Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: Hank Rearden on April 30, 2007, 12:58:44 PM

Title: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Hank Rearden on April 30, 2007, 12:58:44 PM
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119920.html

New Year's Day is called that because it begins a new year, and Thanksgiving has that name because it's an occasion for expressing gratitude. But Equal Pay Day, observed this year on April 24, is named for something that, we are told, doesn't exist -- equal pay for men and women.

The National Committee on Pay Equity used the occasion to announce that among full-time workers, women make only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates have all endorsed legislation to fix the problem.

And the effort got new fuel from a report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, which says women are paid less starting with their first jobs out of college, and that the deficit only grows with time. Pay discrimination, says AAUW, is still "a serious problem for women in the work force."

In reality, that's not clear at all. What we know from an array of evidence, including this report, is that most if not all of the discrepancy can be traced to factors other than sexism. When it comes to pay equity, we really have come a long way.

On its face, the evidence in the AAUW study looks damning. "One year out of college," it says, "women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn."

But read more, and you learn things that don't get much notice on Equal Pay Day. As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.

As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.

Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect earnings. A year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.

Buried in the report is a startling admission: "After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination" (my emphasis). Another way to put it is that three-quarters of the gap clearly has innocent causes -- and that we actually don't know whether discrimination accounts for the rest.

I asked Harvard economist Claudia Goldin if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that women experience systematic pay discrimination. "No," she replied. There are certainly instances of discrimination, she says, but most of the gap is the result of different choices. Other hard-to-measure factors, Goldin thinks, largely account for the remaining gap -- "probably not all, but most of it."

The divergent career paths of men and women may reflect a basic unfairness in what's expected of them. It could be that a lot of mothers, if they had their way, would rather pursue careers but have to stay home with the kids because their husbands insist. Or it may be that for one reason or another, many mothers prefer to take on the lion's share of child-rearing. In any case, the pay disparity caused by these choices can't be blamed on piggish employers.

June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has uncovered something that debunks the discrimination thesis. Take out the effects of marriage and child-rearing, and the difference between the genders suddenly vanishes. "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap," she said in an interview.

That's a fact you won't hear from AAUW or the Democratic presidential candidates. The prevailing impulse on Equal Pay Day was to lament how far we are from the goal. The true revelation, though, is how close.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 01:22:00 PM
All of the statistics that you mentioned here are true but that doesn't mean that policies that close the pay gap are not worthwhile.

You're right, it's not only "piggish employers" that are to blame. The school system/ parent support system are also very important in making young girls aware of the choices that are open to them. Girls who eliminate math and science as possible career choices as early as the high school level will be highly unlikely to choose such majors in college. New policies which encourage girls to enter these fields and provide them with the confidence to believe that they are smart enough to excel in these fields would help close the gap. I think that this is important because girls at this age can make choices (by dropping math and science classes after sophomore or junior year) that could affect the rest of their lives. Girls at this age may be less likely to challenge norms about traditional "female careers" without additional support and encouragement.

Still I do think employers are partly to blame with policies that make it difficult for women to continue competing with men once they begin to have a family. Better work life policies and more men willing to share domestic duties could also change this. Men are able to have both families and careers, it is not fair that women should have to choose. Better work life policies will also benefit men who would like to spend more time with their families/ doing things other than work but are afraid to take the time to do so bc they do not have a 'legit' excuse such as motherhood!

Just my $.02
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Ever162 on April 30, 2007, 01:30:10 PM
tag
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 01:37:22 PM
All of the statistics that you mentioned here are true but that doesn't mean that policies that close the pay gap are not worthwhile.

You're right, it's not only "piggish employers" that are to blame. The school system/ parent support system are also very important in making young girls aware of the choices that are open to them. Girls who eliminate math and science as possible career choices as early as the high school level will be highly unlikely to choose such majors in college. New policies which encourage girls to enter these fields and provide them with the confidence to believe that they are smart enough to excel in these fields would help close the gap. I think that this is important because girls at this age can make choices (by dropping math and science classes after sophomore or junior year) that could affect the rest of their lives. Girls at this age may be less likely to challenge norms about traditional "female careers" without additional support and encouragement.

Still I do think employers are partly to blame with policies that make it difficult for women to continue competing with men once they begin to have a family. Better work life policies and more men willing to share domestic duties could also change this. Men are able to have both families and careers, it is not fair that women should have to choose. Better work life policies will also benefit men who would like to spend more time with their families/ doing things other than work but are afraid to take the time to do so bc they do not have a 'legit' excuse such as motherhood!

Just my $.02

The first post doesn't rule out actual discrimination as a cause.

But, I have to say that a policy solution is not the answer, unless that policy is only to ensure equal pay for equal contribution. To ensure that women are paid higher for performing less work, simply because they have the babies is discriminatory.

Women can choose not to have babies. They can choose to put babies up for adoption. They can choose to hire nannies. Nobody is making them stay home. And if someone is they are perfectly free to leave those people.

My mom continued to work despite having 3 children. She is now very successful. Moreso than my dad who stayed home to raise me and my sisters. It was what she wanted to do and she did it.

So, to me, it does not matter if "it's not fair". Life isn't fair. 
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: skeeball on April 30, 2007, 01:45:34 PM
I buy it.

Another factor (and this is just my speculating based on what I've seen from personal experience): a lot of jobs that pay a lot require some risk. Think salespeople who only bring home a paycheck if they make a sale. I'd love to see the stats on this, but I bet there are a lot more men willing to go into this kind of work than women.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: SilentSwirl on April 30, 2007, 01:48:21 PM
On its face, the evidence in the AAUW study looks damning. "One year out of college," it says, "women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn."

But read more, and you learn things that don't get much notice on Equal Pay Day. As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.

I've never read the actual studies, but I always assumed that when they said "colleagues" they were referring to people who worked in the same field and did the same kind of work. Of COURSE women who go into education are going to make less than men who go into investment banking.

The issue is -- do women bankers make the same as men bankers if they're doing the same job and working similar hours? Or does a glass ceiling really exist?

This report seems to have muddled the issue.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: The Pookie on April 30, 2007, 01:52:55 PM
i actually don't think the glass celing exists IF you are willing to give up your children, your family, etc etc.

the problem is more as the company won't provide adequate day care coverage and the huge media frenzy about "oh you must stay home all the time to be a good mom"

my mom worked for my entire life, i grew up with a lot of babysitters, i turned out fine with only minor psychological problems
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 01:58:51 PM
But, I have to say that a policy solution is not the answer, unless that policy is only to ensure equal pay for equal contribution. To ensure that women are paid higher for performing less work, simply because they have the babies is discriminatory.

Women aren't paid the same for equal work.

Quote
Women can choose not to have babies. They can choose to put babies up for adoption. They can choose to hire nannies. Nobody is making them stay home. And if someone is they are perfectly free to leave those people.

Oh God.  What kind of sheltered fantasy world do you live in?

Quote
So, to me, it does not matter if "it's not fair". Life isn't fair. 

Good point.  Life isn't fair, and it doesn't matter if it's fair.  That effectively precludes you from participating in any fairness conversation, or indeed, any policy-centered question at all.  It doesn't, however, resolve any issues, since 99% of the world thinks that life ought to be fair.  STFU n00b.

Your first response: Read my first sentence.

Your second response: This is exactly what happened in my family. Tell me its fantasy.

Your third response: Zinged me. I concede on the fairness point. Although, I was simply quoting something from a previous post to respond to their original point. And what's more a "policy solution" that would guarantee equal pay rates to someone who is gone for months or years, does not work the same amount to begin with, or otherwise doesn't give as much to the person who employs them, simply because they are different, is discriminatory. So people who are looking for fairness would most likely agree that a policy such as that is not desirable.   

That said, I agree that a cultural change would be nice. More men raising their chilluns. I was raised by my dad while my mom worked. That seems fair to me. But, saying that the pay system is not fair simply because of the fact that women tend to stay home is based on a mistaken assumption: that women are required to do that.

