Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Ah yes, those evil republicans keeping women down.... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Do as I say not as I do," the new democrat mantra, well the old one that seems to keep working.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/06/obama-looks-to-close-wage-...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
I think it's vital that this thread immediately be derailed into a discussion of drink flavors or candy bars. Lord Obama must not be discussed except in the language of praise and worship.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
There is no Dana, only Zuul
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
"Do as I say not as I do," the new democrat mantra, well the old one that seems to keep working.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/06/obama-looks-to-close-wage-...


Quote:
And while both analyses found a pay gap, the White House does have a smaller gap than the national 23 percent.

...

Though the administration and progressives point to the fact that women make just 77 cents to every man’s dollar as cause for concern, Sabrina Schaeffer, executive director of the Independent Women’s Forum, noted that while she does not deny discrimination exists and there are bad employers, she sees the 23 percent wage gap as exaggerated.

“If you control for any number of factors including college major, time spent out of the work place, job title, that wage gap shrinks tremendously. And in many instances it shrinks down to about 94 cents, even 96 cents in some studies I’ve read,” she said, pointing out that that some of that 6 cents wage gap could be attributed to certain differences between the sexes. Women do not negotiate their salaries as often as men. Some of it could be also be attributed to discrimination.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/16/analysis-men-still-make-a-...


I don't see anything in either analyses that addresses years/experience rather than just the end result. That is something that genuinely does impact wages: if a parent takes times off for child rearing, there is a gap of experience that takes several years to address, and will often result in a pay difference. If you had a small group of men at a higher than median wage, and more women at a lesser than median wage that reflected less experience - I think that would be more meaningful than just the end wage information.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
I think it's vital that this thread immediately be derailed into a discussion of drink flavors or candy bars. Lord Obama must not be discussed except in the language of praise and worship.


So now the fact that your last thread wasn't compelling enough to stay on target is everyone else's fault?
19 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
I think it's vital that this thread immediately be derailed into a discussion of drink flavors or candy bars. Lord Obama must not be discussed except in the language of praise and worship.


So now the fact that your last thread wasn't compelling enough to stay on target is everyone else's fault?


Yeah, it seems weird to complain about people derailing a thread detailing how irrelevant something is. He should be happy because the derails are indicative that he made his point and the subject really was irrelevant.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
I think it's vital that this thread immediately be derailed into a discussion of drink flavors or candy bars. Lord Obama must not be discussed except in the language of praise and worship.


So now the fact that your last thread wasn't compelling enough to stay on target is everyone else's fault?


Interesting. You seem to have this creepy semi-stalker need to follow me around in RSP and assert that all I do is blame other people for things. Not being a psychologist I'm puzzled by what drives the obsession.

But hey, let's examine your claim. If my thread wasn't compelling most people would ignore it based on the non-compelling subject line. At best, the uncompelled person would have read the OP and then clicked away due to, well, the non-compelling nature of the thread. And I assume that is exactly what happened with the normal RSP denizens who aren't stalkers or ObamaZealots. Instead, the thread got derailed, on purpose. Which is fine, I'm a derailer meself. But it got derailed because why? Not due to the compelling nature, or lack of... but due to the fact it was critical of Obama. If I do a thread about anything other than Obama it rarely gets derailed. not even by you. But almost any thread in RSP that is critical of Obama is a beacon for a small crew who, acting individually but all still suffering from the same mental illness, flock to the thread and start derailing it or defending Obama, no matter what.

I don't read non-compelling threads. Apparently you do. And then you actually invest time and energy into derailing them. That's just really creepy man... I mean even for a liberal Mormon it's creepy behavior.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
But it got derailed because why? Not due to the compelling nature, or lack of... but due to the fact it was critical of Obama. If I do a thread about anything other than Obama it rarely gets derailed. not even by you. But almost any thread in RSP that is critical of Obama is a beacon for a small crew who, acting individually but all still suffering from the same mental illness, flock to the thread and start derailing it or defending Obama, no matter what.



This line of reasoning is half-a-step shy of blaming the derail on the Trilateral Commission or Council of Foreign Relations.

Your threads get derailed by lizardpeople.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Instead, the thread got derailed, on purpose


That was not the original intent of the orange flavor comment. That was supposed to be a one off snark that somehow exploded.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Geosphere wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Instead, the thread got derailed, on purpose


That was not the original intent of the orange flavor comment. That was supposed to be a one off snark that somehow exploded.


