"Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

by **Werthless** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 23:54:59

Unmarried women in their 20s make more money than unmarried men in their 20s. Maybe that random factoid is what you're thinking of.

by **Gimpy** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 01:13:05

drsmooth wrote:Not sure who this is more unfair to:

Gawker wrote:

A lot of people in the United States don't know anything about soon-to-be ex-senator Marco Rubio of Florida, which means he theoretically still has a chance to be president, the same way the Philadelphia Phillies can still theoretically win this year's pennant. It will not last, and it will never have been realistic.

Rubio just won my vote. Go Phillies!

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 01:20:23

That really is a terrible analogy. Rubio pretty clearly in the top five people in these United States of America who has the best shot at taking the oath of office in January 2009. But I guess it's Gawker, so being stupid is sort of their niche.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 04:05:16

Bucky wrote:now answer the chicken/egg question here.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The Egg -- laid by a bird that was not a Chicken.
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

by **drsmooth** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 06:33:43

jerseyhoya wrote:That really is a terrible analogy. Rubio pretty clearly in the top five people in these United States of America who has the best shot at taking the oath of office in January 2009. But I guess it's Gawker, so being stupid is sort of their niche.

I thought it was another declared candidate who wanted to return to the past....?

by **WheelsFellOff** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 07:19:54

McFly/Brown 2016

by **Bucky** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 07:59:34

by **pacino** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 08:09:08

Chris Christie is going to run on the populist stance of cutting social security, medicare and medicaid. Also wants to crack down on legal marijuana.

Guess he's throwing his first lob at Jeb Bush to try to get all the rich donors back.

by **pacino** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 08:16:16

Tom Cotton says bombing Iran would take a few days and be nothing like Iraq:

“Even if military action were required — and we certainly should have kept the credible threat of military force on the table throughout which always improves diplomacy — the president is trying to make you think it would be 150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground in the Middle East again as we saw in Iraq and that’s simply not the case,” Cotton said.

“It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. Several days air and naval bombing against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior. For interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions. All we’re asking is that the president simply be as tough as in the protection of America’s national security interest as Bill Clinton was.”

I guess he thinks they'll just be 100% effective and Iran will also just crumble as a result. He seems rather non-serious.Iran is much stronger than Iraq was. THIS IS WHY YOU SAY YOURE SO AFRAID OF THEM. They can't be both so easy to crumble and so scary to deal with at the same time.

by **Werthless** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 09:58:23

Bucky wrote:
Werthless wrote:
Soren wrote:
Women also tend to leave the workforce for periods to raise children, seek jobs that may have more flexible hours but lower pay, and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.

Is there any evidence of this other than the conjecture made by conservatives that women are purposefully seeking to earn less money? The June O'Neill study the article links to doesn't mention whether she was examining only quantitative data or if they did some qual interviews to understand why women are in the careers they are in.

Women do not "seek jobs that earn less money," but just tend to pursue careers and courses of study that don't pay as well. Need more women petroleum engineers!

now answer the chicken/egg question here. Is it possible that those careers tend to pay less because women tend to populate the positions?

What high value, high skilled career pays has a low market value because women populate it? And no, I don't think teaching falls under this category. And yes, I was a teacher.

by **pacino** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:05:01

depends on what is considered high value I guess

by **Werthless** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:32:08

The hypothesis is that there are high value career paths that are only low paying because there are mostly women in that industry. I don't think these careers exist. The women-dominated career paths have other reasons for having low salaries, some combination of the following:

Low barriers to entry/skills (eg. secretaries)
Flexible schedules
Surplus demand for the jobs
Few viable employers with funds to pay high salaries (eg. Social work)

Now, if there are shortages of workers in an industry, then salaries are too low to attract labor. I would expect nurse salaries to increase, for example, and start to attract more and more men to this work. Because we all know that men are greedy.

by **pacino** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:39:39

i was merely stating that perhaps we don't value sectors that tend to attract women because of what we deem as worthy of high or low value. i'm not bothering going further into figuring out if this is a result of whether they are women or not, but instead we should look into why we look so poorly upon those jobs. we don't see short-term gain.

by **swishnicholson** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:16:31

Werthless wrote:What high value, high skilled career pays has a low market value because women populate it? And no, I don't think teaching falls under this category. And yes, I was a teacher.

Librarians.

by **pacino** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:21:28

swishnicholson wrote:
Werthless wrote:What high value, high skilled career pays has a low market value because women populate it? And no, I don't think teaching falls under this category. And yes, I was a teacher.

Librarians.

google.com is free, my man!

by **swishnicholson** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:27:23

pacino wrote:
swishnicholson wrote:
Werthless wrote:What high value, high skilled career pays has a low market value because women populate it? And no, I don't think teaching falls under this category. And yes, I was a teacher.

Librarians.

google.com is free, my man!

I'm just trying to get Uncle Milty back here.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:35:41

Werthless wrote:What high value, high skilled career pays has a low market value because women populate it? And no, I don't think teaching falls under this category. And yes, I was a teacher.

Nursing, though health care compensation dynamics are in interesting times.

Frankly, my feeling is highlighting gender disparities in pay now plays more to the divisive proclivities of political reactionaries, than it serves to rectify a market failure.

Women have been jerked around in workplaces for a long time, in a thousand different ways, paywise and otherwise. As Werthless indicates, the pay disparity narrative's too fragmented, too nuanced to score more points for women than you give up in antagonizing everyone who loses the pay hanky-panky pattern in the details

by **momadance** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:40:50

pacino wrote:Chris Christie is going to run on the populist stance of cutting social security, medicare and medicaid. Also wants to crack down on legal marijuana.

That should work well in a swing state like Colorado.

by **TomatoPie** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:57:23

The baseless myth is that employers pay women less for the same job. That is exactly the message of that 77-78% statistic.

I don't doubt that - probably up through the 1980s - plenty of employers did have different pay scales for women.

But harping on it in 2015 is simply another ugly flavor of political theatre.

by **Werthless** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:01:21

drsmooth wrote:
Werthless wrote:What high value, high skilled career pays has a low market value because women populate it? And no, I don't think teaching falls under this category. And yes, I was a teacher.

Nursing, though health care compensation dynamics are in interesting times.

Frankly, my feeling is highlighting gender disparities in pay now plays more to the divisive proclivities of political reactionaries, than it serves to rectify a market failure.

Women have been jerked around in workplaces for a long time, in a thousand different ways, paywise and otherwise. As Werthless indicates, the pay disparity narrative's too fragmented, too nuanced to score more points for women than you give up in antagonizing everyone who loses the pay hanky-panky pattern in the details

Yeah, I didnt want to get into the nuances and lose the next day of work, but I didnt want to ignore Bucky's question directed at me.

There is a lot of legislative action to address this problem of pay inequity, but most of the difference in pay between the median man and the median woman are not due to discrimination. Conservatives dismiss any effort entirely because liberals exaggerate the extent of the problem, and that just results in people talking past one another. Equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land, and I don't think I've ever met someone who disagrees with the concept.

Archived

"Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)