BTW, did you hear anything I said? I said, there still is a discriminatory basis for differences in pay. That should be changed. b00b
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: skeeball on April 30, 2007, 02:00:06 PM
It's not the the gap isn't wrong, it's that the difference relates to peoples attitudes. More men would need to volunteer to stay home with the kids, take on more domestic responsibilities, etc. How the heck do you legislate that?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: _____________________ on April 30, 2007, 02:03:43 PM
But, I have to say that a policy solution is not the answer, unless that policy is only to ensure equal pay for equal contribution. To ensure that women are paid higher for performing less work, simply because they have the babies is discriminatory.

Women aren't paid the same for equal work.

Quote
Women can choose not to have babies. They can choose to put babies up for adoption. They can choose to hire nannies. Nobody is making them stay home. And if someone is they are perfectly free to leave those people.

Oh God.  What kind of sheltered fantasy world do you live in?

Quote
So, to me, it does not matter if "it's not fair". Life isn't fair. 

Good point.  Life isn't fair, and it doesn't matter if it's fair.  That effectively precludes you from participating in any fairness conversation, or indeed, any policy-centered question at all.  It doesn't, however, resolve any issues, since 99% of the world thinks that life ought to be fair.  STFU n00b.

Your first response: Read my first sentence.

Your second response: This is exactly what happened in my family. Tell me its fantasy.

Your third response: Zinged me. I concede on the fairness point. Although, I was simply quoting something from a previous post to respond to their original point. And what's more a "policy solution" that would guarantee equal pay rates to someone who is gone for months or years, does not work the same amount to begin with, or otherwise doesn't give as much to the person who employs them, simply because they are different, is discriminatory. So people who are looking for fairness would most likely agree that a policy such as that is not desirable.   

That said, I agree that a cultural change would be nice. More men raising their chilluns. I was raised by my dad while my mom worked. That seems fair to me. But, saying that the pay system is not fair simply because of the fact that women tend to stay home is based on a mistaken assumption: that women are required to do that.

BTW, did you hear anything I said? I said, there still is a discriminatory basis for differences in pay. That should be changed. b00b

your mom aborted you?  or gave you up for adoption?  based on other things you said, not true.

so you can't really defend the notion that you live in a fantasy world by saying it happened to you.  you lived in a household where your mother worked.  ok.  thats great.  really it is.  but why wouldn't you want others to have the same opportunities instead of saying it worked for my mom everyone can do it.  you can just leave a man who won't put up with it, or abort an unwanted child, etc.

that is to say you are completely disregarding the norms in society - and are living in a fantasy world. 

the choices you cited are not easy and don't apply to everyone.  moreover, even a woman who is single, who doesn't have children, STILL faces discrimination in the workplace simply because she has female parts. 

*edit* that is to say she's made all the choices she can make and she still can't avoid discrimination.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: mugatu on April 30, 2007, 02:08:50 PM
reluctant tag

You don't have to worry about it.  You won't ever earn as much as a man in your position but it will be all your fault!

Problem solved!
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 02:09:46 PM


Your third response: Zinged me. I concede on the fairness point. Although, I was simply quoting something from a previous post to respond to their original point. And what's more a "policy solution" that would guarantee equal pay rates to someone who is gone for months or years, does not work the same amount to begin with, or otherwise doesn't give as much to the person who employs them, simply because they are different, is discriminatory. So people who are looking for fairness would most likely agree that a policy such as that is not desirable.   

I never said that women should be paid the same without putting in the same amount of work. I guess I should have clarified but what I meant by changing ER policies was more along the lines of on site day care and other policies that would allow women and men to contribute equally and deserve the same pay. Another important issue, especially in the legal field, is crazy long hours which often keep working mothers from making partner. There has been a recent movement lately among law students who would like to see firms decrease these hours for everyone (http://refirmation.wordpress.com/) which would as I mentioned before, benefit everyone.

Re: men taking a greater role in domestic duties:
Among the most successful female lawyers, it is very common for those who are married with kids to have a stay at home husband.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 02:11:35 PM
We wouldn't celebrate if 1/10 people were enslaved so why should we celebrate that we're CLOSE to a goal of pay equality.  There should be pay equality.  period.  not close.  not almost.  not YAY look how good we did we ALMOST fixed it.  but perhaps relief for righting a wrong once we finally elminate it.

And while pay equality is deserved, theres another issue as well.  Women shoulder a much greater portion of the domestic burden and are systematically pushed towards more "family friendly" careers such as education and nursing.  EVERY college aged woman I know has wondered how she will fit her family into her life.  Its still expected that women "deal" with the children and manage the home.  I have yet to hear a man wonder how he'll balance his family and his work. 

So women work at jobs earning less than men in their field or less than men because of their field, and then have to supervise children and childcare, run the house and the cleaning and cooking and laundry. 

So let's not pretend its so great the pay gap is minimal.  it exists, and it's wrong.


3 things though.

Who is pushing them toward family friendly careers?

What is wrong with wanting to do these things (or even feeling that one should)?

If someone decides to do these things should they be paid the same as a person who gave the extra time and effort to the job?

Since people seem to get me wrong I want to say that I agree that unequal pay for the same position and under the same circumstances is wrong and should be done away with.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: mugatu on April 30, 2007, 02:24:48 PM
reluctant tag

You don't have to worry about it.  You won't ever earn as much as a man in your position but it will be all your fault!

Problem solved!

And I can't even marry up  :'(

How come that's not an option?  Then you can dedicate your big brain to cleaning the house and playing with all of the little kiddies.

Eventually, you might want to shoot yourself in the head, but you'll just take Prozac instead.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 02:26:51 PM
your mom aborted you?  or gave you up for adoption?  based on other things you said, not true.

so you can't really defend the notion that you live in a fantasy world by saying it happened to you.  you lived in a household where your mother worked.  ok.  thats great.  really it is.  but why wouldn't you want others to have the same opportunities instead of saying it worked for my mom everyone can do it.  you can just leave a man who won't put up with it, or abort an unwanted child, etc.

that is to say you are completely disregarding the norms in society - and are living in a fantasy world. 

the choices you cited are not easy and don't apply to everyone.  moreover, even a woman who is single, who doesn't have children, STILL faces discrimination in the workplace simply because she has female parts. 

*edit* that is to say she's made all the choices she can make and she still can't avoid discrimination.

A fantasy is something that doesn't happen, but would be ideal. If it happened it's not a fantasy.

I find it interesting that you immediately assume that choosing to have babies or not equates to abortion. I was saying that they can plan a family. (Which is what my parents did and what most responsible people should do).

Are women really as stupid as you make them out to be? I mean geez, are they helpless little creatures who can't help who they end up with? You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that the norm is a bunch of women who are controlled by men. Most women are in complete control over who they choose to be with and what they choose to do.

My "fantasy world" is only different from the norm because my mom happened to choose a relatively unique path. Most women choose the path of having a family and taking care of kids. But, nearly every woman (I realize there are some who were raised to be averse to a career) has that choice.

I thought kids were a blessing? Seems the way most people are talking like they're a big pain in the ass.

Finally, yes I have been saying that actual discrimination is wrong. I am only arguing with the idea that we should put policies in place to ensure equal pay (when its not deserved) simply because a woman had a baby.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 02:29:37 PM
Quote

Finally, yes I have been saying that actual discrimination is wrong. I am only arguing with the idea that we should put policies in place to ensure equal pay (when its not deserved) simply because a woman had a baby.

I don't think anyone here is saying women should get paid the same as men for doing less work...are we? I think the point is changing policies that have a disparate impact on women but which would be beneficial for all who took advantage.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: mugatu on April 30, 2007, 02:30:49 PM
reluctant tag

You don't have to worry about it.  You won't ever earn as much as a man in your position but it will be all your fault!

Problem solved!

And I can't even marry up  :'(

How come that's not an option?  Then you can dedicate your big brain to cleaning the house and playing with all of the little kiddies.

Eventually, you might want to shoot yourself in the head, but you'll just take Prozac instead.

I go to a T1 school though. I'm ugly. Remember?

Oh yeah.  You're screwed.  Sorry.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 02:31:43 PM
We wouldn't celebrate if 1/10 people were enslaved so why should we celebrate that we're CLOSE to a goal of pay equality.  There should be pay equality.  period.  not close.  not almost.  not YAY look how good we did we ALMOST fixed it.  but perhaps relief for righting a wrong once we finally elminate it.

