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.
And please, to all addressing the OP's question, please identify if you are a MALE or FEMALE (unless you, for whatever reason, wish to keep that information private).
It would be interesting, as well, to know what generation you came from (i.e., teen, young adult, middle-aged, senior), what political label(s) you tend to affix to yourself, and any other useful info. But, if that is too invasive for me to hope for, you can pass up on said requests.
Even (liberal) NPR recently ran a much fairer piece on the wage gap and noted that the 79 cents was frankly a pile of Bull EXCEPT for certain key industries. So YES, it's still real but NO it's not anywhere near 79 cents and is an issue in certain industries more than others.
To properly analyze such an issue you need something much more complicated than: Y = MX +b
If you're over the age of 14 and you think things have a single variable then you should be grateful to make whatever minimum wage is available in your town.
In reality Y is the summation of many many many random variables and not just gender or height or education or profession or city or hours worked or a host of other factors.
The fact that you and others have latched onto a Y=MX +b single variant answer is offensive to educated women (and men that care about them) that understand things work more deeply than that.
In short, yes...women do get short changed, especially in some professions. However, the 79 cents is an innumerate crock of chit and falling for it means you're either blindly gullible or badly educated.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-13-2017 at 06:11 PM..
Reason: off topic
"For those in the U.S. population-at-large who do NOT suppport the concept of "equal pay for women for equal work" (believing instead that females should always or nearly always get paid less than males for the same job positions doing the same type and degree of work) what justifications would they give for supporting such a point-of-view?
You are tilting at straw men. Nobody takes this position.
Because politicians on both sides play people that they feel they can take advantage of. Democrats are particularly good at using identity politics to paint narratives designed to insight hate.
In your varied postings thus far in this thread, you keep mentioning the words "liberal" and "Democrat". Is this really an issue where so-called "liberals" always take one side of the issue and so-called "non-liberals" (whether they call themselves "conservatives" or "libertarians" or whatever else) always take the other side of the issue? Is it really?
So we will uniformly or nearly-uniformly fnd that avowed MALE conservatives or conservative-leaning libertarians like Donald Trump or Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Mitch McConnell or Mike Pence or John McCain or Lindsey Graham or Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie and myriad others will look their own wives, daughers, granddaughters, mothers, sisters, et al right in the eyes and tell them ALL that, across the board, it should be the basic rule that male pay rates should exceed female pay rates? And all these female significant others in their lives who ALSO would call themselves "conservative" will take the same position . . . because, in your view, this is to be the standard stance to be expected to be taken by ALL who are to the right of the so-called "liberal" spectrum?
And likewise, would we uniformly or nearly-uniformly find that conservative-identifying WOMEN such as Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schafly, Condoleeza Rice, Laura Ingraham, Kellyanne Conway, Betsy DeVos, Jan Brewer, Mary Matalin, Carly Fiorina, Sarah Cupp, Liz Cheney, and myriad other self-avowed conservative women to be in wholesale agreement with such a stance taken by their male conservative counterparts?
I never really thought of this issue as a "conservative" versus "liberal" or "left-of-center" issue. It just seems to be a matter of human decency (regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum) . . . just like we would all deem to be kind to animals and treat them with love and decency (regardless of whether we self-identify as conservative or libertarian or moderate-centrist or liberal or left-of-liberal such as democratic socialist). If both Ann Coulter and I work for, say, the Associated Press or Fox News as regular staffers, I (as a male) should say to her that I deserve to get paid consistently MORE than she does because the "averages" show that women tend to put in less work per time period for the same type and degree of work requirements than their male counterparts? And, with Ann Coulter trying to always be true to her conservative creed and outlook, she would actually AGREE with me on that assertion made by myself to her? Really? If so, that is quite fascinating? I, as a male, would ask her:
"WHY? You are saying to me that you truly really feel that you always need to put yourself at an economic disadvantage to me as a male when it isn't always warranted for ALL women in all workplaces for this pay practice to prevail (as all women don't, in fact, match the "average" behavior patterns predicted for them by statistics)? But you, the Ann Coulter, feel that you (as a woman) should get penalized irregardless anyway??? Really??? Fascinating! Truly fascinating!" A true "head scratcher" for me to ponder!!
