Double Standards
Here's some interesting news I read in the Star Tribune. In big cities, it seems that women's paychecks are outpacing men's:
The bad news for men?
The article quickly puts a kibosh on the good news for women by stating:
Well, if you stop working or work only part time, of course you don't make as much money--duh. What I find amusing or ridiculous--take your pick--is that many women's groups think women should make as much as men even if they have a family, don't work or work part-time. This is nothing but a sense of entitlement. And if women are single and working full time in the cities, then decide to have a family and move to small towns and work part-time or not at all, of course their wages will go down. That is called a trade-off, not necessarily discrimination.
If men's wages are declining, is this ever called discrimination? No, of couse not. Does anyone care about the reasons that men's wages declined while women's stayed the same? No, probably not. What I find interesting or perhaps hypocritical is that if women earn more than men, the reasons given are justified--smugly, women are seen as go-getters who have advanced degrees with the gumption to move to the big city to avoid the country bumpkins. But if men earn more, it is often because of rampant gender discrimation and not because of particular circumstances that would cause one to earn more such as working harder and longer hours, going where the opportunities are ripe etc. If women start to pull away from men in the earning department, I wonder if we will see any interest in helping men to increase their earnings? I won't hold my breath.
The study by Queens College demographer Andrew A. Beveridge shows that all women from ages 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men's wages, or a median wage of $35,653, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men. The findings were first reported in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation.
The bad news for men?
Though the analysis showed women making strides, it also showed that men were in some ways moving backward. Among all men -- including those with college degrees -- real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1970. And among full-time workers with advanced degrees, wages for men increased only marginally even as they soared for women. Nationally, men's wages in general declined while women's remained the same.
The article quickly puts a kibosh on the good news for women by stating:
Typically, women have fallen further behind men in earnings as they get older. That is because some women stop working altogether, work only part time or encounter a glass ceiling in promotions and raises.
Well, if you stop working or work only part time, of course you don't make as much money--duh. What I find amusing or ridiculous--take your pick--is that many women's groups think women should make as much as men even if they have a family, don't work or work part-time. This is nothing but a sense of entitlement. And if women are single and working full time in the cities, then decide to have a family and move to small towns and work part-time or not at all, of course their wages will go down. That is called a trade-off, not necessarily discrimination.
If men's wages are declining, is this ever called discrimination? No, of couse not. Does anyone care about the reasons that men's wages declined while women's stayed the same? No, probably not. What I find interesting or perhaps hypocritical is that if women earn more than men, the reasons given are justified--smugly, women are seen as go-getters who have advanced degrees with the gumption to move to the big city to avoid the country bumpkins. But if men earn more, it is often because of rampant gender discrimation and not because of particular circumstances that would cause one to earn more such as working harder and longer hours, going where the opportunities are ripe etc. If women start to pull away from men in the earning department, I wonder if we will see any interest in helping men to increase their earnings? I won't hold my breath.
posted by Helen at 11:38 PM
62 Comments:
Whatever they're paying you, Dr Helen, it's not enough!
Why don't they ever do a study on total net income or wealth that is actually accumulated.
A woman working part-time at the Nordstrom's perfume counter who is married to a lawyer busting his butt trying to make partner in a big firm is going to have the SAME LIFESTYLE as him. Without the sweat or stress.
That's how society is set up. So instead of pointing out that she only makes so-and-so much on her job (that poor woman), why not take a look at what is really going on.
Her ostensible income is far less than her husband's, but this does not reflect the life she lives at all.
Some studies already show that women are wealthier than men (mostly at the older range, I wouuld assume).
Anonymous 11:42:
Finally, someone points out the obvious. Seriously, I do fine and have few complaints about what I earn.
Anonymous 11:51:
While I agree that the woman might be living at the level of her lawyer husband, I don't think that is the point. Many women are achievement oriented individuals who want to earn at a high level, just as many men do. My point here is that the media makes a big deal out of women being discriminated against if they don't earn as much as fulltime driven men but they don't always point out that women often don't put in the hours or have the same lucrative profession. If a woman chooses to work part-time at the perfume counter, she has no business whining about not making as much money as a man who is a full-time lawyer.
