No Ladies’ Man (John Kerry has a lame pick-up line)

This has nothing to back up your argument whatsoever.

You have a list of years of experience and a list of salaries. At the same years of experience, do you think the salary should be the same for men as women? I don't. If that were the only differentiating factor, this would be a significant study. Instead, you have as your primary support bold assertions by a feminist union advocate, and even techies.com feels compelled to qualify her overall assertion with a 'may.'

Now answer the questions I posted, and stop posting silly liberal crap.

This has nothing to back up your argument whatsoever.

You have a list of ages and a list of salaries differentiated by sex. At the same age, do you think the salary should be the same for all men as all women? I don't. If that were the only differentiating factor, this would be a significant study.

Now answer the questions I posted, and stop posting silly liberal crap.

See the answer I gave some moments ago.

Then answer the questions I posted, and stop posting silly liberal crap.

So it's liberal if it's not Libertarian?

Very funny.

This post is so awful I'll go through it step by step.

Introduction Data collected from a wide array of sources reveal the following pattern with regard to gender discrimination in the U.S. workplace. In general, the proportion of women employed as computer scientists appears to reflect the proportion of women graduating with degrees in that area. However, when women are hired, they tend to start at lower positions and/or earn lower starting salaries than men. Over time, the gap between men's and women's salaries and promotion rates grows at an increasing rate. The salary gap is found even in studies that equate years of experience, level of education and industry.

These are all bold statements. Let's look at the data instead.

Hiring There is some evidence that the proportion of women computer and mathematical scientists hired into industry jobs reflects the proportion of women graduating with degrees in those areas. Data from different sources indicates that women made up about 30% to 35% of all computer and mathematical scientists between 1988 and 1990 (Frenkel, 1990). This figure is somewhat higher than the proportion of women graduating with CS degrees over the past 10-20 years. According to the U.S. Department of Education, women earned between 30% and 37% of the bachelors degrees in CS during the 1980s, up from 14% to 28% in the 1970s (DOE surveys, 1990-1991). As for higher degrees, women earned between 21% and 30% of the CS masters degrees in the U.S. between 1980 and 1989 (Frenkel, 1990), and they earned between 9 and 14 percent of the CS PhDs in the U.S. and Canada between 1978 and 1990 (Gries and Marsh, 1992).

Promotion In almost every industry, women occupy a very small proportion of the higher-level positions. For example, a 1988 study found that only three CEOs among the Fortune 1000 were women, and only 1.7% of the COOs, CFOs and executive VPs were women (White, 1992).

Typical use of statistics with the intention to set a predisposition that there is a bias in the industry. "It's not 50%?!? That's not fair!" There is no reason stated for this statistic or any explanation for it.

In a 1993 study of Stanford MBAs, graduates from the class of 1982 were tracked over time. It was found that 71% of the men are currently in the top four rungs of management, whereas only 34% of women had reached those positions (Smith and Mitchell, 1993). A study of the 10 largest makers of weapons found that women made up 5.3% of the senior management positions (Sims, 1993). Business Week did a report in 1987 in which they tracked 100 women executives who were on the fast track from as far back as 1976. They found that none of those 100 women had made it to the top position in a public corporation unless they started the business or inherited the position (White, 1992).

None of these statistics actually shows anything regarding the reasons women were 'held back.' Did they have different in-workplace production? Gosh, that might be a factor. Did they leave the workplace for a period to have children, or did they work fewer hours as the primary caregiver for kids? Gosh, that might be a factor. Instead, we are invited to think that because these statistics are so, they are evidence of bias.

Data from the computer industry in particular were not available, but the same pattern appears in the academic world. Women make up 10% of both assistant and associate CS professors but only 4% of the full professors, a rank that generally takes about 10 years to achieve (Gries and Marsh, 1992). (Recall that women have been earning between 9 and 14 percent of computer science PhDs in since 1978.)

More statistics that do not demonstrate anything.

As shown in the previous section, the problem is not that larger proportions of trained women are not available.

As if the fact that they are 'available' is the only factor. What if the women tend to take more stable jobs in less promotable positions, and the men take more risks? Gosh, if you have kids, that might be a factor, you think?