And George Bush is kinda like Hitler, only he's not actually a Nazi.  How is your slavery-to-(somewhat unequal wages) comparison helpful?

Tag.  It's like a train wreck, I just can't look away.

One off-topic note.  George Bush is so unlike Hitler it's not even funny.  Trust me, I hate the man and love to compare him to crackpot dictators, but the above just isn't accurate.  If you want a 1940sish, fascist loonie, I'd say Franco's a much more accurate bet ;)
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 02:39:24 PM
Women can choose not to have babies. They can choose to put babies up for adoption. They can choose to hire nannies. Nobody is making them stay home. And if someone is they are perfectly free to leave those people.

Oh God.  What kind of sheltered fantasy world do you live in?

This is exactly what happened in my family. Tell me its fantasy.

Adoption is a hard choice, and it's certainly not a choice that your mother made.  Nor is not having a child.

Your father raised the children.  That's nice.  How many men do that?

And most damningly, your last sentence, which truly does reside in fantasy-land only, entirely ignores, e.g., battered person syndrome (a.k.a. "battered woman syndrome").  The freedom to leave which is apparent from the outside is frequently illusory and not a real option.

I said: "Women can choose not to have babies. They can choose to put babies up for adoption. They can choose to hire nannies. Nobody is making them stay home. And if someone is they are perfectly free to leave those people."

You said: "Adoption is a hard choice, and it's certainly not a choice that your mother made.  Nor is not having a child."

I was not adopted. My parents planned to have kids. That means that at one point they chose not to have babies. Then they chose a babysitter for awhile. Then my dad quit and let my mom work on. Why did he do it? He thought we were a bunch of hellians.

Not many men do that. But then again, my mom married him. It was her choice to be with someone who is giving. And he didn't need to. We were hellians anyway.

And to your last statement, I thought we were talking about societal norms. Christ, do I have to put disclaimers in front of everything. Yes, I understand battered women can't just leave, but then, pay is not their biggest concern, is it?

For most women, the choice is there. I'll stand by that until somebody shows me some stats about how 50.0000001% of women in the US are chained th some man's will.

And you still haven't addressed my argument. (It had something to do with policies...)

Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Thistle on April 30, 2007, 02:41:28 PM
::peers through glass floor::


:oooh, you can see down their shirts!:
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 02:42:08 PM
Are women really as stupid as you make them out to be? I mean geez, are they helpless little creatures who can't help who they end up with? You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that the norm is a bunch of women who are controlled by men. Most women are in complete control over who they choose to be with and what they choose to do.

OK Scalito, easy there.

jsyk, 51% != all (aka "100%").  hth.

JSYK, I'm usually on the left in these arguments.  :-\
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 02:43:52 PM
Someone who knows more about this debate than I: does anyone offer any sort of justification for less pay for equal work, if it does in fact exist? Is there any sort of rationale that says "Salary is a form of investment; women are more likely to leave the company after the birth of a child than men, so a lower salary for women is intended to lower the increased risk that we assume." Something like that?

Not that I agree, I'm just wondering if that's ever been given as a reason.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 02:46:34 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 02:48:12 PM
::peers through glass floor::

::smokes a big cigar::
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Hank Rearden on April 30, 2007, 02:49:03 PM
Women won't hit their head on the glass if they work the same hours at the same quality as men (possibly giving up children, marriage, etc).

It's unrealistic to think that a person who is going to take 2 months off every few years to have children, then needs to be on-call for them 24/7, and is going to want time off for school stuff, recreation stuff ,etc are going to be competitive with someone (woman or man) who is at work 80 hours a week and devotes themselves fully to their job.  It just can't (and I would argue shouldn't) happen.

The same is true for men.  Men who make it don't exactly have a great social life, especially when at the start of their career.  Men who get married while involved in long-hour, high intensity professions (I-B tracked to move up, BIGLAW, elite 60 medical intern/residancy) have some of the highest divorce rates in the world (approaching 75%).  Let that sink in a moment before you make your next "women should be able to have the most esoteric, elite jobs, have a family, and have a great love life" argument.

Well look at you and the serious post. My my.

Kind of scary, isn't it?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 02:54:04 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.

Too late! We know you hate women now!

::kicks in crotch::

That was arousing. I love them now.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 02:54:21 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 02:55:55 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.

While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 02:56:52 PM
Women won't hit their head on the glass if they work the same hours at the same quality as men (possibly giving up children, marriage, etc).

It's unrealistic to think that a person who is going to take 2 months off every few years to have children, then needs to be on-call for them 24/7, and is going to want time off for school stuff, recreation stuff ,etc are going to be competitive with someone (woman or man) who is at work 80 hours a week and devotes themselves fully to their job.  It just can't (and I would argue shouldn't) happen.

The same is true for men.  Men who make it don't exactly have a great social life, especially when at the start of their career.  Men who get married while involved in long-hour, high intensity professions (I-B tracked to move up, BIGLAW, elite 60 medical intern/residancy) have some of the highest divorce rates in the world (approaching 75%).  Let that sink in a moment before you make your next "women should be able to have the most esoteric, elite jobs, have a family, and have a great love life" argument.

Well look at you and the serious post. My my.

Kind of scary, isn't it?

Smails has a great point.  For instance, some say women should be able to serve in combat positions in the military, including the Marines.  So is it not reasonable to ask that you then shave your head like the rest of the Marines?  :thinks back to Britney Spears: Hm.  You know what?  On second thought, nevermind. :P
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 02:57:24 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.


While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.

no it would not put them at a disadvantage...that is the whole point they would benefit EVERYONE!!!! i have mentioned the policies before go back and read
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Hank Rearden on April 30, 2007, 02:58:00 PM
Women won't hit their head on the glass if they work the same hours at the same quality as men (possibly giving up children, marriage, etc).

It's unrealistic to think that a person who is going to take 2 months off every few years to have children, then needs to be on-call for them 24/7, and is going to want time off for school stuff, recreation stuff ,etc are going to be competitive with someone (woman or man) who is at work 80 hours a week and devotes themselves fully to their job.  It just can't (and I would argue shouldn't) happen.

The same is true for men.  Men who make it don't exactly have a great social life, especially when at the start of their career.  Men who get married while involved in long-hour, high intensity professions (I-B tracked to move up, BIGLAW, elite 60 medical intern/residancy) have some of the highest divorce rates in the world (approaching 75%).  Let that sink in a moment before you make your next "women should be able to have the most esoteric, elite jobs, have a family, and have a great love life" argument.

Well look at you and the serious post. My my.

Kind of scary, isn't it?

Smails has a great point.  For instance, some say women should be able to serve in combat positions in the military, including the Marines.  So is it not reasonable to ask that you then shave your head like the rest of the Marines?  :thinks back to Britney Spears: Hm.  You know what?  On second thought, nevermind. :P

GI Jane?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 02:58:20 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.

Like family law.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 02:59:35 PM
Women won't hit their head on the glass if they work the same hours at the same quality as men (possibly giving up children, marriage, etc).

It's unrealistic to think that a person who is going to take 2 months off every few years to have children, then needs to be on-call for them 24/7, and is going to want time off for school stuff, recreation stuff ,etc are going to be competitive with someone (woman or man) who is at work 80 hours a week and devotes themselves fully to their job.  It just can't (and I would argue shouldn't) happen.

The same is true for men.  Men who make it don't exactly have a great social life, especially when at the start of their career.  Men who get married while involved in long-hour, high intensity professions (I-B tracked to move up, BIGLAW, elite 60 medical intern/residancy) have some of the highest divorce rates in the world (approaching 75%).  Let that sink in a moment before you make your next "women should be able to have the most esoteric, elite jobs, have a family, and have a great love life" argument.

Well look at you and the serious post. My my.

Kind of scary, isn't it?

Smails has a great point.  For instance, some say women should be able to serve in combat positions in the military, including the Marines.  So is it not reasonable to ask that you then shave your head like the rest of the Marines?  :thinks back to Britney Spears: Hm.  You know what?  On second thought, nevermind. :P

GI Jane?

