value".

Then we need to start comparing salaries for jobs of equal "value" and seeing if there are any differences. And, what do all those studies show? That women are, on average, paid less than men for jobs of equal "value". The difference is less than the 0.77 of the average without accounting for "value", but still significant.

What's the explaining factor in this difference? Why is there inequality when comparing things which should be equal? Could it possibly be socially imbedded, institutionalised sexism?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The theoretical framework that any academic uses to interpret that data will inevitably be influenced by any ideological positions they hold in that area. The tendency will be to overlook weaknesses in parts of an argument that confirm that ideology whilst focusing far more on the real or perceived weaknesses of arguments and analysis that go against that ideology. That doesn't require and 'conspiracy' (indeed I'm rather doubtful it could work as a 'conspiracy'). Its just human nature.

How about a little consistency? You earlier claimed that it was impossible to quantify or measure the effect social pressure had on women's decisions, so your solution was to simply proceed as if there was no such thing. Now you claim prior ideology and peer pressure are significant factors? How exactly did you measure this factor, to sling your own previous demand back at you?

Why doesn't the same reasoning on social pressure you applied to the gender wage gap (that it can't be measures so it therefore doesn't exist) apply to academics? I mean besides the fact that your previous position is now inconvenient?

I never disputed that social pressures can influence women's choices. I said I was disputing that those social pressures can be equated with sexism or with 'illegitimate force'
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:


However raw data doesn't interpret itself.

That's right, that's why we have statisticians. Funny that.
As I've been explaining there's not much dispute over the statistics, rather the dispute is over whether these statistics indicate the presence of discrimination.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Careful, you don't want to pretend you have statistical abilities when you don't.

For information, the point of a statistician is to interpret sensibly raw data.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The undisputed statistic

The Mises Institute dispute it. Are you saying that it's a myth and economists don't believe it, or are you not?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... Now as for the issue of work of equal value I think it is more problematic than you assert. For a start I don't think you can simply equate the level of skills, training and effort involved in each job, however precisely measured. ...

I'm sorry, but there is no other way to put this: this is wrong. What you believe to be "problematic" - job evaluation and classification - is a standard part and practice of managing human resources. It may not be applied in all workplaces, but it is a real thing. HR professionals don't just look at the tasks performed, but also take into account the education and training required for the tasks; the level of independent decision-making; and last but far from least, the consequences of error.


quote:

... Well if shelf stacking involves more physical effort than cashier work then its not equivalent, at least not in the area of physical effort. There have been cases where Kitchen Assisent jobs have been judged equivalent to refuse collectors. Now clearly the latter job involves far more physical work than the former so they are not equivalent in that way. ... This difference must have been judged to be offset by some other difference but judging what other difference is equivalent is even more of a subjective judgement.

This is an example of focusing on a stereotypically male work requirement - physical effort - and ignoring other work requirements or dismissing them as "subjective". So let's take a quick look at the cashier and the shelf stacker the way a job evaluation would:

Cashier:
  • Customer relations
  • Cash handling and fiduciary responsibility - also includes things like watching out for counterfeit currency, checking ID, etc. ; balance cash and electronic transactions
  • Operate cash register, POS terminal, scanner, scale; replace supplies such as paper and ribbons; minor cleaning, troubleshooting
  • Memorize produce codes and other purchase coding systems
  • Operate multi-line telephone
  • Packing / bagging purchases
  • Work is performed standing in one location
  • Work requires repetitive motions
  • Shift work


Shelf Stacker:
  • Operate pallet jack, check and maintain equipment
  • Use box cutter
  • Lift and move boxes of merchandise, flatten empty boxes, stack empty pallets
  • Stack items properly i.e. location, shelf tags, appearance, etc.
  • Rotate / remove stock as instructed
  • Work is performed in a variety of locations and positions
  • Work requires repetitive motions
  • Work requires using safe lifting techniques
  • Use ladder / steps
  • Shift work

A lay observer might be impressed by the power and skill required to wield a box cutter and stack pallets, and have absolutely no notion of the skills required at the till. From the employer's point of view, the first two items on the cashier list are incredibly critical. A cranky cashier can drive dozens, maybe hundreds of customers away in one shift. A careless or thieving cashier is a fucking disaster.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The undisputed statistic

The Mises Institute dispute it. Are you saying that it's a myth and economists don't believe it, or are you not?
Which statistic are you referring to?

The Statistic that full time women are paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to full time men (i.e. either for work of the same value or for work of different value?

Or the statistic that women are paid $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men for the same work, i.e. for work of identical value?

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
First, we need to quantify a "value" to work. Which also means a definition of "value" - and, if what we want to do is compare salaries the amount someone is willing to pay someone to do that work is an inappropriate metric. Necessary academic qualifications, skills, experience, manual strength, and so on all get pulled into that definition of "value".

