|
Post by Aqualung on Apr 27, 2009 17:10:06 GMT -5
Secondly, yeah, sure, that explains why woman in the same jobs as men tend to earn 78 cents on the dollar – because they only work 78% as hard. This right here caught my attention. Contrary to the common belief, this issue is actually one of much controversy within the world of business. Whenever people go to look at the purported wage gap, all they ever look at is the raw $$$ numbers; rarely does anyone ever actually sit down and go above that. The truth of the matter is that men and women tend to take different approaches to how they go about things. Men are more likely to be aggressive in the early years of their career. This includes working longer hours in a week, working more overtime, and being more forceful in regards to both when they get raises and what amount they get. The result is that men tend to go up the corporate ladder faster and with more cash in hand. OTOH, there's a tendency for women to prefer work-life balance through such rewards as flexible scheduling, and the tendency also extends to workplace harmony. The end result is that women aren't as likely to work overtime (especially if they have families) and are less forceful about promotions. Sounds like women are destined to get passed over, right? Wrong. Early aggression in one's career can lead to a number of health issues later in life, ranging from stress ulcers to extreme neuroticism. In fact, the whole "Type A" vs. "Type B" psychological identifier came when a pair of psychologists noted that your aggressive businessmen tended to have a similar set of physical and mental disorders.*So while women might not get paid as much or might not get as high on the corporate ladder, they often manage to avoid the health issues that men get later in life. *Interestingly enough, it was their secretary who first noticed it. Whenever these men would be in the waiting room, they'd spend so much time sitting on the edge of the seat and gripping the armrests on their chairs that they'd wear the fabric down, causing the chairs to be sent for reupholstering at an alarming rate. The secretary noted how much money the practice was spending on the chairs and brought it to the attention of the two psychologists. When she told them where the chairs were wearing out at (instead of simply wearing all over), the pair made an effort to monitor how these people behaved in the waiting room. Citation or GTFO. *smite* I thought the wage gap statistics looked at the wages of men and women doing the same jobs, not whether or not men are more likely to pursue climbing the corporate ladder than women, which is bullshit. EDIT: Yeah, DV already answered that.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 27, 2009 17:13:52 GMT -5
One of the best statements I've heard out of businesses lately is "This job is not intended to be the primary family income, therefore we do not pay as well"
Gee, isn't it amazing that 95% of their staff are women, and about 80% are immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 17:15:09 GMT -5
The part about women and men getting promoted or being in highly paid jobs is definitely about whether they want to have kids, what they choose to go on and do in terms of education (and how hard the university makes it on them to get an education and be pregnant/have an infant), etc. That much is true. But it's still an issue of what culture expects and tries to enforce, even then. But yeah, the wage thing is comparing apples to apples.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Apr 27, 2009 17:18:45 GMT -5
One of the best statements I've heard out of businesses lately is "This job is not intended to be the primary family income, therefore we do not pay as well" Of course not--there are no 40 hr/week 9-5 jobs anymore.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 17:23:40 GMT -5
One of my students recently did a paper on the cost of a college education. She found an awesome article that talked about how twenty or thirty years ago, a person could work the equivalent of a summer and weekends and pay for college -- the whole year. Now, that person would have to work 52 hours each week all year long to be able to afford to pay for school. No wonder there is so much student loan debt. You'd have to work over time just to pay for that, much less have anything to live on besides. Not to derail the thread further, or anything.
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Apr 27, 2009 17:27:30 GMT -5
The part about women and men getting promoted or being in highly paid jobs is definitely about whether they want to have kids, what they choose to go on and do in terms of education (and how hard the university makes it on them to get an education and be pregnant/have an infant), etc. That much is true. But it's still an issue of what culture expects and tries to enforce, even then. But yeah, the wage thing is comparing apples to apples. I would agree with you in the workplace, but (here at least) it can hardly be said that higher education institutions make it hard for new mothers to complete their studies. When my wife gave birth, she was mid way through the second year of her degree. The university assigned her a note-taker and were very understanding with relaxed assignment deadlines and exam times and such. At the time I was working nights, full time in addition to my studies. And when i requested assistance I was turned down flat. To claim women get a raw deal in higher education is bull IMO
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 17:33:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry, that's just not true. Women in higher ed do get a raw deal. I work in higher ed myself, and I see it all the time. It's also in the literature, frequently. There are whole books about it. Having one good experience doesn't negate the giant body of literature out there that deals with the subject that says otherwise. It's not bull, it's real. Your wife is lucky, and I'm glad for that.