Touche!  Ok, the question is now back on the table. ;)
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 03:00:24 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.


While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.

no it would not put them at a disadvantage...that is the whole point they would benefit EVERYONE!!!! i have mentioned the policies before go back and read

I don't see how you could do this. Do you pay the person who works 80 hours a week more money than the person who only works 40 thanks to the family life policy? How much more? And if not, how can you justify that?

I just don't see how you're going to make everyone happy.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 03:01:15 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.


While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.

no it would not put them at a disadvantage...that is the whole point they would benefit EVERYONE!!!! i have mentioned the policies before go back and read

I don't see how you could do this. Do you pay the person who works 80 hours a week more money than the person who only works 40 thanks to the family life policy? How much more? And if not, how can you justify that?

I just don't see how you're going to make everyone happy.

what about requiring more reasonable hours for everyone?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 03:02:37 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.


While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.

no it would not put them at a disadvantage...that is the whole point they would benefit EVERYONE!!!! i have mentioned the policies before go back and read

I don't see how you could do this. Do you pay the person who works 80 hours a week more money than the person who only works 40 thanks to the family life policy? How much more? And if not, how can you justify that?

I just don't see how you're going to make everyone happy.

what about requiring more reasonable hours for everyone?

That's not going to make everyone happy, least of all clients. Plus, every single employee would take a dramatic pay cut.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 03:04:14 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.


While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.

no it would not put them at a disadvantage...that is the whole point they would benefit EVERYONE!!!! i have mentioned the policies before go back and read

I don't see how you could do this. Do you pay the person who works 80 hours a week more money than the person who only works 40 thanks to the family life policy? How much more? And if not, how can you justify that?

I just don't see how you're going to make everyone happy.

what about requiring more reasonable hours for everyone?

That's not going to make everyone happy, least of all clients. Plus, every single employee would take a dramatic pay cut.
Hire more people.
Yah I agree. A paycut would be neccessary but I don't know how dramatic it would be.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 03:04:41 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.


While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.

no it would not put them at a disadvantage...that is the whole point they would benefit EVERYONE!!!! i have mentioned the policies before go back and read

I don't see how you could do this. Do you pay the person who works 80 hours a week more money than the person who only works 40 thanks to the family life policy? How much more? And if not, how can you justify that?

I just don't see how you're going to make everyone happy.

what about requiring more reasonable hours for everyone?

France is having such good results with that plan.

This isn't russia, is this russia, Danny?

In Russia you do not suffer gender gap.  Gender gap suffers YOU!

Every thread is better when it has a Russian Reversal ;)
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 03:06:21 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.


While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.

no it would not put them at a disadvantage...that is the whole point they would benefit EVERYONE!!!! i have mentioned the policies before go back and read

I don't see how you could do this. Do you pay the person who works 80 hours a week more money than the person who only works 40 thanks to the family life policy? How much more? And if not, how can you justify that?

I just don't see how you're going to make everyone happy.

what about requiring more reasonable hours for everyone?

That's not going to make everyone happy, least of all clients. Plus, every single employee would take a dramatic pay cut.
Hire more people.
Yah I agree. A paycut would be neccessary but I don't know how dramatic it would be.

I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 03:12:19 PM
Timeout

I'm not pro-discrimination. I'm not anti-women. I'm just anti-what-I-think-is-Princess's-policy.
did you not read the part where i said i do not think that women should get paid the same for doing less work? i don't think any reasonable person would argue that.

the point is not about making new policies that give women special priviledges, it is about making the workplace more family friendly in general.


While simultaneously not putting those that aren't family-oriented at a disadvantage, of course. And I have no idea how you would do that.

no it would not put them at a disadvantage...that is the whole point they would benefit EVERYONE!!!! i have mentioned the policies before go back and read

I don't see how you could do this. Do you pay the person who works 80 hours a week more money than the person who only works 40 thanks to the family life policy? How much more? And if not, how can you justify that?

I just don't see how you're going to make everyone happy.

what about requiring more reasonable hours for everyone?

That's not going to make everyone happy, least of all clients. Plus, every single employee would take a dramatic pay cut.
Hire more people.
Yah I agree. A paycut would be neccessary but I don't know how dramatic it would be.

I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.
What do you mean you just can't do it?
Also it would not have to be cut proportionally...company could sacrifice some of its profits...for example, at law firms associate work is billed out at about $300/hour (not sure about that figure if somebody has a more accurate one please give it)....how much of that do they get? very small %. In fact in most long hours/ high paying jobs people do not get paid that much when you calculate per an hour of work.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 03:12:34 PM
I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.

Not to mention, if this is a government sponsored restriction, you are stepping all over basic rights. Perhaps you could pitch this idea to a firm or company who would like to be more socially responsible.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 03:14:59 PM
I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.

Not to mention, if this is a government sponsored restriction, you are stepping all over basic rights. Perhaps you could pitch this idea to a firm or company who would like to be more socially responsible.
Policies encourage certain behaviors (usually with incentives), they do not enforce them.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 03:20:26 PM
Either way, giving tax breaks to corporations/firms/banks to continue to employ mommy who takes 2 month leaves every 2 years and maxes out her vacation/sick/break days all while liberally using policy to leave work early for kids' crap over somoene (man or woman) who works or would work 70 hours a week, 51 weeks a year isn't efficient.

Are you in favor of making all jobs wage-based? If so, do you think there would need to be a limit on hours per week that one could work?

I'm torn. It makes sense to me to pay by the hour; at the same time, however, workload fluctuates, so it would be virtually impossible to put a cap on workable hours.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 03:23:16 PM
I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.

Not to mention, if this is a government sponsored restriction, you are stepping all over basic rights. Perhaps you could pitch this idea to a firm or company who would like to be more socially responsible.
Policies encourage certain behaviors (usually with incentives), they do not enforce them.

Now are you talking about government or private policies. I'm telling you pitch it to a company. There have been companies who've gotten good applicants solely because of socially responsible benefits packages. They tend to be smaller, but hey. I would agree with any company's right to enact policies like that. I just don't agree with a public policy to that effect.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Hank Rearden on April 30, 2007, 03:23:47 PM
company could sacrifice some of it's profits

Some are more equal than others I suppose...
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Princessa1 on April 30, 2007, 03:25:27 PM
I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.

Not to mention, if this is a government sponsored restriction, you are stepping all over basic rights. Perhaps you could pitch this idea to a firm or company who would like to be more socially responsible.
Policies encourage certain behaviors (usually with incentives), they do not enforce them.

Now are you talking about government or private policies. I'm telling you pitch it to a company. There have been companies who've gotten good applicants solely because of socially responsible benefits packages. They tend to be smaller, but hey. I would agree with any company's right to enact policies like that. I just don't agree with a public policy to that effect.

I think private policies are helpful but that more companies will have them if encouraged by the government (to make such companies the norm instead of the exception)
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 03:28:07 PM
I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.

Not to mention, if this is a government sponsored restriction, you are stepping all over basic rights. Perhaps you could pitch this idea to a firm or company who would like to be more socially responsible.
Policies encourage certain behaviors (usually with incentives), they do not enforce them.

Now are you talking about government or private policies. I'm telling you pitch it to a company. There have been companies who've gotten good applicants solely because of socially responsible benefits packages. They tend to be smaller, but hey. I would agree with any company's right to enact policies like that. I just don't agree with a public policy to that effect.

I think private policies are helpful but that more companies will have them if encouraged by the government (to make such companies the norm instead of the exception)

Another problem is that you may be ignoring the nature of the work. People that work 70-80 hours a week often aren't doing it because they want to; they do it because they HAVE to; deadlines, etc. How do you address that problem with a mandated reasonable hours policy?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 03:30:33 PM
I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.

Not to mention, if this is a government sponsored restriction, you are stepping all over basic rights. Perhaps you could pitch this idea to a firm or company who would like to be more socially responsible.


Policies encourage certain behaviors (usually with incentives), they do not enforce them.

Now are you talking about government or private policies. I'm telling you pitch it to a company. There have been companies who've gotten good applicants solely because of socially responsible benefits packages. They tend to be smaller, but hey. I would agree with any company's right to enact policies like that. I just don't agree with a public policy to that effect.