Women are not represented at the highest ranks of companies and academia because, for some reason, their rate of progression is halted somewhere along the way to the top.

So the author invites us to believe that it's discrimination that 'halts' their progress without any foundation. If I make the assertion that women get pregnant and leave the workforce for 9 years, I would have just as much reason for my claim as Ms. Isaacs.

Salaries The salary picture for women is even more inequitable than that for promotion.

Who proved the promotion picture was inequitable? This is an assumption. One you enjoy hearing, I'm sure, but not one with foundation in the prior statistics.

Women consistently make less money than men in almost every industry, even when they first start their jobs (Schwartz, 1988, Mahar, 1993).

Gosh, what other factors could be involved in women making less money to start? The easy one is negotiation aggression. But there are myriad other factors, including prior experience in a similar position, and employer concern that married young women often leave to have children.

An American Demographics study found that women working full time with two or fewer years of experience earn 72% of men with the same experience (Schwartz, 1988).

Again with the direct experience-to-experience comparison. This doesn't work, as I've mentioned before. If I have 5 years of experience in 1943 and a year of experience last year in computer science, and I apply against a woman who has 6 years of experience starting in 1998, if those are the only differences, I would tend to hire the woman, wouldn't you? Not an atypical situation for women returning to the workplace post-divorce.

In the computer and mathematical sciences, women's wages as a percentage of men's has fluctuated between 74% and 86% between 1983 and 1992, although on the whole it has grown from 75% to 85% (U.S. Department of Labor statistics).

Irrelevant statistic, as I pointed out earlier.

As women get older, they make less as a proportion of men's salaries. Although the gap has narrowed somewhat in the past 14 years, this trend is due to a drop in men's inflation-adjusted salaries, not a rise in women's (Pennar, 1991, Rigdon, 1993).

A bold assertion. I'd have to look up Pennar and Rigdon's surveys, but based on the views Ms. Isaac has taken based on THESE surveys, I sincerely doubt her accuracy and have no doubt of inherent bias in these other surveys.

And the gap has not been steadily decreasing. In 1955, women earned more of a percentage of men's salaries than they did in 1987, 63.9 cents vs. 63.7 cents (Mahar, 1993).

Again, the number-to-number comparison simply isn't a fair one.

Part of the reason for the wage gap is that women don't get promoted as quickly as men. However, even when equating for rank, a gap appears. A 1993 ComputerWorld survey of IS managers salaries showed that the wage gap widened as the management level increased (Dwyer, 1993). For example, among " programming managers," women made 98% of men's salaries, but among IS directors or managers, women made 82% of men's salaries.

Hmmm...they again make an assertion that can't be demonstrated by the statistics. Programming managers are paid on production, almost universally, and directly work with computer programmers. Thus the different numbers here are statistically insignificant. However, IS directors/managers are often not even related to production, and may have WIDELY varying job descriptions. And experience is not studied here--just 'rank,' which given the amorphous nature of titles in the industry is ludicrous. But you wouldn't know that from this article. And you couldn't quote it if you were serious about scholarship.

Other common explanations for the increasing wage gap are that women choose professions that pay less and that they have less experience than men of the same age because they take time off to raise children. However, Business Week reported on a study that compared the salaries of single white men and women between the ages of 20 and 40 (Koretz, 1990). When they factored out schooling, industry, skill level and work experience, the women still earned 91% of men's salaries. (Without factoring these out, women earned 86% of men's salaries.)

Gosh, could they avoid the 'p' word any more? If a woman LEAVES the workforce for kids, there is a gap in experience regardless of the number of years worked! Look at the 91% statistic--it's phenomenal, given that these are the prime childbearing years, and employer investment is highest in training these employees! Employers are taking a HUGE risk on women who may leave the workforce entirely, but they are taking the risk, and paying the same wages! But you wouldn't know that from this study!