.... because that one comment was more interesting than yet another rehash of how evil gun-haters are.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Geosphere wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Instead, the thread got derailed, on purpose


That was not the original intent of the orange flavor comment. That was supposed to be a one off snark that somehow exploded.


Yeah, since it was you I figured. But I'm actually just addressing McTurdy and his habit of following me around and ankle-biting at me. Right now it's just him and JerBear, along with, maybe a few others that are even less consequential than Turdy and Jer.

It's pretty clear that anti-Obama threads tend to attract a set group of ObamaDroids who start snapping at the people who create the thread or agree with it and turn it away from a discussion of Obama or Obama policy and into one of the OP or the OP's supporters. It's an interesting phenomena in this little micro-culture and I don't mind at all keeping it stirred up and watching it happen.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xilan wrote:
Quote:
Women do not negotiate their salaries as often as men.



Of those arguing about a 'gender wage gap' - I've usually heard this one cited as an example of discrimination. IE., it's fairly well known that women do not negotiate their salaries as much, or as hard, as men do - so a business can offer a woman less (that is, the lower range of salaries for a position) and she'll probably take it with less negotiation. That's a much riskier thing to do with a male employee that you really want, as they tend to take more offense as being low-balled and negotiate harder in the first place - so initial offers tend to be higher (more midrange for the position), with the employer tolerating harder negotiation.

It's not necessarily direct discrimination - the employer isn't TRYING to have fewer women employees, or trying to treat them like second-class workers. An employer offering positions with such a tactic may well end up with (some) women in the same position making more than men do, as they just negotiated better in the end - but the trend will be towards underpaying the women employees.

So it's sort of a...I dunno, a 'passive discrimination'? Basically setting up hurdles for the position, unrelated to the work at hand, that will be more easily cleared by some employees than others - generally on a gender break (but also this kind of thing impacts age differences, too...people near the start or end of their careers tend to know they have less negotiating power, so also end up with lower pay) - and result in an employer not having to pay as much for the same work from different people.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
"Do as I say not as I do," the new democrat mantra, well the old one that seems to keep working.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/06/obama-looks-to-close-wage-...


Given that your link is to the Daily Caller, I would take their "analysis" of the budget numbers with a grain of salt. Having said that, even their article admits that the wage gap in the Obama white house is about half of the putative wage gap at large. So, is he a hypocrit for having any wage gap or a champion for having one so much smaller than average?

If Romney were in office would there be any effort to reduce it further, or at all?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
"Do as I say not as I do," the new democrat mantra, well the old one that seems to keep working.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/06/obama-looks-to-close-wage-...


Given that your link is to the Daily Caller, I would take their "analysis" of the budget numbers with a grain of salt. Having said that, even their article admits that the wage gap in the Obama white house is about half of the putative wage gap at large. So, is he a hypocrit for having any wage gap or a champion for having one so much smaller than average?

If Romney were in office would there be any effort to reduce it further, or at all?


Ah yes, its ok for obama to do it, because of the possibility that "The other guy" would have just done it also.

How about this, how about we just throw out every news story ever since they all come from biased websites. That way we wont see any bad "analysis" about anything since every site is biased.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
There is no Dana, only Zuul
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
xilan wrote:
Quote:
Women do not negotiate their salaries as often as men.



Of those arguing about a 'gender wage gap' - I've usually heard this one cited as an example of discrimination. IE., it's fairly well known that women do not negotiate their salaries as much, or as hard, as men do - so a business can offer a woman less (that is, the lower range of salaries for a position) and she'll probably take it with less negotiation. That's a much riskier thing to do with a male employee that you really want, as they tend to take more offense as being low-balled and negotiate harder in the first place - so initial offers tend to be higher (more midrange for the position), with the employer tolerating harder negotiation.

It's not necessarily direct discrimination - the employer isn't TRYING to have fewer women employees, or trying to treat them like second-class workers. An employer offering positions with such a tactic may well end up with (some) women in the same position making more than men do, as they just negotiated better in the end - but the trend will be towards underpaying the women employees.

So it's sort of a...I dunno, a 'passive discrimination'? Basically setting up hurdles for the position, unrelated to the work at hand, that will be more easily cleared by some employees than others - generally on a gender break (but also this kind of thing impacts age differences, too...people near the start or end of their careers tend to know they have less negotiating power, so also end up with lower pay) - and result in an employer not having to pay as much for the same work from different people.