Exactly, you see the lawyer wife is now dependent on her husband to maintain that lifestyle, trapped in a sort of sexual bondage where she is no better than a prostitute trading her body for a life style. What she really wants to do is leave her husband for her butch lesbian girlfriend, adopt a kid from Rwanda and live happily ever after. All women actually want this -- even and especially women like Dr. Helen, Ann Coulter, etc. In fact, it's so obvious that women like that are just totally in the closet. If they would just come to their senses and realize the truth of extreme feminism, then all the women could unite, enslave the evil male gender and use them, you know, for medical experiments and reproduction or something....
Who is this person Adrian does he really live in the real world.
He strikes me as been offensive and objectionable and as such should be ignored.
Giselle, from TheFreeDictionary.com:
satire: Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Of course men's wages dropped since 1970 and women's went up. Their gain came at men's loss, the law of supply and demand cannot be repealed. (That's not to say men lost dollar for dollar, there were also gains to be had.) The question is why, after reaching parity, are women moving ahead.
Something to consider is that like east Germany and China, young women have left the towns for the city. Why aren't men going? Another question is self-employment. Unless I had to be there, there's no way in hell I'd move there to start a business.
The median income of $35,000 for a woman in NYC is woefully inadequate for anything approaching a middle-class lifestyle; I would like to see the data broken down by race, education, and occupation.
I would doubt that the median female with a master's degree earns more than the median male in either investment banking or law, simply because there are more male participants in these industries.
These are the people for whom educational attainment matters in terms of earnings over a lifetime.
There are major law firms as we speak that specialize in consulting with American corporations on how to import foreign workers, coerce U.S. workers into training them, and then how to "legally" terminate the more expensive American employee.
This is called "making America more competitive in a global economy."
In other words, within twenty years, the American middle class and the Chinese/Indian middle class will be "equally" competitive.
Obviously from an American worker's perspective, this is a zero-sum game. Somebody loses.
Helen, you are on the right trail, but you missed a critical leftward turn in your thinking....
Apply your psychological expertise as it pertains to personality disorders, and then make the leap to global economics.
Working for someone else---for a paycheck---has always been somewhat problematic. Someone else may decide to downsize or outsource at any time.
Job security comes from being able to take care of yourself, without being dependent on a large corporation or institution to sign your paycheck.
This is a good thing, in the long run.
The democrats have held a strong advantage regarding the women's vote, but as more and more women fall into the 'target' zone of being too rich, they will become more involved with politics, conservative politics.
Working upper class women, formerly(and currently) frustrated by the glass ceiling they encounter, were(are) driven to the dem spirit of 'equality'. When their incomes are being nibbled out from under them by the dems, the shift will be like a tidal wave.
The question is why, after reaching parity, are women moving ahead.
One word: reparations. Men have 2.5 million years of dominance to atone for....
Fundamentally, most of these studies demonstrate the problems of using aggregated data. They don't usually include such variables as willingness to work overtime, or willingness to interrupt a career to care for sick relatives (which seem to skew in opposite directions). And they don't usually compare a great many variables that make legitimate differences in what one earns.
As for comparing 2005 or so data to 1970, not only is the CPI a lousy indicator of inflation in general, it is all but impossible to use it to allow for items that couldn't even be purchased in 1970 since they hadn't been invented.
In addition, those who were earning the median income in 1970 almost certainly aren't those who are earning it today.
Over my working lifetime, my yearly earnings look like a rollercoaster (with the occasional *BIG* change up or down). I'm unconvinced that the median earner today isn't vastly better off than the median earner of 1970. In addition, it doesn't mention if benefits are included as part of earnings. Even if, say, health benefits are included, how does what you get in today's health benefit compare to that of 1970. Big show of hands to all who want to return to 1970s style of living and health care. What? No one? (Well, at least no one who lives here. I'd guess a great many people in other parts of the world [even Cuba, Michael Moore] would *LOVE* to have a 1970s US life style.)
