Progressiveness Gone Wild

[bilby]

Thus the reality is that employment discrimination inherently must be minor unless forced by the government, a monopoly or near monopoly, or by society.

You don't half believe some total bollocks.

Have you ever thought to question this dogma? Or are you a devotee of blind faith as an alternative to actually trying to comprehend reality?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

"Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

In the civilised world, "Full time" is 38 hours per week. More than that attracts overtime rates.

American workers are unbelievably tolerant of being robbed blind by their bosses. I still don't understand why they haven't risen up in bloody revolution, or at the very least unionised to the hilt and called a general strike.

This is something I will always fail to understand.

"Full time," assuming one doesn't have to leave for work is actually a 10+ hour day depending on commute. I also count the after hours emails and texts from work as well as getting dressed for work.

There is a better way and it won't break too many companies. The big drawback is that American goods and services would cost more. So, oh no, I can't buy a new cell phone for another year! I can't get on Amazon and order a new laptop! I can't have some kid bring my food to my house on demand anymore! OH NOES!!!

We have too much shit. Well, I don't because I'm 55 and live alone. I don't buy garbage I don't need. And when I was young and broke-ass, I didn't buy shit I didn't need either.

Anyway, a general strike would require enough people being angry enough to do it. We just don't have that anymore, and we also have mass media railing against it at the behest of massive corporate sponsorships and the goddamn GOP.

We're also spoiled as fuck.

I also have a thing about the all volunteer military and the evils that's foisted on us, but.. hmm. Maybe I'll make a post about that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

.

"Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

In the civilised world, "Full time" is 38 hours per week. More than that attracts overtime rates.

American workers are unbelievably tolerant of being robbed blind by their bosses. I still don't understand why they haven't risen up in bloody revolution, or at the very least unionised to the hilt and called a general strike.

This is something I will always fail to understand.

"Full time," assuming one doesn't have to leave for work is actually a 10+ hour day depending on commute. I also count the after hours emails and texts from work as well as getting dressed for work.

There is a better way and it won't break too many companies. The big drawback is that American goods and services would cost more. So, oh no, I can't buy a new cell phone for another year! I can't get on Amazon and order a new laptop! I can't have some kid bring my food to my house on demand anymore! OH NOES!!!

We have too much shit. Well, I don't because I'm 55 and live alone. I don't buy garbage I don't need. And when I was young and broke-ass, I didn't buy shit I didn't need either.

Anyway, a general strike would require enough people being angry enough to do it. We just don't have that anymore, and we also have mass media railing against it at the behest of massive corporate sponsorships and the goddamn GOP.

We're also spoiled as fuck.

I also have a thing about the all volunteer military and the evils that's foisted on us, but.. hmm. Maybe I'll make a post about that.

I fail to understand why government jobs aren't more scarce. For most it would be the best retirement and healthcare they would ever see. I suppose people just don't know. If you've nothing better to compare your current situation to, your current situation doesn't look so bad, I guess. People bitch and bitch and bitch about Microsoft but they keep right on using it. People are fucking weird.
Also, while folks may have to have their ass in the office for X hours a day, I doubt they are working so hard. I would offer up as evidence, Cyber Monday. Also I've noticed in the past that people seem to be on line gabbing on the weekdays during working hours more than the weekend. Maybe they're all on their pitiful ten minute break but I think otherwise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That stemmed from the misguided idea that men "had it all" to begin with. It's not that women didn't deserve the same opportunities, of course they did and still do. The problem was that "having it all" was a horrible fucking lie.

Agreed so far.

When long term spousal support is at issue, I've only handled one matter where wife had to pay husband. It's almost always husband having to pay SS (in long term marriage i.e. 10+ years).

Oftentimes it's because the parties agreed early on that husband would work and wife would stay home with the children. Despite the left's insistence that this is outdated and oppressive, it's not. It's still very common and is the basis for the issuance of a long term/permanent SS order (note: this is California, other ass backwards rules in red states probably don't apply).

And here I have a problem. Yes, support should be provided, but to put them to the level they would have been had they not stayed home with the children, not to the standard they had in their marriage. You don't get to leave the marriage but keep the benefits.

The point is that yes, on average, men do make more than women largely because they stay at their jobs longer due to the family dynamic, not because the nefarious patriarchy is out to get them. Leave the workforce for 5+ years and yes, you will get paid less than if you'd stayed at that job, and yes, husband will be making more than he did 5+ years ago.

Exactly. There's no great conspiracy, just market forces at work. Actions have consequences.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The functional pay gap is a lot less than most liberal-bent reporting suggests... but it's higher than most conservative-bent reporting suggests. Most of the gaps don't exist at the job description level.

I don't believe we have a true measure of it.