I think private policies are helpful but that more companies will have them if encouraged by the government (to make such companies the norm instead of the exception)

And that, I think, would be exactly what shouldn't be done. Based on the various points above. It takes away from peoples' right to choose what they want to do with their lives.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 03:32:30 PM
I'd imagine it would have to be in accordance with the number of hours reduced, since you're going to have to hire more people to fill the hours gap. If you're working 70 hours a week making 150k, and you trim down to 40, I'd epect the salary to drop to 86kish. Sure, that's still plenty of money, and the wealth would be spread, but in today's society, you just can't do it.

Not to mention, if this is a government sponsored restriction, you are stepping all over basic rights. Perhaps you could pitch this idea to a firm or company who would like to be more socially responsible.
Policies encourage certain behaviors (usually with incentives), they do not enforce them.

Now are you talking about government or private policies. I'm telling you pitch it to a company. There have been companies who've gotten good applicants solely because of socially responsible benefits packages. They tend to be smaller, but hey. I would agree with any company's right to enact policies like that. I just don't agree with a public policy to that effect.

I think private policies are helpful but that more companies will have them if encouraged by the government (to make such companies the norm instead of the exception)

Yes, but in an capitalist economy that dog just "ain't gonna hunt".  To provide publicly-funded day care, or financial help for women who's family income is severely compromised by maternity makes sense.  But in order for the government to "encourage" this policy, you're talking money.  Because that's the only way a company not motivated by social responsibility concerns is going to be willing to do this.  I for one generally think that the government should stay out of social engineering.  Granted, there are exceptions to this, the Civil Rights Laws come to mind.  But in my mind, these two situations are hardly comparable.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 03:42:03 PM
But in my mind, these two situations are hardly comparable.

Why not?

Oy.  Really?

So for instance, the pay gap between men and women today, is the same proportionally as the pay gap between black men and white men, or black woman and white women, circa 1950 or 60?  Somehow I doubt it.

There are "man only" drinking fountains, and women are not allowed to patronize some of the same restaurants, swimming pools, and other establishments that men are?

Not to say that there is not any inequality between men and women.  But again, the scope and intensity are no where similar.  This should be pretty much elementary.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 03:45:41 PM
But in my mind, these two situations are hardly comparable.

Why not?

This is shaping up to be very similar to the Affirmative Action debates. But, there is a difference: choice. According to that article, the primary difference in pay can be attributed to different life choices. Getting rid of straight discrimination perhaps should be a governmental prerogative. But, charging taxes to hopefully change what some women see as unfair social factors pushing them toward a choice they don't want, is not the way to go.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 03:49:20 PM
But in my mind, these two situations are hardly comparable.

Why not?

This is shaping up to be very similar to the Affirmative Action debates. But, there is a difference: choice. According to that article, the primary difference in pay can be attributed to different life choices. Getting rid of straight discrimination perhaps should be a governmental prerogative. But, charging taxes to hopefully change what some women see as unfair social factors pushing them toward a choice they don't want, is not the way to go.

That's true.  I guess I unwittingly opened a big can of worms the second I brought up the comparison.  "Slavery was worse than the Holocaust" is another such one that I actually was reading about today.  Al Sharpton has some crazy ideas about that one, by the way.  But anyway, I'm bringing that up idly, not for discussion.  That topic would probably land this thread on the Haterade Board faster than a Regent Grad can get hired by DoJ.  Oy double vey.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 04:23:35 PM
you guys kiss and make up
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 04:26:40 PM
But in my mind, these two situations are hardly comparable.

Why not?

This is shaping up to be very similar to the Affirmative Action debates. But, there is a difference: choice. According to that article, the primary difference in pay can be attributed to different life choices. Getting rid of straight discrimination perhaps should be a governmental prerogative. But, charging taxes to hopefully change what some women see as unfair social factors pushing them toward a choice they don't want, is not the way to go.

Disturbingly this article and the discussion seems to focus only on college educated women.  Sure itd be nice to have a gender mixed ruling class bbbbuuuuuuttttttt

What about the working class women?

Smail's complaints about them skipping out on work early and abusing benefits dont really apply to them since they are working hourly with little or no benefits.

Itll be interesting to see how this (http://www.walmartclass.com/walmartclass_casedevelopments.html) plays out.

Yes, it will. And that's a great example of some (allegedly, I guess) actual discrimination that it is our government's place to do something about.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 04:37:27 PM
Allegedly affecting 2 MILLION WOMEN.
Well, it hasn't been decided yet. Obviously they'll win. Then it won't be alleged.

::Must.. maintain.. accuracy::
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 04:47:20 PM
But in my mind, these two situations are hardly comparable.

Why not?

This is shaping up to be very similar to the Affirmative Action debates. But, there is a difference: choice. According to that article, the primary difference in pay can be attributed to different life choices. Getting rid of straight discrimination perhaps should be a governmental prerogative. But, charging taxes to hopefully change what some women see as unfair social factors pushing them toward a choice they don't want, is not the way to go.

That's true.  I guess I unwittingly opened a big can of worms the second I brought up the comparison.  "Slavery was worse than the Holocaust" is another such one that I actually was reading about today.  Al Sharpton has some crazy ideas about that one, by the way.  But anyway, I'm bringing that up idly, not for discussion.  That topic would probably land this thread on the Haterade Board faster than a Regent Grad can get hired by DoJ.  Oy double vey.

So your position is that the Holocaust was worse than slavery?

Talk about Pandora's Box.  Like I said, I was bringing that up to demonstrate the potential heatedness of these kinds of comparisons.  I'm a little wary to debate it because of some of the emotions involved.  But if you want my personal opinion, free of arguments, then:  Of two great evils, was it the greater?  Yes.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 04:58:58 PM
What's worse peeing in someone's drink or crapping on someone's lawn?

This seems like a more worthwile argument.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 05:07:11 PM

Talk about Pandora's Box.  Like I said, I was bringing that up to demonstrate the potential heatedness of these kinds of comparisons.  I'm a little wary to debate it because of some of the emotions involved.  But if you want my personal opinion, free of arguments, then:  Of two great evils, was it the greater?  Yes.

Yes, well, there goes that.  You never did have anything that approximates an argument. Next time, maybe.

I too am Jewish, well, my mother is, so while I don't identify myself as such religiously, I'm told it stills counts :P

But as for the argument, for me the key is in the intent.  Slavery has occurred many times over the course of history, and generally the intent is the same: To gain increased economic activity by utilizing virtually free labor, with very little overhead.  That usually entails sub-standard conditions, but there's still an element of economic restraint.  A slave represents an investment.  Therefore, there's an incentive to feed them and keep them healthy up to a point, as work done is a return on the investment.

In the Holocaust, of course, Jews, Roma and Sinti (or gypsies, as they're usually known), and various other "asocials" as they were termed, were put in slave labor camps, in addition to the death camps.  But the end result of this slave labor, as stated by several sources, most notably a draft paper issued by Himmler and approved by Hitler, was death.  Economic viability here was a secondary concern.  It was not economics governing the situation.  It was "Hey, these guys are doing heavy labor and we're feeding them 800 calories a day.  They're going to die within a year or so, but we might as well get something out of them".  With slavery, future generations were encouraged, in order to multiply the work force.  With the Holocaust, the whole root objective was the complete and utter annihilation of a people, under the loose ethnic defininition of "Jews" (and any American just needs to glance at their family tree to see how absurd notions of ethnicity are).

Now that begs another question then, isn't the Holocaust just genocide?  I go with Yehuda Bauer's (Israeli Holocaust scholar) definition, which is more or less in line with the UN's.  Genocide is the particular targetting of violence and oppression towards a specific group (loosely defined as ethnic, religious, cultural, etc.).  A holocaust, however, is the rigorously planned and systematic extermination of a group in its entirety.  The only other historical example I can think of that comes close is this country's campaign against the Native Americans, but I'm not sure that fits the criterion of being "systematic".  But that's an area I know far less about.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 05:08:01 PM

Talk about Pandora's Box.  Like I said, I was bringing that up to demonstrate the potential heatedness of these kinds of comparisons.  I'm a little wary to debate it because of some of the emotions involved.  But if you want my personal opinion, free of arguments, then:  Of two great evils, was it the greater?  Yes.