Finally, as one who once trained very well-paid corporate sales types, I'd guess that there is another unnoticed variable. I found that the best female salespersons were as good as or better than the equivalent males. What happened was that those just below average in sales/sales ability quit if they were women and hung on if they were men. I've got my suspicions about the why of it, but it was very clear. Mediocre female corporate sale personnel left the job very quickly while similar men hung on as long as possible. This has the effect of lowering the median income of salesmen compared to saleswomen, if taken over a reasonably long period.
I just loved top females salespeople. They were as good as anybody, plus they frequently got in or made sales where men couldn't. (There was a time when male salespersons could get sales that females couldn't, but I think that is less the case now, while top saleswomen still seem to have a few advantages.)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
2004-
Bush handily won incomes over 50K.
The only categories in eduaction that Bush lost were, hs dropouts, and those with doctorates.
please, make women smarter and richer.
anonymous, global trade is a zero-sum game only if you ignore the realities.
Which would you prefer, 1)to make the same (or even less) amount each year but be able to buy more and of equal or better quality, or 2) to make more each year but be able to buy less or the same of a worse quality?
Evidently, those on the Left prefer choice two. Free (or relatively free) trade enables choice number one. Of course, there is also the strong possibility (given the past 100+ years of history) that there is a third choice: make more money AND buy more and/or of the same or better quality. This third choice appears available only under the Ricardo rules of 'comparative advantage' and Free Global Trade.
Anonymous, Bush lost the doctorate only because we count EdDs (Dr. of Education) as a doctorate. ;->=
"If women start to pull away from men in the earning department, I wonder if we will see any interest in helping men to increase their earnings?"
No, if men fall behind, it will be because they don't work hard enough, long enough, didn't take their education seriously, etc.
At least that's what the "conventional" wisdom will become.
I wonder if this data could be used just as well to "prove" other ideas. For example, younger people are paid more than older ones. I noticed that older women's pay decreased just as men's did. If new hires tended to be women, then this may be more age related than gender related.
When people whine about falling wages and the declining middle class, I like to retort, so who the hell is buying all the iPods, Plasma TVs, land behemoth SUVs, and XBox's?
Well now I know -- must be the women! Well ... I've been looking for a sugar-momma.
The 'glass ceiling' not only ignores the relative propensities of the genders to put in the OT to earn that promotion, but also pretends that men and women's intelligence are equally distributed.
Go to http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/g.htm and scroll down about 3/4 of the way, and you'll see the distribution of intelligence plotted for men and women. The male IQ average is only two and a half points higher, but the standard deviation is also higher for men.
If you choose a man and a woman at random, there's about a 45% chance the woman is smarter than the man. But at the high end of the bell curves, where people have the brain power to do the really high-paying jobs, there aren't nearly as many women as men. Go to any university with a decent engineering school and check out their gender imbalance. Those jobs that require genius IQs are necessarily going to disproportianately go to men, throwing off the numbers.
But as your husband says, read the whole thing, and you'll see that the actual numbers for those jobs are right in line with the inconvenient truth of the differing distributions.
dave said -- "I just loved top females salespeople. They were as good as anybody, plus they frequently got in or made sales where men couldn't."
Dude.
It's called an "escort service."
(The critical term being how you define "got IN..)
Was there a correlation between skankiness and sales volume among your female superstars?
And, when they resigned, how many married clients they had ummm, "cultivated?"
Do they all have websites now?
"What happened was that those just below average in sales/sales ability quit if they were women...
...They were as good as anybody, plus they frequently got in or made sales where men couldn't."
----
I once dated a very attractive female who was a drug rep, calling on doctors at their office.
I also dated an attractive female who sold warehouse supplies, calling on the male warehouse manager in a building filled with only men all day.