If the boldfaced quote above is uniformly true (which is how you DO portray it here), then the work that any woman does is NOT truly "equal work" (i.e., equal in type of work, equal in the actual assigned job description and duties, equal in job expectations, et al). Yet we ALL know (or should know) that this assertion is NOT uniformly true of females-at-large. It comes down, in the end, to an individual case-by-case-by-case-by-case-by-case basis.
So, for example, when Colin Powell served as U.S. Secretary of State, and when Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright all served as U.S. Secretary of State, you would have automatically supported Colin Powell getting a higher pay scale for the same job description and duties serving as U.S. Secretary of State than his female counterparts???? Would you say that this example of a real job description (and involving people that we all happen to be familiar with) "debunks" your own asserted stance that "women take lesser paying jobs, work less hours, turn down promotions, and take more time off work"? How does your quoted assertion apply to this real-life example?
Or if I, as a man, take a software programming position with a computer manufacturer and a woman takes the same duplicate position and we are both assigned to work 40 hours per week, and we both have masters degrees in computer and infomation sciences from, say, M.I.T., and both have the same demonstrated knowledge of programming languages and methods, the woman should still get paid less than I do each week, month, and year (in your own persnal view)? If so, please explain your stance using both these examples portrayed here by myself (for job positions as "U.S. Secretary of State" and for a "software programming position") and please explain exactly and revealingly WHY you support your position even in these two stated circumstances presented here by myself.
If the boldfaced quote above is uniformly true (which is how you DO portray it here), then the work that any woman does is NOT truly "equal work" (i.e., equal in type of work, equal in the actual assigned job description and duties, equal in job expectations, et al). Yet we ALL know (or should know) that this assertion is NOT uniformly true of females-at-large. It comes down, in the end, to an individual case-by-case-by-case-by-case-by-case basis.
So, for example, when Colin Powell served as U.S. Secretary of State, and when Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright all served as U.S. Secretary of State, you would have auomatically supported Colin Powell getting a higher pay scale for the same job description and duties serving as U.S. Secretary of State than his female counterparts???? Would you say that this example of a real job description (and involving people that we all happen to be familiar with) "debunks" your own asserted stance that "women take lesser paying jobs, work less hours, turn down promotions, and take more time off work"? How does your quoted assertion apply to this real-life example?
Or if I, as a man, take a software programming position with a computer manufacturer and a woman takes the same duplicate position and we are both assigned to work 40 hours per week, and we both have masters degrees in computer and infomation sciences from, say, M.I.T., and both have the same demonstrated knowledge of programming languages and methods, the woman should still get paid less than I do each week, month, and year (in your own persnal view)? If so, please explain your stance using both these examples portrayed here by myself (for job positions as "U.S. Secretary of State" and for a "software programming position") and please explain exactly and revealingly WHY you support your position even in these two stated circumstances presented here by myself.
Absurd examples. Women on average work less hours, avoid unpleasant working conditions, take more time off and are many times less likely to be injured or killed on the job. That is why on average they make less money.
Individuals who think women are underpaid should start businesses and hire women.
My neighborhood monthly magazine lists teenagers who are looking to do household chores. Not a single female is looking to mow yards. They will pet and baby sit. Now, who deserves more per hour, the pet sitter or the lawn mower?
If you think women are underpaid start a business and just hire women.
It truly isn't an issue that I sit around and mull about all the time (nor even hardly any of the time). It is just that, if and when I read about it in the media at all, I wonder to myself "If these claims are true to whatever degree, why would this situation prevail in our society at all?" It would be like us all still debating whether it is right or wrong to enslave your fellow humans (as though that isn't already a settled moral issue amongst everyone except among the truly sociopathic and depraved segments of humanity). That is, if it IS, in fact, a true accusation that this situation prevails often enough in the American workforce-at-large (enough so to draw the degree of attention to itself that it does), how and why would a society that touts itself as a nation-state that promotes human decency and universal basic rights above all happen to be mired in such a moral quagmire? I don't think of it as a "male versus female issue" or as a "right versus left" issue. As an analogy, is one supporting versus not supporting "involuntary servitude" (aka "slavery") a "conservative versus liberal" issue?
