Yet another shooting thread

[Toni]

What we do see is that degrees are more valuable if you're not a white male.

That’s an interesting perspective, and I’d like to understand it better. Could you provide data or sources to support the claim that degrees are more valuable if you're not a white male? Specifically, it would be helpful to see:

• Studies or reports analyzing wage disparities across demographics with similar degrees and qualifications.
• Data comparing employment rates and earnings by race and gender for graduates in comparable fields.
• Research on employer preferences or hiring practices that might show a bias in favor of non-white, non-male candidates.

If you have examples of where to find this information (e.g., academic studies, labor statistics, industry reports), please share them. This could help clarify and substantiate your point. Thanks!

I don't have time for a detailed look and don't have convenient links but it was easy to find this:

A stunning chart shows the true cause of the gender wage gap

The gender wage gap is really a child care penalty

www.vox.com

It's not specifically about degrees but it shows what's actually going on with the "gender" pay gap.

Thanks for the non-answer. Again, again, and again.

Are you dismissing that report as irrelevant?

Does it support your claim that degrees are more valuable if you're not a white male?

No AA system there, so you wouldn't expect it. What it shows is that the gender pay gap is due to motherhood.

What you are really saying is that there is a gender pay gap due to the reluctance of BIg Business and society at large to sufficiently support families with things such as flexible work hours, child care, etc. not to mention the assumption that women are less career oriented once they get married (they might have kids!) or have kids (see! I told you so!) while men typically get raises and promotions for such things. I've seen it happen multiple times.

BTW, my childless sister faced wage discrimination in her male dominated field, despite having degrees as good or better than her male counterparts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course the problem in places like Pakistan is that the people that can, leave. Much like the small town brain drain in the American south.

It's not just the south. And it's an unfair characterization. Many/most rural communities lose population to The Big City because there are more jobs there and more opportunities. It's a real issue for parents and for young adults. Parents usually want what is best for their kids and struggle with the fact that often means that they move far away. Young adults are drawn to the greater opportunities of urban areas--and then struggle with the high cost of living. Sometimes the older generation moves to a more urban area to be near adult kids/grandkids, healthcare, etc. and sometimes younger adults move back to smaller communities for the reduced stress and relaxing atmosphere.

And note that when any community suffers such a population drain the results are bad for the community. It's the best that leave.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No AA system there, so you wouldn't expect it. What it shows is that the gender pay gap is due to motherhood.

What you are really saying is that there is a gender pay gap due to the reluctance of BIg Business and society at large to sufficiently support families with things such as flexible work hours, child care, etc. not to mention the assumption that women are less career oriented once they get married (they might have kids!) or have kids (see! I told you so!) while men typically get raises and promotions for such things. I've seen it happen multiple times.

BTW, my childless sister faced wage discrimination in her male dominated field, despite having degrees as good or better than her male counterparts.

What you are missing is that said gap doesn't exist until the kids come along. It's not being female, it's not being married, it's being a mother.

 

[bilby]

said gap doesn't exist until the kids come along

[citation needed]

 

[Toni]

No AA system there, so you wouldn't expect it. What it shows is that the gender pay gap is due to motherhood.

What you are really saying is that there is a gender pay gap due to the reluctance of BIg Business and society at large to sufficiently support families with things such as flexible work hours, child care, etc. not to mention the assumption that women are less career oriented once they get married (they might have kids!) or have kids (see! I told you so!) while men typically get raises and promotions for such things. I've seen it happen multiple times.

BTW, my childless sister faced wage discrimination in her male dominated field, despite having degrees as good or better than her male counterparts.

What you are missing is that said gap doesn't exist until the kids come along. It's not being female, it's not being married, it's being a mother.

Oh, yes, that most vile creature: mothers! Everyone knows that as soon as a woman gets knocked up, her brain turns to mush and she cares only about how much paid time off she can get to look after the kids!

Why that does NOT apply and in fact, seems to have the opposite effect on men’s professional careers just goes to show that men are never at the mercy of things like hormones or feelings or family obligations or personal needs.

Of course none of this has ever applied to childless, unmarried women—who still do not earn as much as their male counterparts. Never know when she might show up preggers, I guess.

It could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that business is set up to revolve around men’s lives and their non-involvement in family related matters and of course, to maximize profits.

The fact is that business and work shifts are typically not structured in order to allow anyone to have a decent work/life balance. Few businesses seem to acknowledge the fact that a decent work/life balance improves the physical and mental health of everybody and increases productivity.