I choose to face reality rather than be politically correct. Maybe the reason some of those below average female salespeople quit was because they realized they didn't have the appearance to compete, weren't willing to do the flirt, wear the tight blouses, etc.
so john doe, sarcasm, is saying its ok to call any woman a prostitute, but she really wants is " What she really wants to do is leave her husband for her butch lesbian girlfriend"
and to state that dr helen and ann coulter are these types..
it would help to put sarcasm in words as in text its not easily read..
back to the subject.. in the uk womens tennis players they wanted equal pay.. ok fine.. and they got it.. unfortunatly, the women play less sets, than the men.. it looks good on paper equal pay.. but in reality the women were getting more money for less work..
women who work and have kids, they have maternity leave, they have other benefits.. not monetary benefits as such.. but its there..
women who work and have kids, they have maternity leave, they have other benefits..
The diff is... not all women have babies or drop out. If you're making less because you work p-t, fine.
But (here's the rub):
women are often underpaid as a class because the assumption is the class will drop out, work p-t, or have babies during their prime years. Regardless of whether they do or not.
If you followed law, that's what a recent SCOTUS decision was about: a lady, working same as the men, same performance up to snuff, over the course of her career ended up making significantly less. No PT. No slacking off on family leave. Just they paid her less because of gender assumptions -- she was a female.
Then it turns out, since she discovered the pay differences late in her career -- to late to complain the law says.
When men make less, it's more likely attributable to something other than pure prejudicial assumptions based on history. See, that's why the "boys are so picked on and discriminated in schools" meme petered out for helen. Turns out, the guys don't want to do the crap homework or put in the time to improve their grades. If you talk to young guys, you know this. But it's more profitable in "dr."helen's field to play the poor boys card -- treating boys has become very lucrative for the medical help profession, whether it's drugs or talk therapy or advocating on their behalf.
Someone should take note, though, that it's usually the mommies and the dr.helen's -- not the boys or the men -- blaming society for their low grades or making less money. The guys are more likely to credit it to personal choices, not true of the woman who complained of making less over a career than men who came in years after her.
See the difference when you apply logic, and think, as opposed to just complaining and trying to stir up some "double standards" with the "country bumpkin" language. Keep your special help, dr. I suspect you'll need it for yourself.
yes, but the potential, the option is there for women, i am childfree male my fiancee is childfree.
but for other women the non financial things are there
ps.
I do like the stab at the "duh" language though.
It's going to soon replace the cocky "indeed", you know. :) That always sounded too English and affected to really catch on in non-pretentious circles. But then, you've got an instaexpert to help you analyze all this dangerous boy stuff anyway, eh?
Anonymous 2:57 PM
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! It is a MYTH that once people attain a higher income they vote GOP! In fact, the wealthiest areas and suburbs are all trending Democrat. If anything, women would be even MORE likely to vote Dem as their incomes increase because they credit the Dems/libs for helping them get where they are.
anon 5.38 i cna pull of the duh and indeeds, because i am english ;-)..
women are often underpaid as a class because the assumption is the class will drop out, work p-t, or have babies during their prime years. Regardless of whether they do or not.
There used to be an assumption that men with families needed to be paid more for the same work as women and men without families. I wonder if a) this has finally gone away (good riddance) or b) men in their prime earning years just plain don't have families like they used to.
@Dave 3:19 -
"Which would you prefer, 1)to make the same (or even less) amount each year but be able to buy more and of equal or better quality, or 2) to make more each year but be able to buy less or the same of a worse quality?"
While I'm a fan of global free trade, there are two problems with this equation. First, it's hard to convince the average worker that declining wages are anything other than an unmitigated disaster. It's the sort of thing that makes people feel viscerally worse off.
Second, the equation works fine for all sorts of consumer goods, but not for housing or healthcare, which have been seeing double-digit inflation for a decade or more now. These two things, along with food, are probably the two biggest "comfort" goods out there. You worry about having enough to eat, then about having a roof over your head, and then whether you can see a doctor if you get sick.
