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.
Do you mean that conservative women will not benefit from this? Are you suggesting that conservative women will refuse an increase in pay just to defy Obama?
Or are you suggesting that all women are part of Obama's base?
Nobody will benefit from it, the legislation is basically an election year trojan horse that BOTH parties like to employ.
You put together something like the "Protect the Children Act" and put it tough penalties for people hurting kids....oh and then tack on some fine print exempting coal burning plants from EPA regulation or restricting abortion etc etc etc.
Then when your opponent objects you claim they don't protect children.
Even this article, which says the president is misleading with his women make 77 cents on the Dollar of what a man makes is a bit misleading in itself.
If you look at teacher incomes, it points out that female teachers make 91 cents to the dollar of male teachers. However, virtually all public schools have a UNION CONTRACT pay scale based on years worked and additional pay due to extra responsibilities (ie coaching) and extra education (ie a Masters in Education).
As a teacher, I will tell you right now, my school does have women earn a bit less on average than male teachers...but the school is NOT discriminating.
Men choose to coach more than women = $$$
Men choose to run other extracurricular activities more than women = $$$
Men are less likely to take a whole year off of teaching when a child is born = $$$
However, my school is not discriminating it is a very set base pay system. We have some women who coach, even some women who have coached boys' teams. But it is more likely to be men coaching by choice. It is hard to keep many of the middle school coaching positions filled and the school has to beg and near pressure teachers to coach and it is usually the male teachers that give in.
Is the pay gap between men and women in teaching from personal choices (albeit those choices could be influenced by society and biology) and not discrimination by the school?
Could it be that most classroom teachers are female, and most administrators are male, thus the disparity? I don't buy the idea that males have more additional duties. My wife sponsors a class, a club and will be coaching next year. And she only gets paid for the coaching.
It's true that you need to adjust for education, skill level, experience, hours worked, location, and the job type before you can make any kind of determination. However, the Fed reserve has already done this and they found about a 2-3% unexplained gap. Nobody knows if the gap is due to personality, negotiation skills, management styles, or discrimination. The people claiming a 77% ratio are comparing retailing clerks and teachers to petroleum engineers.
I agree very much with this article about the pay disparity in nursing. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-e...221330791.html
**Even among men and women in the same nursing occupations, men outearn women. Women working full time, year-round earn 93 cents for every dollar men take earn as registered nurses, 89 cents to the dollar among nurse anesthetists, 87 cents to the dollar among nurse practitioners, and 91 cents among licensed vocational nurses, according to the study.**
And the funny thing is, in these newsletters I get from the nursing board, men are more likely than women to do things that cause them to lose their licenses, e.g. steal narcotics, be alcoholics, etc.
Yes, there's definitely a cultural thing going on with wages, at least in nursing.
Most of these studies are highly misleading and lack the granularity to fully evaluate male vs female wages. I have never seen a study that normalizes for all attributes including age, experience, etc. Until I do, I will not believe that there is a wage gap as the Idiot in the White House says.
Unless I see a SOLID statistical analysis that isolates all variables including geographical, overtime, shift differentials and a host of other factors.....I'm going to remain unconvinced. Certainly not some blog by someone with little education on how to conduct a proper analysis.
Education is subjective. Being educated doesn't mean you are smart or good at what you do.
It also matters in what they are educated. According to a study on the Economic Value of College Majors, published by Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce, the top 10 most remunerative majors, with one exception, is dominated by men.
Petroleum Engineering: 87% male
Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% male
Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male
Aerospace Engineering: 88% male
Chemical Engineering: 72% male
Electrical Engineering: 89% male
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male
Mechanical Engineering: 90% male
Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male
Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male
Whereas the top 10 least remunerative majors, with one exception, is dominated by women.