What does happen, however, is that women tend to get promoted more slowly than men on the whole. Some of that comes down to a social impact that's just plain entrenched, and I'm not sure it will ever really be overcome: women tend to prioritize their families and children over their work. That's not a bad thing - in fact, it's arguably necessary that one parent prioritizes family over work, or it all crumbles. And historically it's been women who do this. Some will argue that this is a behavioral tendency that has evolved in tandem with our sexual dimorphism and our reproductive investments - that's an argument that I think has at least some bearing on it.

Yup, it should be obvious that those who prioritize work end up making more. This isn't discrimination, it's simply reality. Whether the burden is shared equally or not is another matter but that's the choice of the couple, society doesn't get to decree it.

On the other side, however, is that women who don't have kids also tend to get promoted more slowly... because employers expect that they might have kids, and then their work won't have precedence anymore. It becomes an investment strategy on the part of the employer, even though it's very likely unconscious and unintentional.

And on this I disagree--people change jobs enough that future potential isn't that big an issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thus the reality is that employment discrimination inherently must be minor unless forced by the government, a monopoly or near monopoly, or by society.

You don't half believe some total bollocks.

Have you ever thought to question this dogma? Or are you a devotee of blind faith as an alternative to actually trying to comprehend reality?

You're not giving the slightest refutation here, just attacking me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

In the civilised world, "Full time" is 38 hours per week. More than that attracts overtime rates.

American workers are unbelievably tolerant of being robbed blind by their bosses. I still don't understand why they haven't risen up in bloody revolution, or at the very least unionised to the hilt and called a general strike.

This is something I will always fail to understand.

"Full time," assuming one doesn't have to leave for work is actually a 10+ hour day depending on commute. I also count the after hours emails and texts from work as well as getting dressed for work.

In terms of the impact on the person, yes. But the employer is not responsible for how far from the office you choose to live and thus is not responsible for your commute.

There is a better way and it won't break too many companies. The big drawback is that American goods and services would cost more. So, oh no, I can't buy a new cell phone for another year! I can't get on Amazon and order a new laptop! I can't have some kid bring my food to my house on demand anymore! OH NOES!!!

You are asserting there's a better answer but I'm not seeing what you are claiming it to be.

We have too much shit. Well, I don't because I'm 55 and live alone. I don't buy garbage I don't need. And when I was young and broke-ass, I didn't buy shit I didn't need either.

Yeah, not buying useless shit goes a long way towards keeping the cost of living down. I continually see things in the store that are insane for what you get--especially snack type stuff. And don't buy status symbols.

Anyway, a general strike would require enough people being angry enough to do it. We just don't have that anymore, and we also have mass media railing against it at the behest of massive corporate sponsorships and the goddamn GOP.

And a general strike assumes there is no overlap between workers and employers. But in reality there is. There are a lot of us who don't have an employer, do we strike against ourselves??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I fail to understand why government jobs aren't more scarce. For most it would be the best retirement and healthcare they would ever see. I suppose people just don't know. If you've nothing better to compare your current situation to, your current situation doesn't look so bad, I guess. People bitch and bitch and bitch about Microsoft but they keep right on using it. People are fucking weird.

Government jobs--good benefits but the government tries so hard to be fair that merit isn't rewarded properly.

Also, while folks may have to have their ass in the office for X hours a day, I doubt they are working so hard. I would offer up as evidence, Cyber Monday. Also I've noticed in the past that people seem to be on line gabbing on the weekdays during working hours more than the weekend. Maybe they're all on their pitiful ten minute break but I think otherwise.

That's not proof, people can shop during lunch or the like.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

That stemmed from the misguided idea that men "had it all" to begin with. It's not that women didn't deserve the same opportunities, of course they did and still do. The problem was that "having it all" was a horrible fucking lie.

Agreed so far.

When long term spousal support is at issue, I've only handled one matter where wife had to pay husband. It's almost always husband having to pay SS (in long term marriage i.e. 10+ years).

Oftentimes it's because the parties agreed early on that husband would work and wife would stay home with the children. Despite the left's insistence that this is outdated and oppressive, it's not. It's still very common and is the basis for the issuance of a long term/permanent SS order (note: this is California, other ass backwards rules in red states probably don't apply).

And here I have a problem. Yes, support should be provided, but to put them to the level they would have been had they not stayed home with the children, not to the standard they had in their marriage. You don't get to leave the marriage but keep the benefits.

The point is that yes, on average, men do make more than women largely because they stay at their jobs longer due to the family dynamic, not because the nefarious patriarchy is out to get them. Leave the workforce for 5+ years and yes, you will get paid less than if you'd stayed at that job, and yes, husband will be making more than he did 5+ years ago.

Exactly. There's no great conspiracy, just market forces at work. Actions have consequences.