We're now rich enough that the biggest health problem of the poor is obesity, but healthcare is causing huge anxiety up into the middle class, and housing costs are such that even a DINC couple making 200-250k/year where I live (Boston) are effectively middle class.
On the plus side, we do have medical tourism, which is providing some of the benefits of global trade for some types of elective surgery. To the extent that a lot of healthcare is simply about space to lay people up and people to provide basic care, maybe what we need is to open more hospitals farther away from large expensive cities where a decent nurse wouldn't need a 90k salary to live a decent lifestyle.
This is not good news for the men who pay child-support aka 'ex-wife' welfare. This new class of 'wage-slaves' are going nowhere. It is time to tune in, turn on and drop out. The republic is moribund---wise up.
Just like Warren Buffett, I haven't given myself a raise in 10 years. As mentioned frequently above, none of these studies focus on net worth, they only focus on W-2 income. That's a silly measure, especially because many more people than at any time in history have, because of 401(k)'s, deferred compensation arrangements, and investments, have the ability to control the amount of income they report.
As for me, I have nothing; I am simply a river to my people.
Why are men falling behind?
Simple. The areas in which men are predominantly employed are outsourced or H1-B visa'ed out of existence. Or subject to downward wage pressure. This includes programming, technical and engineering work, and so on.
Meanwhile, women dominate through the network effect (other women hire women, etc) jobs where physical attractiveness and "hipness" and feminine qualities are paramount. NYC is full of ad-buyers, assistant editors for magazines and book publishers, and fashion design assistants. All of them women (or if men, gays).
This has profound social implications. Young men in East Germany or China are not welcomed by existing men who view these guys as competition so won't hire them, but WILL the cutie with the short skirt from the hinterlands. Result: de-facto polygamy, which is beneficial to women.
Women prefer polygamy since a fraction of a rich and powerful man's income and attention is better than all of an ordinary man's much less a poor one's. The natural state of human affairs is polygamy and thus a huge seething mass of male losers subject to misogyny and aggression and putting the civilization in constant turmoil.
Much of western success has been in subjugating women's sexual freedom in monogamy, leading to most men having the opportunity to have a family of their own and thus not only be called upon to defend it and the system itself but to do so inventively in a very efficient way (as opposed to the slave levies of China, Persia, Egypt, etc).
Of course women's incomes are going up, men's are declining and we are seeing defacto polygamy. In East Germany the result is these guys join the neo-Nazis.
Matriarchies fail, Patriarchies succeed...if you doubt it look at the culture of the American Indians. No matter the economic success of the female, it will be short lived and when the hammer falls they may try to blame the men but it will be like crying wolf one too many times.
Polygamy? Yes I have heard of serial divorce being simply polygamy in disguise, and some of the arguements are quite compelling.
I'm all in favor of polygamy, but unfortunately my wife would never agree.
By the way, Helen:
What happened to those spouse swapping rumors? What was the term used, orgyholic or something?
I have looked at the wage statistics in the past as part of my fact checking of Elizabeth Warren.
What is buried in the statistics is the fact that *single* men are dragging down the wages of all men. What I cannot prove, but highly suspect is that immigrant men (single, low skilled and low waged) are dragging down the aggregate figure for men. This demographic trend is skewing the data.
http://vitalaccuratethinking.blogspot.com/2007/04/fact-checking-elizabeth-warren.html
Related to women starting families - what I hate most is not only that feminists feel that women are owed essentially two full lives (one of work and one of family) but that all their proposed soltions (either the govt replacing the husband, or the govt forcing corporations to replace the husband) essentially make it harder for men to have any kind of family life at all, let alone the kind that feminists say women are owed.
And Its not even hypocrisy. That kind of psychopathic disregard for men is so deeply ingrained into the movement and up front that it doesnt even qualify. It just makes me so angry.
Its also worth noting that when men earn more, they can be relied on to marry women who make less than them and thus even out economic consumption. Women are much much less inclined to do that. Wealthy women will generally either seek out an even wealthier man, or not marry at at all. This means that women earning more than men will lead economic deprivation for men in a way that women never experiences.