I would say that a very good definition of the 'value' of a job in this sense would be that salary level that maximises profitability for the employer (or in the case of government and non profit employers maximises value for money for the employer. Any increase in salary for a given job will benefit employers financially by increasing to quality of job applicants and reducing turnover whilst cost them financially through the cost of the extra wages themselves. And of course the reverse is true of pay cuts. The true 'value' of a job would then be that point where overall financial benefit (or value for money benefit) to the employer is maximised.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... Now as for the issue of work of equal value I think it is more problematic than you assert. For a start I don't think you can simply equate the level of skills, training and effort involved in each job, however precisely measured. ...

I'm sorry, but there is no other way to put this: this is wrong. What you believe to be "problematic" - job evaluation and classification - is a standard part and practice of managing human resources. It may not be applied in all workplaces, but it is a real thing. HR professionals don't just look at the tasks performed, but also take into account the education and training required for the tasks; the level of independent decision-making; and last but far from least, the consequences of error.
However the fact that HR professionals in any given sector can use these kind of formulas to estimate the most profitable (or best value for money) salary for any given job doesn't mean that these formulas equate to the value itself. I would imagine they use these tools because there is not other easy way of estimating these figures for a huge number of jobs in a complex corporation. Applying the same formulas across different sectors (e.g. kitchen workers and rufuse collectors) is bound to be much more problematic as the levels or profitability may be quite different in different sectors
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I would say that a very good definition of the 'value' of a job in this sense would be that salary level that maximises profitability for the employer (or in the case of government and non profit employers maximises value for money for the employer.

Oh well, in that case clothing machinists should be valued very highly, because they maximise profits to the employer whilst getting paid very little. And some highly paid executives should be valued very little because their business is not making a profit.

Or maybe there is a rather gaping problem with your logic here.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I would say that a very good definition of the 'value' of a job in this sense would be that salary level that maximises profitability for the employer (or in the case of government and non profit employers maximises value for money for the employer.

Oh well, in that case clothing machinists should be valued very highly, because they maximise profits to the employer whilst getting paid very little. And some highly paid executives should be valued very little because their business is not making a profit.

Or maybe there is a rather gaping problem with your logic here.

To be absolutely clear the value of an employee, his or her market value, is not equal to the level of profit that his or her employment generates. It is equal to the level of salary offered that maximises employers profits.

If a chief executive is failing to do the job he or she is paid for then the shareholders should sack him or her rather than change his or her salary (since such a person is not going to maximise shareholder profit at any salary).

[ 02. July 2015, 18:11: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does the real world do this? No.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bibliophile is completely right that sexism in hiring employees goes against the principles of capitalism. Companies (and their shareholders) lose money by being sexist in this sense. That they do it anyway shows how deeply sexism is ingrained in our culture.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Does the real world do this? No.

Do you mean that in the real world employers frequently fail to maximise profits when they hire people. Of course. That doesn't mean that maximising profits is not their legitimate aim even if they sometime miss the target.

Do you mean that public sector employers frequently fail to get the best value for money when employing people. Absolutely. That doesn't mean that maximising value for money in not what they're supposed to do.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the first instance, no, I mean that (especially at the top) there is very little correlation between profit generated and remuneration.

In the second instance, no, I mean that (especially at the bottom), there is very little correlation between value generated and remuneration.

Managers and above in many private companies get paid far in excess of what they ought. Front-line staff in many public services do far more work than they are paid for.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
To be absolutely clear the value of an employee, his or her market value, is not equal to the level of profit that his or her employment generates. It is equal to the level of salary offered that maximises employers profits.

This interesting bit of free market fundamentalism essentially defines any and all wage gaps out of existence. If a wage gap exists, it definitionally must do so because the work is of lesser value, because the value of the work is defined as what is paid for it. If a company can get away with paying female workers less than male workers for the same task, then by definition their work is worth less. The more interesting situation comes when you start assessing the use of hired thugs or private armies by employers. (See virtually any American labor action prior to the end of the Homestead strike, or labor conditions in various overseas manufacturers.) If a company can spend less money overall by beating or killing union organizers, does that inherently make the work of the intimidated workforce less "valuable" than it was before the intimidation because they're then willing to take lower wages?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
That doesn't mean that maximising value for money in not what they're supposed to do.