 

[Toni]

Of course the problem in places like Pakistan is that the people that can, leave. Much like the small town brain drain in the American south.

It's not just the south. And it's an unfair characterization. Many/most rural communities lose population to The Big City because there are more jobs there and more opportunities. It's a real issue for parents and for young adults. Parents usually want what is best for their kids and struggle with the fact that often means that they move far away. Young adults are drawn to the greater opportunities of urban areas--and then struggle with the high cost of living. Sometimes the older generation moves to a more urban area to be near adult kids/grandkids, healthcare, etc. and sometimes younger adults move back to smaller communities for the reduced stress and relaxing atmosphere.

And note that when any community suffers such a population drain the results are bad for the community. It's the best that leave.

Bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

said gap doesn't exist until the kids come along

[citation needed]

Look upthread. I was referring to the article I linked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No AA system there, so you wouldn't expect it. What it shows is that the gender pay gap is due to motherhood.

What you are really saying is that there is a gender pay gap due to the reluctance of BIg Business and society at large to sufficiently support families with things such as flexible work hours, child care, etc. not to mention the assumption that women are less career oriented once they get married (they might have kids!) or have kids (see! I told you so!) while men typically get raises and promotions for such things. I've seen it happen multiple times.

BTW, my childless sister faced wage discrimination in her male dominated field, despite having degrees as good or better than her male counterparts.

What you are missing is that said gap doesn't exist until the kids come along. It's not being female, it's not being married, it's being a mother.

Oh, yes, that most vile creature: mothers! Everyone knows that as soon as a woman gets knocked up, her brain turns to mush and she cares only about how much paid time off she can get to look after the kids!

That's not what I'm saying.

Why that does NOT apply and in fact, seems to have the opposite effect on men’s professional careers just goes to show that men are never at the mercy of things like hormones or feelings or family obligations or personal needs.

You seem to have once again fallen into the trap of thinking that a disparate outcome proves discrimination.

Kids are a huge time sink and the cost is borne disproportionately by the mothers. You can make a case that this is a social problem, but that doesn't make it discrimination.

The fact is that business and work shifts are typically not structured in order to allow anyone to have a decent work/life balance. Few businesses seem to acknowledge the fact that a decent work/life balance improves the physical and mental health of everybody and increases productivity.

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course the problem in places like Pakistan is that the people that can, leave. Much like the small town brain drain in the American south.

It's not just the south. And it's an unfair characterization. Many/most rural communities lose population to The Big City because there are more jobs there and more opportunities. It's a real issue for parents and for young adults. Parents usually want what is best for their kids and struggle with the fact that often means that they move far away. Young adults are drawn to the greater opportunities of urban areas--and then struggle with the high cost of living. Sometimes the older generation moves to a more urban area to be near adult kids/grandkids, healthcare, etc. and sometimes younger adults move back to smaller communities for the reduced stress and relaxing atmosphere.

And note that when any community suffers such a population drain the results are bad for the community. It's the best that leave.

Bullshit.

That proves nothing. I'm not saying that everyone who leaves is better than anyone who stays but the population that leaves is on average better than the population that stays. Happens everywhere.

 

[laughing dog]

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

Which is the entire point of that discussion - whether that ought to be the case since the burden of a "good work/lie" balance seems to fall on women.

The developed world is facing a demographic problem of declining population. One of the major reasons for that is the high cost of child-rearing both in terms of expense and "a good work/life balance".

 

[Toni]

No AA system there, so you wouldn't expect it. What it shows is that the gender pay gap is due to motherhood.

What you are really saying is that there is a gender pay gap due to the reluctance of BIg Business and society at large to sufficiently support families with things such as flexible work hours, child care, etc. not to mention the assumption that women are less career oriented once they get married (they might have kids!) or have kids (see! I told you so!) while men typically get raises and promotions for such things. I've seen it happen multiple times.

BTW, my childless sister faced wage discrimination in her male dominated field, despite having degrees as good or better than her male counterparts.

What you are missing is that said gap doesn't exist until the kids come along. It's not being female, it's not being married, it's being a mother.

Oh, yes, that most vile creature: mothers! Everyone knows that as soon as a woman gets knocked up, her brain turns to mush and she cares only about how much paid time off she can get to look after the kids!

That's not what I'm saying.

Why that does NOT apply and in fact, seems to have the opposite effect on men’s professional careers just goes to show that men are never at the mercy of things like hormones or feelings or family obligations or personal needs.

You seem to have once again fallen into the trap of thinking that a disparate outcome proves discrimination.

Kids are a huge time sink and the cost is borne disproportionately by the mothers. You can make a case that this is a social problem, but that doesn't make it discrimination.

The fact is that business and work shifts are typically not structured in order to allow anyone to have a decent work/life balance. Few businesses seem to acknowledge the fact that a decent work/life balance improves the physical and mental health of everybody and increases productivity.

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

Discrimination IS a societal problem. It exists at every level and on every facet of society. When something is as prevalent as lower wages for women who have children--doing the same work, with the same qualifications as men--that IS discrimination against women. Despite your claims, it exists whether or not women have children or young, dependent children. Do you know what women with young children who earn sufficient income do? They hire help at home. They hire cleaning services and of course, whatever women earn, they must pay for childcare, which is exorbitant right now, and in fact, often comes quite close to wiping out the wages earned by mothers of young children. Women who can afford to do so, hire help--but must 'manage' the help: pay, ensuring that requested work is done to agreed upon standards on an agreed upon time frame, etc. and also manage if the cleaners quit or are sick or are otherwise absent.

You know what else (smart) women who earn enough income have? Husbands who also cook and clean up after dinner, who are capable of bathing and getting kids into bed, and doing a bit of laundry.

There is also significant societal discrimination against men being involved with their families. This is also an evil that we deal with at all levels of society: the pressure on men to be big earners; the assumption that men are not as valuable as parents or as good at managing a household. The absence of fathers in the household other than as a paycheck or that person sitting at the end of the table at dinner (sometimes).

When something is systemic and is based on some arbitrary or arbitrarily applied criteria, that is discrimination.

Women who give birth not getting sufficient time off with pay/benefits to recover from pregnancy and childbirth is discrimination. Men DO get sufficient time off when they have major medical events such as heart attacks or broken bones from playing basketball or whatever.

 

[bilby]

The developed world is facing a demographic problem of declining population.

Yes.

One of the major reasons for that is the high cost of child-rearing both in terms of expense and "a good work/life balance".

No.

If the cost of child-rearing were a major reason for this, we would see a positive correlation between wealth and fecundity - the people having fewest kids would be the people with the lowest wealth.

The actual correlation is sharply negative - the wealthier a person is, the fewer kids they have.

The decline in population is entirely due to modern advances in technology - specifically contraception - that have made having children into a choice, at least for those women wealthy enough to have control over the decision.

 

[laughing dog]

The developed world is facing a demographic problem of declining population.

Yes.

One of the major reasons for that is the high cost of child-rearing both in terms of expense and "a good work/life balance".

No.

If the cost of child-rearing were a major reason for this, we would see a positive correlation between wealth and fecundity - the people having fewest kids would be the people with the lowest wealth.

The actual correlation is sharply negative - the wealthier a person is, the fewer kids they have.

I agree the correlation is strongly negative. It has been that way for centuries.Throughout history, long before cotnraception was readily available. the rich have had fewer children per household than those less wealthy. Adam Smith pointed this out in his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
One of the reasons (and not the only one) is he cost for wealthier persons is proportionally higher because they feel they have to give up proportionally more. So, they choose to have fewer children. Poorer families, especially in developing countries, don't view children so much as a cost but as an asset.

 

[Tigers!]

No AA system there, so you wouldn't expect it. What it shows is that the gender pay gap is due to motherhood.

What you are really saying is that there is a gender pay gap due to the reluctance of BIg Business and society at large to sufficiently support families with things such as flexible work hours, child care, etc. not to mention the assumption that women are less career oriented once they get married (they might have kids!) or have kids (see! I told you so!) while men typically get raises and promotions for such things. I've seen it happen multiple times.

BTW, my childless sister faced wage discrimination in her male dominated field, despite having degrees as good or better than her male counterparts.

What you are missing is that said gap doesn't exist until the kids come along. It's not being female, it's not being married, it's being a mother.

Oh, yes, that most vile creature: mothers! Everyone knows that as soon as a woman gets knocked up, her brain turns to mush and she cares only about how much paid time off she can get to look after the kids!

That's not what I'm saying.

Why that does NOT apply and in fact, seems to have the opposite effect on men’s professional careers just goes to show that men are never at the mercy of things like hormones or feelings or family obligations or personal needs.

You seem to have once again fallen into the trap of thinking that a disparate outcome proves discrimination.

Kids are a huge time sink and the cost is borne disproportionately by the mothers. You can make a case that this is a social problem, but that doesn't make it discrimination.

The fact is that business and work shifts are typically not structured in order to allow anyone to have a decent work/life balance. Few businesses seem to acknowledge the fact that a decent work/life balance improves the physical and mental health of everybody and increases productivity.

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

Discrimination IS a societal problem. It exists at every level and on every facet of society. When something is as prevalent as lower wages for women who have children--doing the same work, with the same qualifications as men--that IS discrimination against women. Despite your claims, it exists whether or not women have children or young, dependent children. Do you know what women with young children who earn sufficient income do? They hire help at home. They hire cleaning services and of course, whatever women earn, they must pay for childcare, which is exorbitant right now, and in fact, often comes quite close to wiping out the wages earned by mothers of young children. Women who can afford to do so, hire help--but must 'manage' the help: pay, ensuring that requested work is done to agreed upon standards on an agreed upon time frame, etc. and also manage if the cleaners quit or are sick or are otherwise absent.

You know what else (smart) women who earn enough income have? Husbands who also cook and clean up after dinner, who are capable of bathing and getting kids into bed, and doing a bit of laundry.

I am pleased you consider my wife as smart.

There is also significant societal discrimination against men being involved with their families. This is also an evil that we deal with at all levels of society: the pressure on men to be big earners; the assumption that men are not as valuable as parents or as good at managing a household. The absence of fathers in the household other than as a paycheck or that person sitting at the end of the table at dinner (sometimes).

That is so true. Fathers who wish to spend time with their children are still looked upon as somehow less focused or dedicated. That attitude is is slowly changing but a long way to go.

When something is systemic and is based on some arbitrary or arbitrarily applied criteria, that is discrimination.

Women who give birth not getting sufficient time off with pay/benefits to recover from pregnancy and childbirth is discrimination. Men DO get sufficient time off when they have major medical events such as heart attacks or broken bones from playing basketball or whatever.

 

[Toni]

The developed world is facing a demographic problem of declining population.

Yes.

One of the major reasons for that is the high cost of child-rearing both in terms of expense and "a good work/life balance".

No.

If the cost of child-rearing were a major reason for this, we would see a positive correlation between wealth and fecundity - the people having fewest kids would be the people with the lowest wealth.

The actual correlation is sharply negative - the wealthier a person is, the fewer kids they have.

I agree the correlation is strongly negative. It has been that way for centuries.Throughout history, long before cotnraception was readily available. the rich have had fewer children per household than those less wealthy. Adam Smith pointed this out in his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
One of the reasons (and not the only one) is he cost for wealthier persons is proportionally higher because they feel they have to give up proportionally more. So, they choose to have fewer children. Poorer families, especially in developing countries, don't view children so much as a cost but as an asset.

Also: the children of wealthy people were more likely to survive until adulthood. Also, wealthy individual hired ( or kept servants, farmers, etc.) to do most of the necessary physical labor. Poor people by necessity relied upon the labor of their children to make a living. Wealthy people did not need to put their children in the fields.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

Which is the entire point of that discussion - whether that ought to be the case since the burden of a "good work/lie" balance seems to fall on women.

The developed world is facing a demographic problem of declining population. One of the major reasons for that is the high cost of child-rearing both in terms of expense and "a good work/life balance".

It's not being imposed, that's the choice they are making.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

Discrimination IS a societal problem. It exists at every level and on every facet of society. When something is as prevalent as lower wages for women who have children--doing the same work, with the same qualifications as men--that IS discrimination against women. Despite your claims, it exists whether or not women have children or young, dependent children. Do you know what women with young children who earn sufficient income do? They hire help at home. They hire cleaning services and of course, whatever women earn, they must pay for childcare, which is exorbitant right now, and in fact, often comes quite close to wiping out the wages earned by mothers of young children. Women who can afford to do so, hire help--but must 'manage' the help: pay, ensuring that requested work is done to agreed upon standards on an agreed upon time frame, etc. and also manage if the cleaners quit or are sick or are otherwise absent.

First you need to establish that it is discrimination.

90% of the "wage gap" disappears with three controls: specific job worked, actual hours worked (no treating all "full time" the same) and using years of experience rather than age.

Women who give birth not getting sufficient time off with pay/benefits to recover from pregnancy and childbirth is discrimination. Men DO get sufficient time off when they have major medical events such as heart attacks or broken bones from playing basketball or whatever.

Once again, you fail to recognize that disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination.

You are asking for discrimination in favor of women here--being paid for work not done. You choose to have a child, it comes with costs. Lots of costs.