I suspect that women already do consume more, but I've never been able to find any figures. If anyone knows about that, leave a comment.
Anyway, education is really the key to all of this, so the more posts on that the better.
-anonymous 2:06 AM, August 04, 2007
Monogamy is pretty much better for everyone, although for certain powerful people (rich, old guys and hot, young girls) polygamy looks better at first.
So I agree with anon 10:14 except I think its bleaker than he portrayed.
And yea! Patriarchy.
People criticize Patriarchy and Christianity, but ask yourself this: What other groups would have been such mild, gentle and kindly leaders? The patriarchical oppressive male is supposed to what? Thats right, jump in front of a bullet for any random woman he meets who needs her life saved. Sounds more like a Matriarchy to me.
Mmmm. I guess I should change my mind. Maybe if we had a real Patriarchy with laws regulating the size of the stick you could beat your wife and mistress with, and added some Fascism and an Empire and some genuine Theocracy tossed in then people would stop making silly comments about how we currently live in a patriarchical fascist state, an Ammurkkkan imperialist aggression stoked by the theocrats in Bush's regime house.
Just grouching. We live in a silly world.
Tennwriter
"I suspect that women already do consume more, but I've never been able to find any figures. If anyone knows about that, leave a comment."
Start with data concerning land fill content and donated clothing logistics.
"Anyway, education is really the key to all of this, so the more posts on that the better."
Hmmm...Education, or framed certificate of attendance collections?
If something bad happens to one or more women it is men's fault: If something bad happens to one or more men it is men's fault.
There it is, in a nutshell: The problem is always and universally those evil and disgusting men. Fix that problem and the rest of the problems are fixable. Ignore it and things will get worse.
Captdmo:
My gut feeling is that men spend more that women, but the sprnd it on COOL STUFF WITH A LONG USEFUL LIFE. Whereas women spend money on JUNK.
For instance, I can buy a really cool rifle for about $2,000 and it will last forever, and if I do get tired of it I can probably sell it for the same or sometimes more. All I lose is the income I could have earned on that money.
Clothes, for course are the ultimate example. A woman can look into her garage sized walk-in closet an sigh "I have nothing to wear", requiring a trip to the store to buy a $1,000 outfit she might wear once.
To anonymous 10:14 PM, August 03, 2007
Whoa! Women prefer polygamy?? (Actually, the word is polygyny. Polygamy means any number of husbands and/or wives.) What women prefer is being the sole recipient of all of the money of a very wealthy and/or high income male. However, men have their own agendas and, at least in cultures that aren't feminzai police states, rarely do this. Rather wealthy men try to attract more mates, so they can have more children. There is always some degree of tension between the wives because they are competing for a scarce good, their husband's money.
In polygynous societies, there is also tension between men because, for every man who has two wives, there is another man who has none (unless, of course, the excess men haven't been forced to serve as cannon fodder protecting the social elites in the society [shades of the American draft system, which is still a male only proposition]). Some anthropologists have proposed that monogamy developed as an agreement between males in an attempt to reduce male-male conflict within a society, so that all the males in the society could concentrate on combating their shared external enemies.
john doe --
Ah. So adrian's ranting on home schooling was only sarcasm and he didn't believe any of it. Got it.
Why are men's wages staying stagnant or decreasing? There are some good reasons for this. Employers that have traditionally paid men well are disappearing in the US, such as manufacturing and IT. Those jobs are going oversees so there is less demand for men in these areas. Employers in the service sector will hire the best person for the job, as mentioned in a previous comment; PR firms, publishing, advertising, sales and fashion industries will hire both male and females and won't discriminate based on gender, this segment of the American economy is booming. Women know their best opportunities will be found in an urban environment and will flock to urban centers for employment. In rural settings there is less opportunity for them, discrimination abounds and wages are less.