Yes, well, there goes that.  You never did have anything that approximates an argument. Next time, maybe.

Coming from someone whose only comments, on any topic I have seen, have been nothing but shallow, pithy attempts to condescension...  give me a second to bask in the irony.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: VTMercutio on April 30, 2007, 05:25:34 PM
Perhaps I am not seeing the big picture...so if I am not...please educate me...as I am sure everyone will be willing to do  :), but paralleling this situation to the civil rights act is a bit wrong.  I suppose that the only way to deal with the pay gap could be the same way that the civil rights act dealt with the past discrimination...aka affirmative action, but it just isn't quite the same.

Discrimination used to take place based solely on the color of ones skin...to pay someone less when they do less work...just isn't wrong in the same sense.  Perhaps as I said the only way to deal with this would be something akin to Affirmative Action, however, I believe it is somewhat already in place.  When a woman applies to an engineering school...I hate to say it, but she will have a much easier time to get in, thus schools are attempting on their own to bolster the amount of women represented in the scientific fields.  Perhaps not enough for some, but what we are talking about her is sweeping societal change.

Instead of watching mommy cook, perhaps if we want more women in scientific fields, we watch our moms come home and do our algebra or show us some kind of science project.  Typically, these are the things that our dads show us.  The pay gap is a lingering negative effect of essentially a world society that used to have women stay home and make babies...that is changing, slowly, but surely it is changing.

I suppose to close it up, this pay gap is a product of society, not piggish men.  Women currently propagate this just as men.  I hate to say it, but I have met a few women at college that actually said that they just wanted to graduate, get married, and have kids...no career goals; I'll give a quarter to the first man I hear actually say that and mean it.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 05:54:09 PM
Yeah yeah.

Answer my question and I'll condescend to you much more substantively and effectively than I have thus far, believe me.  In turn you might even learn a thing or two about how to think properly.  And you needn't bother with the talky, hipster asides: it doesn't impress me and the peanut gallery probably doesn't care.

oh snap :D

Talky hipster asides?  Funny, as being a hipster is pretty much what I pegged you for.  I've seen this walking stereotype all too many times.  You think that speaking in a wry tone, belittling arguments made by others on an internet message board, whilst making no real contribution to the argument yourself, somehow makes you intelligent.  Please don't teach me "how to think" because I'm not into shallow showmanship.  I actually like to be intelligent, rather than pretend to it.  But to answer your question, yes, your assumptions are correct.  And I can't wait for your response.  It will probably be the fifth most entertaining thing I've seen today.  Please, oh all-knowing-sage-of-the-Inter-Web, allow us poor peons to bask in your infinite wisdom.

By the way, read an interesting article today in the Economist about how these non-profit groups, like the one in your sig, are actually leading to market inefficiencies in microlending.  I'd be more than happy to lay the article out for you, but I already know the result: You are correct, and myself and the good folks at the Economist are a bunch of "talky hipsters" who don't know jack.  At least you make the argument predictable.  You get a little credit.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 06:09:59 PM
I too am Jewish, well, my mother is, so while I don't identify myself as such religiously, I'm told it stills counts :P

Oh.  Then you're just biased.  ;)

Wait, wait.  You haven't heard the kicker.  The reason I do not religiously identify as Jewish is because I am Lutheran.  German Lutheran.  That's why I'm so interested in this topic, actually.

But as for the argument, for me the key is in the intent.  Slavery has occurred many times over the course of history, and generally the intent is the same: To gain increased economic activity by utilizing virtually free labor, with very little overhead.  That usually entails sub-standard conditions, but there's still an element of economic restraint.  A slave represents an investment.  Therefore, there's an incentive to feed them and keep them healthy up to a point, as work done is a return on the investment.

It's unclear to me that you're actually privileging intent (see incentive for feeding to reap a reward--aren't you making a consequentialist, "they kept them alive and in adequate health" argument?).  It's also interesting to me that you would define the intent of slavery merely as economic in nature, i.e., under a Marxian historical reading, slavery is exploiting workers to gain economic reward.  Under this intent reading, if it's truly the key to you, you can brush aside the actual murders, rapes, and abuses of slaves, as well as the dehumanizing effect (which also may couple as a motivation if you're willing to admit to a multiplicity of motivating factors, i.e. various intents).

You're right.  The Marxian interpretation was popular to use because it is just that, "clean".  It does allow me to bypass right over the slave ships, the rapes, the murders, the dissolution of families.  Clinical talk of "production" and "labor" does sound more antiseptic.  But the point remains, that there are a multiplicity of intents with regard to slavery.  Whereas there were sadists in the system, and criminals, and other sorts who did kill and initiate suffering for no real reason, there were also those who acted economically.  The Holocaust, from about 1942 onward, had one, all encompassing, unifying purpose.  Extermination.  Nothing but.  It's important to note that this was the goal pre-42 as well, however it was hoped this would be accomplished by sterilization and gradual dying out.  However, after the acquisition of Poland, the western USSR and 8 million more Jews, the Nazis discovered it to be untenable.  To quote Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler's deputy and originally Eichmann's superior in regards to the Final Solution, "Dead men don't hump, dead women don't have children."  But make no mistake, the goal was always total eradication.

In the Holocaust, of course, Jews, Roma and Sinti (or gypsies, as they're usually known), and various other "asocials" as they were termed, were put in slave labor camps, in addition to the death camps.  But the end result of this slave labor, as stated by several sources, most notably a draft paper issued by Himmler and approved by Hitler, was death.  Economic viability here was a secondary concern.  It was not economics governing the situation.  It was "Hey, these guys are doing heavy labor and we're feeding them 800 calories a day.  They're going to die within a year or so, but we might as well get something out of them".  With slavery, future generations were encouraged, in order to multiply the work force.  With the Holocaust, the whole root objective was the complete and utter annihilation of a people, under the loose ethnic defininition of "Jews" (and any American just needs to glance at their family tree to see how absurd notions of ethnicity are).

Recall the work conditions often presented in The Jungle, i.e. early industrialized America.  If American slavery--not to eliminate other slavery, but to ignore it for the moment--were truly motivated by solely economic concerns, why wouldn't the southern elite simply switched to industry and the so-called "wage slavery" we have seen in the industrialized north?  The labor supply was such that they could have paid them next to nothing, and indeed, without such an investment in their workers, it likely would have been cheaper to exploit labor and make vast sums of money that way.

Again, that was definitely a weakness of my Marxian analysis.  To be sure, there were other functions fulfilled by slavery.  One was social.  The vast majority of southerners, white or black, lived in abject poverty.  A very easy way for white landowners to remain in control politically and socially, is to give the disenfranchised whites an underclass, to distract them from the misery of their own situation.  Hence there were powerful social motivations to maintain slavery.  But again, the Jews weren't faced with other option.  They were intended to just, simply, "not exist".

Now that begs another question then, isn't the Holocaust just genocide?  I go with Yehuda Bauer's (Israeli Holocaust scholar) definition, which is more or less in line with the UN's.  Genocide is the particular targetting of violence and oppression towards a specific group (loosely defined as ethnic, religious, cultural, etc.).  A holocaust, however, is the rigorously planned and systematic extermination of a group in its entirety.  The only other historical example I can think of that comes close is this country's campaign against the Native Americans, but I'm not sure that fits the criterion of being "systematic".  But that's an area I know far less about.

My definition of genocide would be different, but that's really not important.

If we're going to talk intent, why not re-frame?  Slavery is about subjugating people, through sadism and degradation proving that we are more human and better humans than they are.  The Holocaust was about purifying the world to create a utopia.

Personally, I prefer consequences.  Slavery has existed... always?  The Holocaust is an isolated historical event.  Which has caused greater human suffering?  I should think the answer isn't even close.  Even if we limit this to antebellum slavery, then we'd have to look at numbers: you could argue that murder is categorically worse than bondage, and then if more people were murdered in the Holocaust than slaves murdered in the antebellum South, then we'd have an answer under your terms.  Though perhaps you'd also have to include all the people killed in the Civil War.  And all the post-Civil War lynchings?  And if we wanted to complicate things, we'd look at the persistent effects today of slavery on American society (and then we can look at the rest of the world, both today and in the past), and then compare that to the past and persistent effects of the Holocaust.