Another researcher analyzed the credentials of 194 corporate managers randomly chosen from 800 people who took a leadership course. He found that "if women were men with the same credentials, they would earn about 18 percent more" (Ridgon, 1993)

This would be a telling survey, if...uh oh, no idea what jobs they hold when the survey is taken. That assertion is a bold one. But we're back to Rigdon again...hmm, makes me wonder...yep, Rigdon isn't even the researcher! The author of the article is spinning her bias and then the author of THIS article is taking it on faith--again.

And the 1992 edition of The Economics of Women, Men and Work found that less than 50 percent of the pay gap between men and women can be explained by differences in schooling and experience (Gries and Marsh, 1992). These figures are the closest estimate we have of the wage gap that can be explained only by discrimination.

Yep, differences could be explained by that "p" word again, but we won't talk about that. Nor will we talk about when the women enter the industry. Or comparable job titles.

Stop posting liberal crap and answer the questions I posted.

I don't need to address this line by line--you've quoted the NY Times and don't attribute it (an accident, I'm sure /sarcasm). That really helps your credibility. And this whole article is based on skewing of Dept of Labor stats as in prior posts. I'm not buying any of it, and I've explained why before.

Stop posting liberal crap and answer the questions I posted.

Stop ordering me around. Every day I pity your wife.

I'm not buying any of it.

Color me SURPRISED.

I would tend to hire the woman, wouldn't you?

Yes for obvious reasons and I don't mean lower pay.

Your next article, "Examining the “Women’s Choices” Theory" is from a group known to be biased and is obviously, simply, suspect.

It's a labor and feminist front. I'm supposed to buy their slanted crap? Geez, you can't find ANY fair studies or articles to support your opinion?

Let's not ignore the evidence on unfair pay. We cannot ignore a mountain of evidence documenting that a wage gap exists even when comparing women and men who have the same job, education, qualifications, and time in the workforce. Consider scores of studies such as:

• a survey of public relations professionals, showing that women with less than 5 years of experience make $29,726 while men with the same amount of experience make $48,162. For P.R. professionals in the 5-10 year category, women earn $41,141 while men earn $47,888. In the 10-15 year category, women earn $44,941 and men earn $54,457. In the 15-20 year range, women earn $49,270 and men earn $69,120.
•a salary survey of purchasers demonstrating that for professionals in the field of purchasing with 3 or fewer years experience, women earn $35,900 and men earn $47,700. For purchasers with 4-6 years experience, men earn $52,100 while women earn $38,300. Female purchasers who have 7 to ten years of experience earn $42,300 while their male counterparts earn $56,400. For those with 11-15 years experience, women earn $43,500 and men earn $63,400.

---Experience-to-salary straight comparisons don't work. I've explained this.

•a study of women in the telecommunications industry documenting a gap even when education was the same. For example, among video programmers, women with advanced degrees earn 64.6% of their male counterparts, and women with college degrees earn 80%.

---Again, ignoring experience and years in the field.

Evidence of wage discrimination can be found in Department of Labor audits. The DOL conducts routine compliance reviews of companies that are federal contractors. Their findings include violations by companies such as:

---Blah, blah, DOL.

Texaco, which agreed to pay $3.1 million to 186 female employees who were found to be systematically underpaid compared to their male counterparts.

---And they did, didn't they? Sort of like your company did, or didn't, or whatever you claim today. Not one mention of the litigation expense factor that the DOL and other minority/feminist groups will bring to bear if the company doesn't admit its 'wrongdoing.'

Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield, which paid $264,901 in back pay to 34 women managers who were paid less than male managers of equal qualifications and seniority.

---And they did, didn't they? Sort of like your company did, or didn't, or whatever you claim today. Not one mention of the litigation expense factor that the DOL and other minority/feminist groups will bring to bear if the company doesn't admit its 'wrongdoing.'

US Airways, which agreed to pay $390,000 in back pay and salary adjustments to 30 women managers who were paid less than their male coworkers.

---And they did, didn't they? Sort of like your company did, or didn't, or whatever you claim today. Not one mention of the litigation expense factor that the DOL and other minority/feminist groups will bring to bear if the company doesn't admit its 'wrongdoing.'