|
|
|
Post by Yahweh on Apr 27, 2009 17:53:09 GMT -5
You are right about the community groups putting pressure on banks to give loans to lower income families. The problem is that those groups were not telling banks to give loans that people could not afford. That was done out of greed by the banks. They could give huge loans to people regardless of what those people could afford and then sell those loads off in bundles. Passing on the problem to the next guy. For many of the banks, it wasn't greed that caused them to tack on high interest rates. Rather, it was their desire to "spread the risk" (much like how insurance companies work) in order to ensure that those people who were paying in would offset losses caused by people who defaulted. Nitpick: there is an entire industry called reinsurance, which is literally insurance for insurance companies. This allows banks to give out more loans in excess to the capital they own, which is not only a safety net for banks, but also helps them generate more revenue on loans. However, among other contributing factors, congress compelled banks who loaned to low-income, low-credit consumers. To make a long story short, banks recieved cash for lending in low income neighborhoods, and were penalized for discriminating against people with bad credit, which directly resulted in banks making unsafe loans. Possibly greed is not the cause of the original problem, so much as stupidity. [edit to remove incorrect info]
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 18:00:27 GMT -5
You must have ignored the information where the CRA is NOT to blame. That comes later on in this thread. It's pretty well documented, actually, that CRA had next to nothing to do with the banking crisis.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 27, 2009 18:04:22 GMT -5
Possibly greed is not the cause of the original problem, so much as stupidity. Ultimately, it's both. People felt that minorities were being discriminated against because so few were getting home loans, and so forced banks to make more loans. As the people who the banks were loaning to had poor credit histories, the banks were forced to compensate by lowering their lending standards and jacking up their interest rates. Other banks who weren't personally involved in the matter found out about this, and figured that if they also got involved in the game then the high interest rates would be a cash cow. This is where greed first entered into the picture. In time, those banks who were dealing with the sub-prime mortgages pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back sub-prime loans as said banks didn't want to be left holding the bag in case these loans backfired on everyone.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 18:06:27 GMT -5
The. CRA. Had. Next. To. Nothing. To. Do. With. It.
Deny reality all you please, that doesn't change the facts.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Apr 27, 2009 18:18:03 GMT -5
With that being said, we have to face reality: some people are simply failures; no amount of government assistance, affirmative action, welfare, or pity is going to change that. You realize you just called me, and everyone else on Disability, "failures"... Thanks a lot, man, you're just *so* fucking compassionate.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 27, 2009 20:15:41 GMT -5
When you have people doing sit-in protests inside your branches, standing outside the homes of your employees and shouting, and generally doing what they can to make your life hell because they think you're being racist, things like "credit checks" tend to fall by the wayside. That was because those banks were not lending any money to lower income families, not that they were not lending them enough. That is a hard position for someone to be in. It sounds like he should not even be working and should be in a rehabilitation program. ......now were is that universal health care?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 27, 2009 20:26:39 GMT -5
This right here caught my attention. Contrary to the common belief, this issue is actually one of much controversy within the world of business. Whenever people go to look at the purported wage gap, all they ever look at is the raw $$$ numbers; rarely does anyone ever actually sit down and go above that. Controversy, that is because there are still sexists in the world. If you are talking about peeing then I'm with you. Anything else it depends on the individual. There are a great deal of aggressive young women in business, who out work and out think their male counterparts. If you ever get out of your basement you will see this. The only reason men have more cash in hand is because they get paid more. Yes, because fathers will work overtime and say to hell with seeing my children. You are a generalizing ass. ....and people who have such problems don't get as much work done and should get paid less. Sky, go look out that hole in the wall with glass in it, they call it a window..........welcome to the 21th century.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 27, 2009 20:40:43 GMT -5
The. CRA. Had. Next. To. Nothing. To. Do. With. It. Deny reality all you please, that doesn't change the facts. C'mon, it's skyfire, you know he's not in contact with reality Skyfire, hey, boy...oh boy... CITATION PLZKTHXBAI
|
|