There's merit to that interpretation, to be sure, I just don't think I can agree.  For one, if we're going to include the Civil War dead, then why not include the total war dead of World War 2.  You at least "have" to include the dead on the Eastern Front, as Hitler termed this a "racial war", and it was at the core of this same Nazi ideology that would condemn the Jews to death.  As well, if you place the Holocaust strictly in its own category, then yes, the volume of suffering caused by slavery perhaps eclipses the Holocaust.   But if you add genocides to the mix, it becomes a murkier picture.  Especially because there very well might have been Holocausts in the past, had technology allowed (the Armenian genocide comes to mind).  In some ways, the Holocaust can just be looked at as the unfortunate congruence of a long line of racial ideologies and mass industry.  But I'd argue that the Holocaust, and its antecedents, have left just as many marks on the world.  Do you know how many Jews live on the European continent today?  Do you know how many lived there in 1933?  How about Israel?  Think that, and all the history that has sprung out of its creation of the last 70 years or so would have occured without the Holocaust?  I don't know, but these are things to think about.

In any event, I'll get back to this later, but 24 is on ;)

Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Fourth Horseman on April 30, 2007, 06:31:29 PM
::baffs thread, steadies horse::
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 06:53:19 PM
Just so I know, are we talking about slavery as all-time throughout history, or are we restricting it to just the post-Columbus pre-emancipation slavery?

Also, to say that the Holocaust hasn't caused as much human suffering is a bit unfair. The problem is that millions of people (and their potential descendants) were exterminated. If they had been allowed to survive, the human suffering would likely be MUCH greater.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 06:58:22 PM
But to answer your question, yes, your assumptions are correct.

I'll be back.  Lube up.

Nah, you should just stop there.  I've already got your argument, as I ran this by my little sister's bichon frise.

Thanks for playing, though ;)
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: VTMercutio on April 30, 2007, 07:23:34 PM
I suppose another thing to keep in mind, is that this supposed pay gap is a vicious cycle once again propagated by society as a whole, not just men.  To illustrate, my girlfriend is following me to law school for essentially two reasons:

1) She loves me  ;D
2) It makes more sense to move with me (becoming a lawyer) than to follow her (social worker)
So in itself, this constant moving for a significant others career negatively affects the womans career.  While the man of the house is moving for a better job, the woman will at best lateral somewhere else where she still loses all seniority she had in her first job.

So while this may be a bit different than most; the woman follows the man because the man has a higher earning potential, thereby hurting the womans earning potential even further.

Now I'm not making any of these arguments because I am a huge supporter of the feminist movement, but I also try my best to look at the situation and understand it as I can.

P.S.  Before anyone says I am a huge male private part for making her move...I did in fact offer to take a year off law school so that I could follow her where ever she did her dietetic internship, where then she would move after that where ever I went to law school.  She choose to follow me because she wasn't certain she wants to even become a dietitian.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 07:28:42 PM
I suppose another thing to keep in mind, is that this supposed pay gap is a vicious cycle once again propagated by society as a whole, not just men.  To illustrate, my girlfriend is following me to law school for essentially two reasons:

1) She loves me  ;D
2) It makes more sense to move with me (becoming a lawyer) than to follow her (social worker)
So in itself, this constant moving for a significant others career negatively affects the womans career.  While the man of the house is moving for a better job, the woman will at best lateral somewhere else where she still loses all seniority she had in her first job.

So while this may be a bit different than most; the woman follows the man because the man has a higher earning potential, thereby hurting the womans earning potential even further.

Now I'm not making any of these arguments because I am a huge supporter of the feminist movement, but I also try my best to look at the situation and understand it as I can.

P.S.  Before anyone says I am a huge male private part for making her move...I did in fact offer to take a year off law school so that I could follow her where ever she did her dietetic internship, where then she would move after that where ever I went to law school.  She choose to follow me because she wasn't certain she wants to even become a dietitian.

For what it's worth, I don't think you're a male private part ;)

It looks like the circumstances were pretty clear, you formed a logical conclusion, and she did too.  It looks like you two saw eye to eye on it, so congratulations.  I think, and I'm assuming, but I bet if the rolls were reversed, you'd have followed the same path.  It wasn't the genders that were important, but rather the professions.  Makes sense ;)  I hope my SO and I can make our big decisions with that kind of clarity.  Although she's going to law school too.  Our problem is she hates California, and I've wanted to live there since I was 12.  Oh boy. :P
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 08:13:23 PM
Just so I know, are we talking about slavery as all-time throughout history, or are we restricting it to just the post-Columbus pre-emancipation slavery?

Also, to say that the Holocaust hasn't caused as much human suffering is a bit unfair. The problem is that millions of people (and their potential descendants) were exterminated. If they had been allowed to survive, the human suffering would likely be MUCH greater.

It appears that we're talking about all slavery, ever.  Thousands of years, and many people more than just the Africans taken to the U.S. and their descendents born in the U.S.

To say that the Holocaust hasn't caused as much human suffering as that is, I think, quite fair.

Why would the human suffering caused by the Holocaust be "MUCH greater" if the millions of people exterminated hadn't been exterminated?  And why introduce the counterfactual?

Well, that's why I opened it up.  In my mind I was thinking of American slavery, but in hindsight it does make a lot more sense to consider slavery all over the world.  But then, with regard to the Holocaust, you really need to consider the entire act of genocide.  So when you total it all up, well, we wouldn't need the army of actuaries that would take to tell us it'd be a sorry monument to man's inhumanity to man.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 08:14:34 PM
Just so I know, are we talking about slavery as all-time throughout history, or are we restricting it to just the post-Columbus pre-emancipation slavery?

Also, to say that the Holocaust hasn't caused as much human suffering is a bit unfair. The problem is that millions of people (and their potential descendants) were exterminated. If they had been allowed to survive, the human suffering would likely be MUCH greater.

It appears that we're talking about all slavery, ever.  Thousands of years, and many people more than just the Africans taken to the U.S. and their descendents born in the U.S.

To say that the Holocaust hasn't caused as much human suffering as that is, I think, quite fair.

Why would the human suffering caused by the Holocaust be "MUCH greater" if the millions of people exterminated hadn't been exterminated?  And why introduce the counterfactual?

First of all, the idea is that suffering is experienced by the living. Since so many that were directly affected were killed, neither they nor any potential descendants they may have had could have continued experiencing suffering. Basically, my point is that comparatively there is less suffering because there are fewer survivors left to do the resultant continued suffering. Something along those lines.

I'm not introducing the counterfactual as an argument; just trying to explain why I think it's not really fair to say there's more suffering due to slavery. As I said, most of the suffering is experienced by the survivors. I'm not making the point clear, but I think you understand what I'm getting at, at least.

Finally, if we're talking about ALL slavery, then of course slavery is worse; there's not even a question about it. After all, we're talking about African slavery, slavery in the times of Moses... even the Holocaust counts as slavery. It's impossible to argue that the Holocaust is worse than the Holocaust plus everything else.

I rasied the question because I thought Alpha was referring to African slavery in America; if not, it's obviously an impossible argument.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Boyce Baylor on April 30, 2007, 08:16:57 PM
wow, people are passionate about this topic, huh?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 08:18:40 PM
wow, people are passionate about this topic, huh?

I'm not, really. I just thought I was watching an argument where the two sides were arguing about different things, and that's not going to get us anywhere. Really it's kind of pointless to argue about which is worse: they're both horrible, they both happened. End of story.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Boyce Baylor on April 30, 2007, 08:23:13 PM
wow, people are passionate about this topic, huh?

I'm not, really. I just thought I was watching an argument where the two sides were arguing about different things, and that's not going to get us anywhere. Really it's kind of pointless to argue about which is worse: they're both horrible, they both happened. End of story.

Wow, I am way too drunk to read this whole thread, but how did the holocaust get broken out, out of curiosity, seems a little out of bounds, no?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Johnny Stuffs His Mouth on April 30, 2007, 08:25:48 PM
wow, people are passionate about this topic, huh?