More women than men are graduating from college and getting advanced degrees. Employers that pay well look for diplomas and certifications. Men have just as much opportunity as women to attend universities, they are choosing not to go and get the degrees and skills necessary to get the high paid jobs. I'm not ready to shed tears for men as underpaid victims quite yet.
To Cham:
First, most liberal arts colleges include women's studies departments whose mission is to persecute men, and the women who teach in these departments are very good at their work. (I speak from personal experience on this.) How would you like to attend a institution which actively, openly, deliberately and proudly discriminates against you?
Second, a great many female elementary and secondary school teachers have been taught, over the last 30 years, that boys are essentially defective. Behavior which is easy for girls is considered optimum and boys are punished because they act in ways that incompetent and bigoted teachers find troubling. (I've become a big proponent of single sex classrooms, with boys being taught exclusively by men.)
Third, men are constantly condemned because women supposedly make less money. Whether that is true or not, the metamessage being passed is that men make too much money. One way for men to make less money is to not go to college and to try less hard.
This is getting dumb.
I look forward to having my future wife support me. If her earning capability drops, I will collect my alimony until a better provider comes along...
The company for which I work falls all over itself catering to females. Females probably make up 60-70% of the employees. Only the most technical departments are primarily male. As one co-worker noted, for project managers and account managers, the company only hires "painfully skinny blondes."
The company is flexible in its work schedule. There is a list of 20 something women who have non-traditional work schedules. Work from home certain days, work only till 3:00 or 3:30, etc. Only one man is on the list. His "special" schedule is that he only works 32 hours a week. Although from observation, he works much more than this.
I do think there to a certain degree the higher management, which is still primarily male, likes having a bunch of good looking young women around. They're so much nicer to look at and talk to than men.
Keeping the women happy on every level is a major priority of the company. Males, if you don't like it, find another place to work.
If this is reflective of other corporations and institutions, there certainly is a hostile undercurrent towards men as reflected by Cham's "I'm not ready to shed tears for men" comment.
I'm not shedding tears but I have two sons as well as two daughters and I can about all their futures.
Part of the problem is credentialism. Getting paper certifying you're capable is the Thing. But there remains a lot of what makes a person capable that can't be caught on paper.
So you have highly educated, but non-visionary, and passive female leader vs. less educated, prophetic, and highly energetic and aggressive male leader.
On paper, the first one looks better. In the real world, the second is better.
Tennwriter
Dadvocate,
I think many companies are afraid of lawsuits by females if they are not made happy at work. I was recently talking to a male acquaintance who is a partner at a large law firm who said that they the only people they fire anymore are men under 50. The women, he said, get a pass if they do not work as hard as necessary and they are afraid of being sued due to age discrimination by men over 50 so the younger guys are all scrambling to do a good job for fear of getting fired.
My company is tiny, and all of my employees are women, all 2 of them. But I am constantly aware of potential liability should I need to let one go.
The big problem with the wage thing is that while college costs are still sky rocketing in this country, the end product is becoming worth less. Four year degrees are becoming five year degrees. And I agree that Americans are being replaced by foreigners they are training to take their place. I remember an article in the paper where American, who finished training his replacement was then let go. He went out into the parking lot and blew his brains out.
The foreigner is able to work for less as s/he is less in debt, and will make more money here than at home.
In order to "equalize the world", America is going to have to continue be dumbed down, and wage rates for Americans will continue to fall. The entire world can not be brought up to our current level.
This isn't just duh - it's duh-huh.
As far as I am concerned, I haven't seen a new automobile or home worth their asking price in well over a decade.
Helen has wisely remained silent in response to this thread's tangent....
Smart girl.
Brave gurrrll?
Maybe.
Are you manic or something?
Nope.
There is more than one.
Indeed
Heh!
Oh, MPD. Just wondering.
It helps me to keep up, you know?
Oh, and I never mentioned Rosie (on purpose) in my post over on the other thread. You added that one by yourself. I was just trying to be sure if it really was you or not. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
If you read the original article (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20070619/5/2208) you'll see a few things (assuming you trust the analysis):
20-29 year old women in the US earn 82% of what 20-29 year old men earn.