Corestates Financial Corp., which agreed to pay nearly $1.5 million in back wages and salary adjustments to women and minorities. The Labor Department found instances in which employees with more seniority or better performance reviews were paid less because they were women or minorities.
Other recent settlements include those by American University, American Greetings Corporation, Aramark Corporation, Fairfax Hospital, Marriott Corporation, and others.

---And they did, didn't they? Sort of like your company did, or didn't, or whatever you claim today. Not one mention of the litigation expense factor that the DOL and other minority/feminist groups will bring to bear if the company doesn't admit its 'wrongdoing.'

Let's not ignore the women who face real-life experiences with discrimination. In a class action suit, more than 900 women recently filed claims of bias against Merrill Lynch -- some of them were told that they were paid less than men because the men had families to support. Universities in California, Idaho, and Georgia have all settled cases of bias. After conducting an in-depth study, MIT recently admitted discriminating against female professors and moved to change their practices. Private companies such as Ingles Grocery Stores and Home Depot have also settled cases. In May, Kodak conducted an internal study of its pay practices and voluntarily provided $13 million to women and minorities after finding discrepancies based on sex or race. In June, the EEOC sued PETCO Animal Supplies in California on the basis that it paid female managers in its East Bay stores substantially less than their male counterparts.

---Again, not one mention of the litigation expense factor that the DOL and other minority/feminist groups will bring to bear if the company doesn't admit its 'wrongdoing.'

Individual wage discrimination cases are hard to prove and very costly to pursue, and we need better enforcement and stronger laws.

---Here they finally mention the litigation expense factor, but as a factor asking for MORE laws and MORE enforcement, when the fact is that that minority/feminist groups have stables of lawyers eager to sue at the drop of a hat--and that's what they do, that's ALL THEY DO.

But in the meantime, we cannot ignore documented cases of discrimination. Some of the women who fight and win don't have children, so taking time out of the workforce is not an issue.

---FINALLY they talk about how SOME women fit their thesis...then they distort it to claim that "it is not an issue." Boy, no wonder you like this article. It reasons just like you!

Men recognize that wage discrimination exists, too. According to a 1998 survey by the Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University, 43% of men believe that a major reason why women do not advance to top-level executive and professional positions is because men don't want women to get ahead in the workplace. This survey echoes previous polling data on perceptions of inequalities.

---It sure would be nice if the article asked why men think that. What their perceptions are of the average woman worker, that they would consider holding a woman back simply because they 'don't want women to get ahead.' But then, it's also not surprising the number is about 43%. That's a little over the number that vote Democrat.

What's the 74% figure really all about? The median earnings of women working full-time, year-round are 74% of the median earnings of men working full-time, year-round. Part time workers do not affect this figure.

---Women take different jobs. Irrelevant statistic.

For every woman, the wage gap is different. The wage gap is affected by many factors, including a woman's race, age, education, occupation, and geographic region. African American women earn 63 cents on the dollar and Hispanic women 54 cents compared to white males, who face no discrimination.

---Yet since it's affected by many factors, we'll just quote that there's a difference and assume it's all racism/sexism involved.

What about the rest of the women? An old figure quoted by opponents of pay equity solutions says that a group of women -- those between 27 and 33 who have never had a child -- earn 98 cents on the dollar. Even if this was true (which means women still earn less than men), where does that leave working women who are younger than 27 or older than 33? This single statistic has been used repeatedly by opponents since 1994, although they leave out scores of more current salary studies and surveys that find unexplained gender wage gaps.

---Where does it leave them? Pregnant and having kids, much of the time.

The bottom line: Women know wage discrimination exists. Working women see the outdated attitudes that still exist today. Women are told by managers that men make more because they have families to support. They are asked about their "family-life" in interviews. They are told by employers that women are not capable of doing the "higher paying jobs" such as management. They are ignored or retaliated against when they pursue equal pay through normal company grievance procedures. These are just a few of the many, many real-life examples NCPE hears about.

---Yep, they 'know' it. So it must be true. The world was flat before Columbus, too.

Answer the questions I posted and stop posting leftist crap.

Nothing that backs up your claim, just the same tired pay-to-pay comparison which has already been neutered. Otherwise, it doesn't even address your claim.