Agreed.

Like you said, it's a known thing, and it doesn't necessarily indicate an active effort to discriminate. It's one area that employers who are more proactive in their hiring work to address. That is: the recruitment packages are addressed scoped in advance for equity, there's an overall equity program in place, etc. Some candidates also value different kinds of compensation. For some, a higher wage may be important while for others, they would prefer a modified work schedule which, for them, has a much higher value than dollars (e.g. an employee that works a modified schedule to allow for days off to travel, childcare, adult care, etc).

I think the linked analysis article (and supporting article I linked to) is flat and not overly meaningful - regardless of where it came from.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:

So it's sort of a...I dunno, a 'passive discrimination'? Basically setting up hurdles for the position, unrelated to the work at hand, that will be more easily cleared by some employees than others - generally on a gender break (but also this kind of thing impacts age differences, too...people near the start or end of their careers tend to know they have less negotiating power, so also end up with lower pay) - and result in an employer not having to pay as much for the same work from different people.


It's probably cultural inertia from previous power balance levels and discrimination. Of course the market is going to pay the least it can, it's up to us as parents, and women's rights groups as educators, to tell women that they deserve, and should ask for, money commensurate with their talents and experience.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


DW smartest man in the room and happy to tell you so!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
"Do as I say not as I do," the new democrat mantra, well the old one that seems to keep working.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/06/obama-looks-to-close-wage-...


Given that your link is to the Daily Caller, I would take their "analysis" of the budget numbers with a grain of salt. Having said that, even their article admits that the wage gap in the Obama white house is about half of the putative wage gap at large. So, is he a hypocrit for having any wage gap or a champion for having one so much smaller than average?

If Romney were in office would there be any effort to reduce it further, or at all?


Ah yes, its ok for obama to do it, because of the possibility that "The other guy" would have just done it also.

How about this, how about we just throw out every news story ever since they all come from biased websites. That way we wont see any bad "analysis" about anything since every site is biased.


This response is both petulant and well off point.

No one said it's "okay for Obama to do it"; whatever the hell that means. I merely pointed out that in a system of compensation with disparate wages for women the white house, under Obama, is only half as bad as the employer sector at large. Therefore, the article may not be as perjorative as you seem to wish.

Frankly, I don't think Obama, or any president, actually sets wages for white house employees be they men or women. Conqequently the topic is a red herring.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
I think it's vital that this thread immediately be derailed into a discussion of drink flavors or candy bars. Lord Obama must not be discussed except in the language of praise and worship.


So now the fact that your last thread wasn't compelling enough to stay on target is everyone else's fault?
No, it was Obama's.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
Geosphere wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
Instead, the thread got derailed, on purpose


That was not the original intent of the orange flavor comment. That was supposed to be a one off snark that somehow exploded.


Yeah, since it was you I figured. But I'm actually just addressing McTurdy and his habit of following me around and ankle-biting at me. Right now it's just him and JerBear, along with, maybe a few others that are even less consequential than Turdy and Jer.

It's pretty clear that anti-Obama threads tend to attract a set group of ObamaDroids who start snapping at the people who create the thread or agree with it and turn it away from a discussion of Obama or Obama policy and into one of the OP or the OP's supporters. It's an interesting phenomena in this little micro-culture and I don't mind at all keeping it stirred up and watching it happen.
You must be Tripping!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thin there is a gender gap (a real one), but I do not think it is as bad as portrayed. There are still a few places that pay women less then men for the same job. But most of the disparity is due to differences in hours, or roles, not in pay scale.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
I thin there is a gender gap (a real one), but I do not think it is as bad as portrayed. There are still a few places that pay women less then men for the same job. But most of the disparity is due to differences in hours, or roles, not in pay scale.


There is quite a bit of research into this topic. You are correct that some of the disparity in pay has to do with choices of field and/or hours. Of course this doesn't address pay disparity within same/similar occupations. One recent discussion suggests that women, on average, are less aggressive in negotiating salaries than are men. To the extent that salaries are negotiated and employees prohibited from discussing relative pay, this could be a serious disadvantage.