With respect to spousal support, at least here in California, the job isn't to put the parties on a level playing field post-marriage. The idea is to provide an amount of spousal support such that the lower earner can have time to bring themselves up to speed. Here, it's called a Gavron Warning. Wife has 4-6 years to become self supportive, which means that Husband can begin to pay less.

If Husband loses the ability to pay and/or the original support order is oppressive due to any number of things, then the support can be set as low as zero.

That's just a couple of scenarios, there are many more.

Married people make decisions that have consequences for both. Frankly, the only way to minimize those impacts is to not have children.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

"Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

In the civilised world, "Full time" is 38 hours per week. More than that attracts overtime rates.

American workers are unbelievably tolerant of being robbed blind by their bosses. I still don't understand why they haven't risen up in bloody revolution, or at the very least unionised to the hilt and called a general strike.

This is something I will always fail to understand.

"Full time," assuming one doesn't have to leave for work is actually a 10+ hour day depending on commute. I also count the after hours emails and texts from work as well as getting dressed for work.

In terms of the impact on the person, yes. But the employer is not responsible for how far from the office you choose to live and thus is not responsible for your commute.

There is a better way and it won't break too many companies. The big drawback is that American goods and services would cost more. So, oh no, I can't buy a new cell phone for another year! I can't get on Amazon and order a new laptop! I can't have some kid bring my food to my house on demand anymore! OH NOES!!!

You are asserting there's a better answer but I'm not seeing what you are claiming it to be.

I meant to mention working from home. Not all jobs can be done that way, but as of right now, at least according to Pew, 35% of jobs can be worked from home full time. Also, it's reasonable to speculate that number could rise significantly depending on future business practices and technological progress.

I think you and I both agreed, but to reiterate, we, as a whole, buy too much shit we don't need. I do think that fast food deserves a special mention here. If I needed to, I could feed myself for $50 per week and probably gain weight from doing so. To eat fast food just once per day would cost ~$85. Throw in Starbucks (god, what a useless fucking chain) or some other food/what-the-fuck ever related expenses, and for one person, that's over $100 weekly.

Anyway, a general strike would require enough people being angry enough to do it. We just don't have that anymore, and we also have mass media railing against it at the behest of massive corporate sponsorships and the goddamn GOP.

And a general strike assumes there is no overlap between workers and employers. But in reality there is. There are a lot of us who don't have an employer, do we strike against ourselves??

I work from home and I'm self-employed, but I would like for others to have the same opportunity. Admittedly, it gets pretty f'ing weird, but it's much better than going into an office every goddamn day 5-6 days per week.

Oh, I think you mentioned something about commuting. Take the costs of living in a decent apartment in L.A. vs. housing costs and ability to buy a home in the Inland Empire. L.A. is untenable for most people, but that's where the jobs are, and the IE is more expensive than it should be, but home ownership is still attainable. If you leave the house at 5:30 a.m. you can for sure get to work by 8:00 a.m. You'll be early as a matter of fact. However, leave at 6:00 a.m. and you'll need the full two hours. As for the ride home, forget it. It's a full 2 hours.

Any good communities outside of Los Angeles proper are through the fucking roof. The high desert is now growing and the commutes are getting longer. I understand that it's not that black and white, there are a million shades of gray, but regardless, a 40 hour work week isn't really 40 hours. You're physically in the office for 9 hours and you don't get paid for any commute, which means a person is spending 10+ hours per day at work for all practical purposes.

 

[ZiprHead]

The thread title lied. I fully expected to see Rachel Maddow's boobs.

 

[bilby]

Thus the reality is that employment discrimination inherently must be minor unless forced by the government, a monopoly or near monopoly, or by society.

You don't half believe some total bollocks.

Have you ever thought to question this dogma? Or are you a devotee of blind faith as an alternative to actually trying to comprehend reality?

You're not giving the slightest refutation here, just attacking me my stupid and unfounded beliefs.

FTFY.

Attacking unfounded beliefs is kinda the whole schtick around here.

 

[bilby]

the employer is not responsible for how far from the office you choose to live and thus is not responsible for your commute.

Correct. Where you choose to live is largely a function of how much you earn, and your employer has absolutely no say whatsoever in how much he pays you.

Oh, wait...


Shit.

 

[Elixir]

Employer is also not responsible for how desperate you are for work, that you would accept an even marginally profitable after travel, dress and other expenses-type job.

 

[laughing dog]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

That is clearly not an itemized list of “confounders” replete with data sets supporting values for the effects of specific confounders upon gender based employment decisions.

IOW I call bullshit.

Gender discrimination is real, and anyone who has employed people, knows it. Quantifying it is obviously difficult but specious hand waving away of the problem is … well, part of the problem.

We don't have a complete list. However:

1) Same exact position, not merely similar position.

2) Hours actually worked. No "full time". "Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

3) Years in the labor force, not age.