Counseling Psychology: 74% female
Early Childhood Education: 97% female
Theology and Religious Vocations: 34% female
Human Services and Community Organization: 81% female
Social Work: 88% female
Drama and Theater Arts: 60% female
Studio Arts: 66% female
Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% female
Visual and Performing Arts: 77% female
Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55% female
If one gets a liberal arts degree in Basket Weaving they should not expect the same pay as someone with a science degree in Aerospace Engineering. While it is true that more women than men are getting degrees these days, women are choosing degrees that do not pay worth a damn.
And what kind of a list is this, anyway? Pre-med is not financially remunerative? Maybe not till you go to med school, but then it's darned lucrative. (Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55% female) And pharmacy is a graduate (doctoral) program.
Schools have hard and fast contract rules, so it seems. I've seen those matrices: bachelor's + x hrs of grad school at y years, etc. Do the schools have any flexibility, can they jump a person up some steps even if they don't have the quals? For ex, can they say, well, with your education and experience you should be here, but we're going to move you up a few steps? I am being sincere. The thing with nursing salaries, like those in most of the free market, is that admin has a lot of discretion. They can give you a 2% raise or a 10% raise (though that would be extreme, just using it for an example).In my district, coaching is a separate pay issue; coaches get paid for coaching a sport, and it came out a few years ago that football coaches were being paid more than tennis coaches, etc. So that shouldn't figure into their teaching salaries. Same with sponsoring clubs and such.
I don't know that it's true that men work 10% more hours than women. I've read articles that say that when men "have to" (read choose to) leave early to pick up a kid, go to a kid's sporting/school event, whatever, they are far more likely than women to just disappear and not take any type of PTO for the missing hours, whereas women are more likely to put in for PTO. That has certainly been the case with my DH, who seems to always have a pretty flexible jobs. Now he seldom does this, but there never seems to be a problem when he does. Nurses, like teachers, can't usually leave before they're supposed to. We can't leave the patients; you can't leave the kids.
My understanding is that the union contract is not only strictly followed, but it is illegal to violate it up or down in someone's pay.
I haven't seen your study of men not taking time off properly, but as far as time off it is very clear in my contract and a sub is needed - it isn't easy to duck out unaccounted for. Also, whether it be biology or society or a bit of both, women at my school are far more likely to stay home with a sick child. This means less pay, as we are rewarded with $ for not using all of our sick/personal days. Women are also more likely to take an entire year off of work (usually for newborns) - which means not advancing a step in pay that year, as it is based off of "years worked." Then you would be a year behind for the rest of your career.
I don't think the union contract is trying to discriminate against female teachers. I think it is pretty straight forward and fair in terms of the genders. Yet women make 91 cents to the dollar of a man...and it seems to me to be straight forward explanations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11
Could it be that most classroom teachers are female, and most administrators are male, thus the disparity? I don't buy the idea that males have more additional duties. My wife sponsors a class, a club and will be coaching next year. And she only gets paid for the coaching.
You didn't read the article - it is comparing teachers:
"Take elementary and middle school teachers, for example. This is a job that is 80% dominated by women, yet men still earn more for doing the same job. Male teachers earn a median of $1,025 a week, whereas women earn $937 -- about 91 cents to the man's dollar."
Public schools that I know of adhere to a strict union contract. I guarantee that my school would show a gender pay gap.
-Women are more likely to take an entire year off, meaning they lose a step in pay, which is based off of years worked.
-Men are more likely to coach $
If there is gender discrimination at the school level it came from the union contract, which oddly doesn't account for gender.
If one gets a liberal arts degree in Basket Weaving they should not expect the same pay as someone with a science degree in Aerospace Engineering. While it is true that more women than men are getting degrees these days, women are choosing degrees that do not pay worth a damn.
Careful. Posting the facts will get you in trouble with the Dems.
I don't think the union contract is trying to discriminate against female teachers. I think it is pretty straight forward and fair in terms of the genders. Yet women make 91 cents to the dollar of a man...and it seems to me to be straight forward explanations.
.
So, show us a study that normalizes for all factors including experience.
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.
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.