Stop posting liberal crap, and answer the questions I posted.

Despite equal representation among the ranks of wage earners, however, women continue to come up short in their paychecks. For the past two decades, optimists could take solace in the narrowing wage gap. For every dollar earned by a white man, a white woman now earns $.78. This figure represents a big improvement from the $.63 white women earned relative to white men in 1975.
Source: US Department of Labor

---Same worthless DOL stat.

But recent trends give us reason for concern. The rate of improvement has slowed dramatically. Working from a lower base, white women made up $.11 in the 1980s, but only $.04 cents during the 1990s. And the statistics are worse for minority women: An African-American woman earns $.67 for every $1 a white man earns, while her Hispanic sister earns only $.56.
Source: US Department of Labor

---Same worthless DOL stat.

The government’s General Accounting Office reports that in seven out of ten industries the gap has actually started to widen. Some gains have held. By 2000 women almost reached parity in educational services, taking home 91 cents on the dollar, up from 86 in 1995. But the big picture is hardly rosy. Over the same period, for example, a female manager in the entertainment and recreation services earned 62 cents for every dollar a male manager made, down from 83 cents in 1995.

---Same worthless statistical analysis. Title to title, experience to experience, etc., you have to look at all the factors at once to qualify the study. It's not at all surprising you haven't quoted a single study yet that has done that in support of your opinion.

Given the data, it’s surprising to discover that by a good margin most female managers think they have reached wage parity with their male colleagues. The statistics are sobering. 70% of female executives think they’re paid as much as males; 78% of men agree. The facts, however, show that women in management take home only 62.7% of what male managers earn (Source: Gallup, American Management Association).

---Yes, if you poll people in management, this will happen. Manager is a wide field with varied experience. There are lots more male managers with extensive experience, thus the average man gets paid more. Worthless stat.

Women are also more likely than men to work part-time, take time off for family reasons, and to be the primary caregivers for their children or aging parents. This affects not only their take-home pay, but their career opportunities as well. Childless women, for example, currently earn 90% of their male counterparts’ salaries.

---What a surprise. They consider the factor then quote from a stat that could be better--but one that shows a subgroup of women are significantly closer in pay to men for good reason.

Money is not a high priority for most women.
Money may be only a factor for women in salary negotiations, not the determining one. They may value other elements in a benefit package - time, ability to telecommute, etc. That does not automatically correlate to the prevalent assumption that women don’t care about being paid fairly for the contributions they make.

---Oopsie. It doesn't automatically correlate, but it's a factor that none of the prior studies controlled for, is it? Gosh, that makes your imaginary discrimination claims sound really bad.

The Cumulative Price
Contrary to folk wisdom, women are just as likely as men are to negotiate compensation. The problem is, they don’t realize the same results from their efforts. When men negotiate an entry salary or a raise, they achieve on average a 4.3% increase from the initial figure. By contrast, when women negotiate, they realize only 2.7% more.

Over the span of a career, the lag translates into about a 35% wage differential that can be traced back to starting salaries. According to a recent study, if current wage patterns continue, a 25-year-old woman, who works full time, will earn $523,000 less than the average 25-year-old man will by the time they both retire at 65.

That’s a lot of money.

---So they're not as good at it. Which is what has been said over and over. It's not a discrimination problem. It's a problem of ability.

This was the best article I've seen yet, however, in that it actually admits women's shortcomings and interests are a large part of the problem, and suggests ways that WOMEN can fix the problem instead of blaming 100% of the problem on discrimination by male-dominated society. Which you prefer to do.

That ain't saying much, though, considering that it sets the tone by spouting b.s. intended to reinforce your notions about your place in the workforce before delineating your shortcomings and asking you to do something about them.

Stop posting liberal crap and answer the questions I posted.

And?

Let me know when you get it through your head that pay-to-pay comparisons are irrelevant.

Stop posting useless crap and answer the questions I posted.

---God, you are such a liberal.

---This Psychology Today article actually shows you're wrong.

It made no difference whether the applicant was a man or woman.Those with low current salaries were awarded lower starting salaries for all four jobs, Mitchell and Henning say. However, since women typically earn less than men do, they are hurt more.