Considering these three we find women making 98 cents to the man's dollar. 90% of the "problem" is accounted for by three factors that are clearly not a comprehensive list. Yet we almost never see that 98 cent number--people are trying to make the problem look as big as possible. I get very suspicious in such situations.

If you posted a link to the research of these “we”, your argument would appear evidence-based instead of handwaved ideology.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That stemmed from the misguided idea that men "had it all" to begin with. It's not that women didn't deserve the same opportunities, of course they did and still do. The problem was that "having it all" was a horrible fucking lie.

Agreed so far.

When long term spousal support is at issue, I've only handled one matter where wife had to pay husband. It's almost always husband having to pay SS (in long term marriage i.e. 10+ years).

Oftentimes it's because the parties agreed early on that husband would work and wife would stay home with the children. Despite the left's insistence that this is outdated and oppressive, it's not. It's still very common and is the basis for the issuance of a long term/permanent SS order (note: this is California, other ass backwards rules in red states probably don't apply).

And here I have a problem. Yes, support should be provided, but to put them to the level they would have been had they not stayed home with the children, not to the standard they had in their marriage. You don't get to leave the marriage but keep the benefits.

The point is that yes, on average, men do make more than women largely because they stay at their jobs longer due to the family dynamic, not because the nefarious patriarchy is out to get them. Leave the workforce for 5+ years and yes, you will get paid less than if you'd stayed at that job, and yes, husband will be making more than he did 5+ years ago.

Exactly. There's no great conspiracy, just market forces at work. Actions have consequences.

With respect to spousal support, at least here in California, the job isn't to put the parties on a level playing field post-marriage. The idea is to provide an amount of spousal support such that the lower earner can have time to bring themselves up to speed. Here, it's called a Gavron Warning. Wife has 4-6 years to become self supportive, which means that Husband can begin to pay less.

If Husband loses the ability to pay and/or the original support order is oppressive due to any number of things, then the support can be set as low as zero.

That's just a couple of scenarios, there are many more.

Married people make decisions that have consequences for both. Frankly, the only way to minimize those impacts is to not have children.

I'm fine with something like this, but not with permanent.

 

[Emily Lake]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

That is clearly not an itemized list of “confounders” replete with data sets supporting values for the effects of specific confounders upon gender based employment decisions.

IOW I call bullshit.

Gender discrimination is real, and anyone who has employed people, knows it. Quantifying it is obviously difficult but specious hand waving away of the problem is … well, part of the problem.

We don't have a complete list. However:

1) Same exact position, not merely similar position.

2) Hours actually worked. No "full time". "Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

3) Years in the labor force, not age.

Considering these three we find women making 98 cents to the man's dollar. 90% of the "problem" is accounted for by three factors that are clearly not a comprehensive list. Yet we almost never see that 98 cent number--people are trying to make the problem look as big as possible. I get very suspicious in such situations.

I'm going to take a bit of an exception to your "hours actually worked" because there's a confounding factor that you're ignoring. Salaried women will often not work as many hours as men do beyond the baseline 40, because they have kids that need care and women still do that majority of that unpaid labor. And just to add some salt to that... women who have kids and DO work as many hours as men end up getting criticised by their colleagues, friends, and spouses for "being a bad mother".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is clearly not a comprehensive list of things that need to be checked. But instead we see the big numbers repeated over and over but basically nobody trying to test if there's anything left after considering confounders. I find the omission very relevant.

That is clearly not an itemized list of “confounders” replete with data sets supporting values for the effects of specific confounders upon gender based employment decisions.

IOW I call bullshit.

Gender discrimination is real, and anyone who has employed people, knows it. Quantifying it is obviously difficult but specious hand waving away of the problem is … well, part of the problem.

We don't have a complete list. However:

1) Same exact position, not merely similar position.

2) Hours actually worked. No "full time". "Full time" is not a number, by pretending it's 40 the data is distorted.

3) Years in the labor force, not age.

Considering these three we find women making 98 cents to the man's dollar. 90% of the "problem" is accounted for by three factors that are clearly not a comprehensive list. Yet we almost never see that 98 cent number--people are trying to make the problem look as big as possible. I get very suspicious in such situations.

I'm going to take a bit of an exception to your "hours actually worked" because there's a confounding factor that you're ignoring. Salaried women will often not work as many hours as men do beyond the baseline 40, because they have kids that need care and women still do that majority of that unpaid labor. And just to add some salt to that... women who have kids and DO work as many hours as men end up getting criticised by their colleagues, friends, and spouses for "being a bad mother".

Once again, you are blaming employers for what things they have no control over. The fact that they tend to do the majority of the unpaid labor is an issue between the couple, not something to blame the employer for. The employer pays for what they get and the woman working 40 hours vs the man working 50 isn't as valuable.