LOL. now you are wrong in yet another area. And in multiple ways.
First, a business must make money or eventually fail. This does not inherently mean maximising profit.
Second, the philosophy of maximising profit is a large part of this global recession we are still feeling the effects of.
Third, salary structure might be meant to increase profit, but it often doesn't and becomes increasing difficult to measure the larger the business is.
Your inaccurate, and insufficient, analysis is consistent and telling.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In the first instance, no, I mean that (especially at the top) there is very little correlation between profit generated and remuneration.

there doesn't have to be. the 'value' of the work is not the value of profit the work generates. The value of the work is the level of salary that maximises employer profit. So for example one type of job may have a plentiful supply of good labour willing to work for low wages whilst being highly profitable. In that job profits might be maximised by low wages. Another job may be in a much less profitable area of the economy and require a very specialist labour force which is in limited supply. In that case the level of salary required to attract suitable employees and thereby maximise profits might be much higher even though the overall level of profits might be lower.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Managers and above in many private companies get paid far in excess of what they ought.

Yes there are people who bullshit others into paying them more than their market value. What has that got to do with the definition of market value?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
there doesn't have to be. the 'value' of the work is not the value of profit the work generates. The value of the work is the level of salary that maximises employer profit. So for example one type of job may have a plentiful supply of good labour willing to work for low wages whilst being highly profitable. In that job profits might be maximised by low wages. Another job may be in a much less profitable area of the economy and require a very specialist labour force which is in limited supply. In that case the level of salary required to attract suitable employees and thereby maximise profits might be much higher even though the overall level of profits might be lower.

Quite so, contrary to what you said above, wages are almost nothing to do with profits gained and everything to do with power and institutional structures in an organisation.

The person at the top is paid multiple times the person at the bottom - not because the person at the bottom makes less money for the company (which is rarely true) but because there is a power relationship and the demand is higher for higher status jobs at the top. Supply and demand is such that to get these jobs, you pay more wages even if there is little relationship between the top guy and profitability, the argument being that to get someone who can make the right decisions in the pressure of the boardroom, you need to pay to get the correct skills.

Now, the fact is that women don't get to these top jobs. The further up you go in an organisation, the fewer women there are.

So explain, without resorting to stupid arguments that you have already refuted about pay and profitability, why that is.


quote:
Yes there are people who bullshit others into paying them more than their market value. What has that got to do with the definition of market value?
No, you see the fact is that they are being paid market value. The problem is that the market values some more than others, almost independent of their actual relationship to profits gained.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
To be absolutely clear the value of an employee, his or her market value, is not equal to the level of profit that his or her employment generates. It is equal to the level of salary offered that maximises employers profits.

This interesting bit of free market fundamentalism essentially defines any and all wage gaps out of existence. If a wage gap exists, it definitionally must do so because the work is of lesser value, because the value of the work is defined as what is paid for it. If a company can get away with paying female workers less than male workers for the same task, then by definition their work is worth less.
If an employer can pay less to women than to men for performing exactly the same task to exactly the same standard the that employer would never again hire a man for that job. Why would they when they could make more money employing a woman?

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The more interesting situation comes when you start assessing the use of hired thugs or private armies by employers. (See virtually any American labor action prior to the end of the Homestead strike, or labor conditions in various overseas manufacturers.) If a company can spend less money overall by beating or killing union organizers, does that inherently make the work of the intimidated workforce less "valuable" than it was before the intimidation because they're then willing to take lower wages?

If an employer was paying less than the market value for its labour a strike would not have been needed to rectify it. The better quality workers would simply have left to get work elsewhere and the company would have been unable to attract good enough replacement workers. A lot of the violence came from the fact that the employers were able to get replacement workers but the unions used pickets to attempt to physically prevent them from doing so.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If an employer was paying less than the market value for its labour a strike would not have been needed to rectify it. The better quality workers would simply have left to get work elsewhere and the company would have been unable to attract good enough replacement workers. A lot of the violence came from the fact that the employers were able to get replacement workers but the unions used pickets to attempt to physically prevent them from doing so.

I see. Yes, clearly

[adds economics and labour relations to long list of things Bibliophile is completely wrong about]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If an employer was paying less than the market value for its labour a strike would not have been needed to rectify it. The better quality workers would simply have left to get work elsewhere and the company would have been unable to attract good enough replacement workers. A lot of the violence came from the fact that the employers were able to get replacement workers but the unions used pickets to attempt to physically prevent them from doing so.

I see. Yes, clearly

[adds economics and labour relations to long list of things Bibliophile is completely wrong about]

Perhaps you could explain what you think is incorrect about that paragraph?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bibliophile:
[QB]If an employer can pay less to women than to men for performing exactly the same task to exactly the same standard the that employer would never again hire a man for that job. Why would they when they could make more money employing a woman?

Yes, this is why sweatshop workers skew enormously towards female.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Perhaps you could explain what you think is incorrect about that paragraph?

You assume absolute free movement of labour and free availability of equivalent jobs. You then go on to assert that the problem of labour relations lie with labour unions rather than exploitative employers.

None of that is the real world.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools