The 10 Worst-Paying States for Women? Guess What Color Most of Those States Are. (employment, salary)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can almost always find this in common with states and countries that lack in progress. Where women are not treated equal you can count on poverty and ignorance. Almost without fail.
Yep...places like Washington State and Massachusetts. Lots of ignorance and poverty.
Sorry, but as much as some of you wish that the thread title were not true, it is.
Of the list, 6 states are red, 2, are purple, and 2 are red.
"Red states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Purple states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Blue states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Ok; how many red states compared to blue states out of the 50?
Cost of living is MUCH less in most red states because housing is affordable for most people, NOT "blue" places like Chicago, Washington DC, Seattle, NYC and so on.
I have sad news to report about my own neck of the woods and right next door at Harvard. Gender discrimination is pervasive in our society. It's subtle and so embedded in our psyches that people don't even notice it.
For example, the link below covers a gender debate between social scientists at Harvard. The debate is sort of a nature vs nurture thing with one debater arguing for innate male superiority aptitude in the sciences IIRC (funny coming from a social scientist, but whatever). At least these people are willing to look at themselves. I will give that credit, and it's a position that takes a level of intelligence and maturity that is not easily found in the US. Anyhow, there was a little study done at Harvard. It's a read, but worth it.
Quote:
I will give you one last version of a gender-labeling study. This one hits particularly close to home. The subjects in the study were people like Steve and me: professors of psychology, who were sent some vitas to evaluate as applicants for a tenure track position. Two different vitas were used in the study. One was a vita of a walk-on-water candidate, best candidate you've ever seen, you would die to have this person on your faculty. The other vita was a middling, average vita among successful candidates. For half the professors, the name on the vita was male, for the other half the name was female.
[MOD CUT/copyright]
That Harvard study shows that women have to work harder. If that is indeed the case then it wouldn't be surprising if women were earning less if they were on par with their male colleagues.
"In 2011, men working full-time earned a median of $48,765. Women earned just $38,373. That difference of more than $10,000 only tells part of the story of the continuing gender wage gap in this country. Depending on the industry, men in some states earn as much as $20,000 to $30,000 more a year than women. In some cases, the difference is even more. Men in corporate managerial positions earn roughly $35,000 more than women working full time in the same field."
Sorry, but as much as some of you wish that the thread title were not true, it is.
Of the list, 6 states are red, 2, are purple, and 2 are red.
Here's the specific problem that others allude to. Your basic assertion of this thread is a correlation between low paying jobs for women and the way a given state is leaning politically.
1) While you say "most" states[1], here's another way of saying this. Basically 60% of the states listed are red and have low paying jobs for women. From a statistics point of view, that is pretty much referred to as a "coin toss". That means no correlation, so your point of this thread is already void.
2) "Correlation does not equal causation". As someone else pointed out, there may be other factors which influence the pay for women, such as the types of jobs available in that state. Unfortunately your statistic doesn't attempt to sort any of it out, and you simply leap to conclusions.
3) You may have boosted your argument IF you would have provided some "causation", such as outlining specific policies in the red states which lower women's pay, but you don't. Instead, you just throw out some vague statistic, leap to some conclusion with no evidence, and then we're just supposed to feel the injustice of the red states. Sorry this thread didn't do it for me.
Does this explanation help?
[1] We all love the Democrat word games, they are so much fun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.