"Women will necessarily continue to lose ground to men in comparable positions since they will routinely be offered less for the same position," Mitchell says. No discrimination is intended; instead, it's "a result of established procedures for determining compensation."

---So if women negotiate better and don't have lower salaries based on other factors as they go into new jobs, women don't earn lower salaries.

Have you considered actually reading the articles before you post them?

Stop posting crap that doesn't support your claim and answer the questions I posted.

You're not just a liberal. You're a really SLOW liberal.

This National Review article also hurts your claim. Did you even read it? Thanks for posting it. Here is the relevant part, which you obviously missed:

...as often is the case, this statistic ignores as much as it reveals. The 75 percent number trumpeted by feminists doesn't account for critical factors like education, occupational choice, or years of experience. On average, women leave the workforce for about a decade in order to care for children. It's no surprise that a 35-year-old woman re-entering the workforce after ten years off earns less than a man or woman who worked continuously during that time.

Several studies have attempted to use control groups to eliminate these differences. One focused on childless men and women aged 27 to 33 and found that women in that group earned 98 cents for every male dollar. Other studies, however — such as a recent report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) — concluded that after controlling for factors such as work experience, education, and occupation, a measurable gap remained, with women earning 80 cents for each man's dollar.

Yet the GAO cautioned against attributing this difference primarily to discrimination, concluding that "we cannot determine whether this remaining difference is due to discrimination or other factors that may affect earnings." "Some experts," the report noted, "say women trade off career advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities."

The GAO's admission highlights one of the great flaws in the "wage gap" debate: The assumption that all job applicants seek to maximize their pay. In fact, people consider many factors when choosing a job, including work satisfaction, proximity to home, and flexibility. For working mothers, flexibility is often a top priority. According to a Pew Research Center survey of working moms in 1997, almost three-quarters of women said a flexible schedule was "very important" when considering a job. It's hard to imagine that flexibility is as high a priority for men.

The GAO study admits it doesn't control for all the variables. The one that does has a gap in pay that is statistically insignificant. You are a liberal.

Now stop posting stuff that actually contradicts your claim and answer the questions I posted.

"Significant pay differences remain that cannot be attributed to factors such as experience, publications, and education."

Yes, but work breaks and job differences (benefits, productivity, hours, etc.) aren't considered. Oopsie. Irrelevant AGAIN. Boy, that must be disappointing for you.

Stop posting irrelevant crap and answer the questions I posted.

You're just not that smart, are you?

If you read this study, you'll find later on that the authors claim that:

Similar to females applying for "male" jobs, males also seem to suffer somewhat when applying for "female" jobs due to perceptions of a "lack of fit" because of their gender. Perhaps one remedy for this is training. Currently, most of the EEO and diversity training focuses directly or indirectly on historical biases that have been levied against women and minorities. If the results of this study generalize to the selection decisions made in the management ranks, males may also confront gender bias in decision making. And the frequency of this bias may increase as more women enter the work force and begin to predominate in numbers in more occupations. Like the complaints we have heard from women and minorities, males also may be undervalued due to their gender. The degree to which this bias operates would be of interest to test in future research. For example, would evaluators be even more likely to select a less-qualified female over a qualified male for a female job if the position were non-managerial? These and other questions pertinent to profemale bias could be the subjects of future studies.

So if even there is discrimination in some fields it's certainly balanced by discrimination in others--against men? Was that what you wanted to say when you said "Women are paid less than men for performing the SAME job?"

Stop posting crap that actually undermines your claim and answer the questions I posted.

Great. Quote the same worthless statistic, again, this time from the AFL-CIO.

You're such a liberal.

Stop posting irrelevant crap and answer the questions I posted.

BITM, no matter how hard you want those studies to apply, only one study does. And it shows you're wrong.

You are your own worst enemy, it seems.

Stop insulting people and answer the questions I posted.

And you are producing government statistics that don't directly address your claim because they are interpreted by those whose biased analyses support yours.

Someone is spinning like a top all right. It ain't Xenalyte.

Stop insulting people and producing irrelevant information and answer the questions I posted.