 

[Toni]

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

Discrimination IS a societal problem. It exists at every level and on every facet of society. When something is as prevalent as lower wages for women who have children--doing the same work, with the same qualifications as men--that IS discrimination against women. Despite your claims, it exists whether or not women have children or young, dependent children. Do you know what women with young children who earn sufficient income do? They hire help at home. They hire cleaning services and of course, whatever women earn, they must pay for childcare, which is exorbitant right now, and in fact, often comes quite close to wiping out the wages earned by mothers of young children. Women who can afford to do so, hire help--but must 'manage' the help: pay, ensuring that requested work is done to agreed upon standards on an agreed upon time frame, etc. and also manage if the cleaners quit or are sick or are otherwise absent.

First you need to establish that it is discrimination.

90% of the "wage gap" disappears with three controls: specific job worked, actual hours worked (no treating all "full time" the same) and using years of experience rather than age.

Women who give birth not getting sufficient time off with pay/benefits to recover from pregnancy and childbirth is discrimination. Men DO get sufficient time off when they have major medical events such as heart attacks or broken bones from playing basketball or whatever.

Once again, you fail to recognize that disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination.

You are asking for discrimination in favor of women here--being paid for work not done. You choose to have a child, it comes with costs. Lots of costs.

No, I’m SAYING that every person working a job deserves paid time off to accommodate medical needs, illnesses and injuries. This is true whether the person has an illness or an I just or requires surgery or medical treatment. Further, all parents: biological or adoptive or foster parents need and deserve parental leave to establish bonds and to care fur a new child. This is what civilized nations do: they acknowledge that their workers are people, human beings, who might sometimes be ill or injured or have an ongoing medical need that needs to be accommodated. Further, they acknowledge and accommodate family needs: to care for a sick or injured family member, to care for and establish a good feeding and sleeping schedule with a new family member. In many other countries, family leave is 3 months and in some countries a year or more.

If you should have the misfortune to require that something that weighs 7 pounds or so from your body, you’d certainly require time away from your job to accommodate whatever procedures necessary to remove that 7 pound mass-and to teciver from it, and to get whatever physical or occupational therapy you need in order to recover fully and well. You’d expect no less. And I’d expect that in your behalf.

Your problem is that you seem to believe that ‘male’ is the standard human and that the standard either is make and that any woman who wishes to be taken seriously should act like a man and not do anything so outrageous as to expect to handle both motherhood and a job. Men, of course can do so— because they have a woman at home taking care of silly little things like nothing and raising children, getting them to and from daycare/school/doctors appointments/baseball practice/piano lessons, etc. etc.

Men only run businesses because they insist someone else take care of their lives-they don’t handle any of that stuff themselves.

Of course I am exaggerating a bit and presenting a 1950’s tv show depiction of life in the USA because that is what I think most closely approximates your world view and I thought you might see how far that world view is from reality.

 

[laughing dog]

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

Discrimination IS a societal problem. It exists at every level and on every facet of society. When something is as prevalent as lower wages for women who have children--doing the same work, with the same qualifications as men--that IS discrimination against women. Despite your claims, it exists whether or not women have children or young, dependent children. Do you know what women with young children who earn sufficient income do? They hire help at home. They hire cleaning services and of course, whatever women earn, they must pay for childcare, which is exorbitant right now, and in fact, often comes quite close to wiping out the wages earned by mothers of young children. Women who can afford to do so, hire help--but must 'manage' the help: pay, ensuring that requested work is done to agreed upon standards on an agreed upon time frame, etc. and also manage if the cleaners quit or are sick or are otherwise absent.

First you need to establish that it is discrimination.

90% of the "wage gap" disappears with three controls: specific job worked, actual hours worked (no treating all "full time" the same) and using years of experience rather than age.

Women who give birth not getting sufficient time off with pay/benefits to recover from pregnancy and childbirth is discrimination. Men DO get sufficient time off when they have major medical events such as heart attacks or broken bones from playing basketball or whatever.

Once again, you fail to recognize that disparate outcomes do not prove discrimination.

You are asking for discrimination in favor of women here--being paid for work not done. You choose to have a child, it comes with costs. Lots of costs.

Once again, you fail to recognize that couples have children and you expect one person to bear the costs while the other reaps the benefits of work not done.

 

[laughing dog]

A good work/life balance comes at the cost of lower wages.

Which is the entire point of that discussion - whether that ought to be the case since the burden of a "good work/lie" balance seems to fall on women.

The developed world is facing a demographic problem of declining population. One of the major reasons for that is the high cost of child-rearing both in terms of expense and "a good work/life balance".

It's not being imposed, that's the choice they are making.

Societal limitations are imposed.