For your information (and for all others reading this thread as well), I happen to take rather conservative or libertarian positions myself on various issues of modern-day society and am a Caucasian male (and one who is now a senior). I don't always vote based on a strict party line nor a staunch commitment to a certain ideology or point-of-view. I support what I think is right for any given issue and don't support what I think is wrong for any given issue.
IN SUMMARY: It is merely an interesting passing subject to me but not one that I overly dwell over or are consumingly preoccupied with. It certainly doesn't affect me personally (being a male) but it does seem rather unfair (that is, if the charges of "unequal pay for equal or relatively-equal work for women in comparison to men holding the same positions" are, in fact, true to more than a passing degree). So various of you here in this thread are saying that the charges are not nearly as true as portrayed by some or are greatly distorted and/or overblown? You who say this may, in fact, know more than I do on the issue. Yet it is rather strange, then, why, if what you assert in rebuttal is true, then WHY does there continue to be those in the public forum who keep bringing up these allegedly "false or distorted or overblown charges"? You would think that such persons who keep bring up this issue would lose all their credibility after a bit and would be charged with propagatng "fake news" (inventing issues that are not really valid issues-of-concern for us to contend with in our modern-day society).
In your varied postings thus far in this thread, you keep mentioning the words "liberal" and "Democrat". Is this really an issue where so-called "liberals" always take one side of the issue and so-called "non-liberals" (whether they call themselves "conservatives" or "libertarians" or whatever else) always take the other side of the issue? Is it really?
So we will uniformly or nearly-uniformly fnd that avowed MALE conservatives or conservative-leaning libertarians like Donald Trump or Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Mitch McConnell or Mike Pence or John McCain or Lindsey Graham or Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie and myriad others will look their own wives, daughers, granddaughters, mothers, sisters, et al right in the eyes and tell them ALL that, across the board, it should be the basic rule that male pay rates should exceed female pay rates? And all these female significant others in their lives who ALSO would call themselves "conservative" will take the same position . . . because, in your view, this is to be the standard stance to be expected to be taken by ALL who are to the right of the so-called "liberal" spectrum?
And likewise, would we uniformly or nearly-uniformly find that conservative-identifying WOMEN such as Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schafly, Condoleeza Rice, Laura Ingraham, Kellyanne Conway, Betsy DeVos, Jan Brewer, Mary Matalin, Carly Fiorina, Sarah Cupp, Liz Cheney, and myriad other self-avowed conservative women to be in wholesale agreement with such a stance taken by their male conservative counterparts?
I never really thought of this issue as a "conservative" versus "liberal" or "left-of-center" issue. It just seems to be a matter of human decency (regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum) . . . just like we would all deem to be kind to animals and treat them with love and decency (regardless of whether we self-identify as conservative or libertarian or moderate-centrist or liberal or left-of-liberal such as democratic socialist). If both Ann Coulter and I work for, say, the Associated Press or Fox News as regular staffers, I (as a male) should say to her that I deserve to get paid consistently MORE than she does because the "averages" show that women tend to put in less work per time period for the same type and degree of work requirements than their male counterparts? And, with Ann Coulter trying to always be true to her conservative creed and outlook, she would actually AGREE with me on that assertion made by myself to her? Really? If so, that is quite fascinating? I, as a male, would ask her:
"WHY? You are saying to me that you truly really feel that you always need to put yourself at an economic disadvantage to me as a male when it isn't always warranted for ALL women in all workplaces for this pay practice to prevail (as all women don't, in fact, match the "average" behavior patterns predicted for them by statistics)? But you, the Ann Coulter, feel that you (as a woman) should get penalized irregardless anyway??? Really??? Fascinating! Truly fascinating!" A true "head scratcher" for me to ponder!!
This is an overly dramatic response. Let me summarize in a very simple way. This "issue" you raise in the OP is not an issue at all. Plenty of research out there and common sense shows that. Liberals lie about it to get people like yourself fired up about it, that is all this is, an intentionally misleading talking point.
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.