20-29 year old college educated women in NYC earn 89% of what 20-29 year old college educated men earn.
20-29 year old women in NYC earn 17% more than men on average.
20-29 year old women in NYC are 40% more likely to have a college degree than men.
Therefore the difference in total male vs female earnings appears to be because women are far more likely to get a good education, even though they don't see the same benefit from it.
The data still show that women earn less than men with comparable education. This might be justified due to women being more likely to work part time or take time off to raise a family, or it might be outright discrimination. Part of the problem is that one leads to the other. If the wife initially earns less, then she is more likely to take parental leave, which then justifies the decision to pay that unreliable woman less.
推薦好站
SEO網站設計,鋼模塑膠射出,模具,模具射出廠,壓鑄模具廠,Die Casting,天珠水晶藝品,健康檢查選美兆,沉香檀香香品,命理風水,咖啡,命理風水網佈,禮品百貨,交友聯誼,美兆健康檢查Eton家,命理風水精舍天珠寺磁場,精密壓鑄,美兆說妳美美健康日誌晴,寵物狗貓動物之家,ETON旅遊情報誌,嬰兒寶寶的家庭作業,靈鷲山護法會大願隊義工廳堂,天珠寺磁場風水納福招財轉運工具寺,台灣廟宇相簿,命理算命格尚,健康佛學Blogger,禮品贈品美容,檀香沉香香品資料庫
=================================
風水命理
天珠寺命理風水精舍,胎毛筆,古董,on sale,鈦鍺,天珠,招財,戀愛,考試,貔貅,財神爺,麒麟,化煞,念珠,風水,天珠水晶,行車,美兆,1元起標,茶壼茶葉
=================================
說妳美美禮品百貨
瓷花,藤枝,原木精油(精油蝶蝶館),3C家電電子遊戲部,美容儀,保養品,面膜(美濃蜜意區),香晶泥土,沙包,環保(創意叢林洲),禮品,精品,居家擺飾(精裝品味房),脫毛膏,窈窕,內衣(美體寶貝湖),鈦鍺健康韻力房(手鍊項鍊櫃),同人誌角色扮演服飾
=================================
情趣商品
跳蛋情趣商品,保險套情趣用品,情趣老二仿真陽具,性感內衣愛用網,按摩棒情趣用品,催情潤滑液區,肛交性感網,情趣用品自拍用,AV女優愛用品,自慰按摩棒讚
節人節性感扮演，誘惑情挑，浪漫女神,DIY非電動型按摩棒,IC控制類按摩棒,無線控制按摩棒,新穎溫控設計,硬質高潮棒,軟質高潮棒，仿真男娃，高潮G點尋找,潤滑液,激情增艷類,逼真那話兒,無線跳蛋,調情跳蛋,變頻控制跳蛋棒，軟質跳蛋棒，AV名器自愛,腰娘自慰類,仿真女娃全半身,充氣娃娃,飛機杯罐,硬漢軟質套,吸引自慰式，皮飾衣裝扮，捆綁束縳,有線穿戴類,無線穿戴類,雙頭龍按摩類,穿戴按摩棒類,後庭拉珠系列,後庭塞器系列，性感扮演，羊眼環圈,套裝組合系列,口交舔吮類,情調潤滑液,按摩液類,清潔沐浴類,香水情調，情趣知識館，愛情趣商品sex購物說明
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
美女視訊18禁地少女遊戲巨乳童顏巨乳玩美女人影音秀視訊美女情色視訊bt論壇色情自拍s101成人大喇叭免費視訊視訊聊天kk777視訊俱樂部18禁成人網ut影音視訊聊天室13077ut男同志聊天室免費視訊聊天aio交友愛情館免費視訊辣妹脫衣秀視訊交友90739視訊交友網免費視訊聊天 go2av情人視訊高雄網視訊美女
Post a Comment
<< Home