Of course, Republicans will suggest that Democrats are making more of this issue to attract women voters and draw a line of contrast. They have a point. Crafting legislation which could pass both houses will be tricky. Keeping the issue front and center will likely encourage more litigation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Knauer
United States
Heathrow
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Article from yesterday

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230353270...

Quote:
Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.

Then there is the issue of marriage and children. The BLS reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men's earnings in 2012.

The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours. Not all jobs can be flexible, and all other things being equal, those which are will pay less than those that do not.

Education also matters. Even within groups with the same educational attainment, women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market. Men are more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering. And as the American Association of University Women reports, men are four times more likely to bargain over salaries once they enter the job market.

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.

While the BLS reports that full-time female workers earned 81% of full-time males, that is very different than saying that women earned 81% of what men earned for doing the same jobs, while working the same hours, with the same level of risk, with the same educational background and the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and assuming no gender differences in family roles like child care. In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously—such as that from economists June and Dave O'Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012—nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap cited by Mr. Obama can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. The O'Neills conclude that, "labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all."
4 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Do Republican Women Deserve To Be Paid 30% Less Than Republican Men?

From most of what I've read so far, I'm getting the distinct feeling that this thread should have been more accurately entitled: "There's A Reason Why Women Deserve To Be Paid 30% Less Than Men...."


Reason: Those who oppose the passage of the Equal Pay For Equal Work Law are unwilling or simply cannot bring themselves to name that reason or to elaborate about why women deserve to be paid 30% less than men.

Won't some Republican or rightwing conservative, or fundatmentalist Christian extremist educate us about why women deserve to paid 30% less than men? (Or at least why Republican women deserve to be paid 30% less than Republican men?)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Sauberer
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:

From most of what I've read so far, I'm getting the distinct feeling that this thread should have been more accurately entitled: "There's A Reason Why Women Deserve To Be Paid 30% Less Than Men...."


Reason: Those who oppose the passage of the Equal Pay For Equal Work Law are unwilling or simply cannot bring themselves to name that reason or to elaborate about why women deserve to be paid 30% less than men.

Won't some Republican or rightwing conservative, or fundatmentalist Christian extremist educate us about why women deserve to paid 30% less than men? (Or at least why Republican women deserve to be paid 30% less than Republican men?)



There already is an Equal Pay for Equal Work Law and it has been in effect since the 1960s. It is currently illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender.

The current proposed law would be more accurately named "Yet Another Plaintiffs' Attorney Enablement Act."

Also, that bastion on Tea Party Dominionist Far Right Wing Republicanism, The Washington Post, had this to say about the 77% claim

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


Psauberer wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
From most of what I've read so far, I'm getting the distinct feeling that this thread should have been more accurately entitled: "There's A Reason Why Women Deserve To Be Paid 30% Less Than Men...."

Reason: Those who oppose the passage of the Equal Pay For Equal Work Law are unwilling or simply cannot bring themselves to name that reason or to elaborate about why women deserve to be paid 30% less than men.

Won't some Republican or rightwing conservative, or fundatmentalist Christian extremist educate us about why women deserve to paid 30% less than men? (Or at least why Republican women deserve to be paid 30% less than Republican men?)

There already is an Equal Pay for Equal Work Law and it has been in effect since the 1960s. It is currently illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender.

The current proposed law would be more accurately named "Yet Another Plaintiffs' Attorney Enablement Act."

And what would this alleged law be actually known as?

Mind you, I'm NOT talking about hiring discrimination. I'm talking about differentially unfair pay (i.e. pay inequality).




Psauberer wrote:
Also, that bastion on Tea Party Dominionist Far Right Wing Republicanism, The Washington Post, had this to say about the 77% claim

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/...

Notably, although that article leads off with the statement "Few experts dispute that there is a wage gap,...", it fails to address the reality confronted by career women who both don't have children and don't plan to ever have children themselves or adopt children. Those women's perspective offers the ultimate litmus test which challenges the blitheful dismissals of that article.

Since career women who don't have children and don't plan to ever have children still encounter such pay differentials for doing the same job that men do, the issue is by no means settled and only underscores the need for an actual bonafide Equal Pay For Equal Work Law.


And by the way, Tea Partiers and Republicans of the rightwing fundamentalist-Christian extremist mold naturally don't care for this issue since many, if not most, believe women should instead be staying home to become homemakers and stay-at-home mothers.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.