I'm not, really. I just thought I was watching an argument where the two sides were arguing about different things, and that's not going to get us anywhere. Really it's kind of pointless to argue about which is worse: they're both horrible, they both happened. End of story.

Wow, I am way too drunk to read this whole thread, but how did the holocaust get broken out, out of curiosity, seems a little out of bounds, no?

I don't remember. Something about Holocaust : slavery :: segregation : gender pay gap. I think.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Boyce Baylor on April 30, 2007, 08:26:44 PM
wow, people are passionate about this topic, huh?

I'm not, really. I just thought I was watching an argument where the two sides were arguing about different things, and that's not going to get us anywhere. Really it's kind of pointless to argue about which is worse: they're both horrible, they both happened. End of story.

Wow, I am way too drunk to read this whole thread, but how did the holocaust get broken out, out of curiosity, seems a little out of bounds, no?

your mom is out of bounds.

oh wait, no she isn't.

Janice Baylor is a saint, a saint, you got me?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 08:31:23 PM
So now the argument has turned toward a normative comparison of two atrocities based on quantifying the unquantifiable. Suffering cannot be measured solely by the number of years a person faces pain, adversity, or unfavorable conditions. Does the man who has a crap job (slave to the company store) suffer more over his whole like than a person who burns alive for 15 minutes? The truth is we can't know. It is all based only on that persons particular experience. Take, for example, the idea that people born into a system, with no basis to compare their lives to better circumstances, will be less likely to even see a problem with their current state of affairs. Or conversely, the burning man, cam take solace in knowing it will be over soon.

Any comparison between these two problems is destined to fail. There is not enough similarity to make a comparison, let alone make a value judgement. Apples and oranges.
 
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 08:32:44 PM
Besides, the truth about the gay pap has nothing to do with any of this stuff.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Boyce Baylor on April 30, 2007, 08:34:07 PM
So now the argument has turned toward a normative comparison of two atrocities based on quantifying the unquantifiable. Suffering cannot be measured solely by the number of years a person faces pain, adversity, or unfavorable conditions. Does the man who has a crap job (slave to the company store) suffer more over his whole like than a person who burns alive for 15 minutes? The truth is we can't know. It is all based only on that persons particular experience. Take, for example, the idea that people born into a system, with no basis to compare their lives to better circumstances, will be less likely to even see a problem with their current state of affairs. Or conversely, the burning man, cam take solace in knowing it will be over soon.

Any comparison between these two problems is destined to fail. There is not enough similarity to make a comparison, let alone make a value judgement. Apples and oranges.
 

What is Jewish People?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: AlphaBusey on April 30, 2007, 08:43:05 PM
So now the argument has turned toward a normative comparison of two atrocities based on quantifying the unquantifiable. Suffering cannot be measured solely by the number of years a person faces pain, adversity, or unfavorable conditions. Does the man who has a crap job (slave to the company store) suffer more over his whole like than a person who burns alive for 15 minutes? The truth is we can't know. It is all based only on that persons particular experience. Take, for example, the idea that people born into a system, with no basis to compare their lives to better circumstances, will be less likely to even see a problem with their current state of affairs. Or conversely, the burning man, cam take solace in knowing it will be over soon.

Any comparison between these two problems is destined to fail. There is not enough similarity to make a comparison, let alone make a value judgement. Apples and oranges.
 

Well, for me this is kind of just an ancillary point.  We're all going to be lawyers here, so, some of us at least just like to argue.  For me I think it's still all rooted in intent, not really any sort of quantification of any kind.  Because you're right, there's no way to do that.  For instance, an argument I hear a lot about the death penalty: Some argue that's it's actually more of a punishment to live out a natural life in confinement than it is to die.  So maybe the Holocaust is rather merciful in comparison to slavery, if you follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion.

But I don't know.  John's right in that, in the end, both are terrible, in that you'd get far from half way through "quantifying" either one before you threw your hands up and said enough is enough, I'm going to shoot myself if I get any more depressed.  But to take this in another direction: Both genocide and slavery are still around today.  And while I consider the Holocaust a little different than genocide, the two are at least comparable.  So really, what have we learned?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 08:46:19 PM
So now the argument has turned toward a normative comparison of two atrocities based on quantifying the unquantifiable. Suffering cannot be measured solely by the number of years a person faces pain, adversity, or unfavorable conditions. Does the man who has a crap job (slave to the company store) suffer more over his whole like than a person who burns alive for 15 minutes? The truth is we can't know. It is all based only on that persons particular experience. Take, for example, the idea that people born into a system, with no basis to compare their lives to better circumstances, will be less likely to even see a problem with their current state of affairs. Or conversely, the burning man, cam take solace in knowing it will be over soon.

Any comparison between these two problems is destined to fail. There is not enough similarity to make a comparison, let alone make a value judgement. Apples and oranges.
 

What is Jewish People?

Oh no you don't.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: GraphiteDirigible on April 30, 2007, 08:49:53 PM
So now the argument has turned toward a normative comparison of two atrocities based on quantifying the unquantifiable. Suffering cannot be measured solely by the number of years a person faces pain, adversity, or unfavorable conditions. Does the man who has a crap job (slave to the company store) suffer more over his whole like than a person who burns alive for 15 minutes? The truth is we can't know. It is all based only on that persons particular experience. Take, for example, the idea that people born into a system, with no basis to compare their lives to better circumstances, will be less likely to even see a problem with their current state of affairs. Or conversely, the burning man, cam take solace in knowing it will be over soon.

Any comparison between these two problems is destined to fail. There is not enough similarity to make a comparison, let alone make a value judgement. Apples and oranges.
 

Well, for me this is kind of just an ancillary point.  We're all going to be lawyers here, so, some of us at least just like to argue.  For me I think it's still all rooted in intent, not really any sort of quantification of any kind.  Because you're right, there's no way to do that.  For instance, an argument I hear a lot about the death penalty: Some argue that's it's actually more of a punishment to live out a natural life in confinement than it is to die.  So maybe the Holocaust is rather merciful in comparison to slavery, if you follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion.

But I don't know.  John's right in that, in the end, both are terrible, in that you'd get far from half way through "quantifying" either one before you threw your hands up and said enough is enough, I'm going to shoot myself if I get any more depressed.  But to take this in another direction: Both genocide and slavery are still around today.  And while I consider the Holocaust a little different than genocide, the two are at least comparable.  So really, what have we learned?

That this kind of argument is like pissing in the wind. It gets too messy.

or

Humankind is capable of tremendous evil.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: SilentSwirl on April 30, 2007, 10:05:49 PM
This is totally off topic, and I apologize.

But every time I see this thread pop up in my unreads, instead of seeing "Pay Gap" I accidentally read "Pap Gay" and end up thinking to myself, "WHAT about Gay Pap smears??"

K, done.

-------

As you were.
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Thistle on April 30, 2007, 10:12:54 PM
ok, time to get this serious *&^% out of my unreads
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: SilentSwirl on April 30, 2007, 10:21:51 PM
This is totally off topic, and I apologize.

But every time I see this thread pop up in my unreads, instead of seeing "Pay Gap" I accidentally read "Pap Gay" and end up thinking to myself, "WHAT about Gay Pap smears??"

K, done.

-------

As you were.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,87588.0.html

Omg. Hahahahahahaha ... so I'm not going crazy afterall?!

Thanks Cady :D :D
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: Hank Rearden on April 30, 2007, 10:41:27 PM
Besides, the truth about the gay pap has nothing to do with any of this stuff.

Care to enlighten us?
Title: Re: The Truth about the Pay Gap
Post by: ->Soon on July 30, 2007, 06:37:06 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20030873/

Salary, gender and the social cost of haggling
Research shows men are more aggressive than women in asking for a raise


These differences, Babcock and other researchers have concluded, may partially explain the persistent gender gap in salaries, as well as other disparities in how people rise to the top of organizations. Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men working full time, Babcock said. That figure does not take differing professions and educational levels into account, but when those and other factors are controlled for, women who work full time and have never taken time off to have children earn about 11 percent less than men with equivalent education and experience.