O/T: A Milestone

Page 1 of 8  
Strictly a non wood working post.
The USA achieved a milestone tonight.
A mixed race black man was nominated by a major political party to lead it in the fall election race and the posibility exists that he could even win the election to become the president of the USA.
I'm old enough to remember Little Rock, Montgomery, the loss of JFK, MLK and RFK, all within the same decade, along with LBJ's signing of the equal rights act.
There is still a long way to go, but as a country, we have come a long way in less than 55 years.
May we continue the journey.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:17:06 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Then you're old enough to remember that we are STILL in a cultural war that has ragged since the 1960's. No matter how ridiculous, or pathetic, even minor local (parochial?) issues become major battlefields for the cultural war.
As the old guard warriors in this verbal war pass into retirement and their grandchildren grow into adulthood and become voting age, the voice calling for a truce can be heard; well, it could be heard if a few would just stop shouting slogans. Just ask yourself how YOU perceive the strongest supporters of Hillery, don't you equate them with the front line cultural soldiers from the days of the ERA amendment to the Constitution? Be honest now. Those ERA fighters could be called now Liberal Ladies of Maturity and Experience in political causes. (You may choose your own non-Politically Correct phrase in the privacy of your own home.)
But I digress, IMHO, there can be no winner in the cultural war. We keep battling the same issues over and over with no retreat. The battle appears to become a war of 'Code Words' and everyone is just preaching to the choir of their choice.
So, a sport stadium filled with people to hear an authentic partisan political speech by the first person of ethnic background other than full Northern European ancestry, as Lew pointed out, which is an historical moment. An event that people can tell, and re-tell, I WAS THERE. Not necessarily for the speech's content, but the context of giving the speech.
My only hope for the future: come November, we can get over 75% of the registered adults of the USA to actually VOTE. And then, God Willing, let the Adults of this country agree to live with the results of the election. That ain't going to happen, but I can still hope can't I?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Phil Again" wrote:

There is no question that women in the work place are being discriminated against.
As I told my daughter when she was about 15-16.
"If your grades are twice as good as your brothers, you will probably get a job that pays 1/2 of what your brothers will be paid for the same work, but that is the way things are right now."
"Maybe you will be able to change things."
Things have changed, but there is a long way still to go, IMHO.
As far as politics being a blood sport is concerned, the results have been very non productive the last 25 years.
Hopefully, it will not continue after the upcoming election.
This election will drag the old body politic screaming and kicking into the 21st century.
Take your choice, either a mixed race president or a female vice president.
Either way, it will be a first.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense. Women, *on average* make less than men for the same job becasue *on average* they take time off to have kids and raise families, and thus miss out on raises and promotions.
If an employer could literally get the same work for half the price, dont'cha think the workplace would be nothing but women?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Richard Evans" wrote:

Huh!
What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above analysis?
It has already been defined that the male and the female have the same qualifications for the task.
What path was followed by either the male or the female to arrived at the qualified status, is simply not relavant to the discussion.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For a narrow definition of "same".

When qualification includes time on the job, it certainly is relevant. Two identically qualified people, one male and one female. They both enter the workforce at the same time. Twenty years later, the man has been constantly on the job and available for raises and promotions. The woman takes off five years to raise a family and misses those same opportunities. When she rejoins the workforce, she has five years less experience than the man and is no longer equally qualified.
When you average all such employees, women's wages *average* less than men's. When you control for time on the job, the effect disappears.
Carrying your argument to it's absurd conclusion, the two enter the workforce together, the woman works one year and takes nineteen off, then rejoins the workforce at the same rate as the men who've been there all along?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Richard Evans" wrote:

Narrow definition?

About the only thing time on the job provides is proof of the ability to survive the company politics.
The basic question about the employee with say 25 years of service becomes:
Do we have an employee with 1 years experience 25 times or do we have an employee with 25 years experience?

I don't know of a man alive who could do the job of a woman as a homemaker.
The experience far exceeds the management training given to entry level employees by leaps and bounds, IMHO.
Her learned negotiating skills alone are worth the wait.

If it take 20 years to learn the assigned task, then I've made a mistake assigning the task to that person.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, now you're just being silly. I'm out of here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are showing your colors Lew. You suffered something over your lifetime that is now "the result of company politics" - right?

Your ability to present and argue a credible position fail you Lew. The above is nothing short of absurd.

There you go - off into the land of absurdity again. The skills of a homemaker are not relevant to the point.

Bullshit. You've clearly never been any closer to a real management position than to be on the outside looking in.

Pure bullshit. You've obviously never spent any time in the work place beyond the level of the disgruntled worker Lew. That's a shame. There is a lot that you are missing.

Double Geezus Lew - you can't read, comprehend, and you simply want to be argumentative, no matter how foolish you make yourself look.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.netx
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:24:01 -0400, Richard Evans

The numbers don't really bear that out. http://stats.bls.gov
While there is no control for "time on the job" there is a "never married" category, a "no children under 18" category and several age group categories including for ages 16 to 24. All of these categories seem to reduce the need to adjust for seniority or for time off due to child bearing. All of these categories still show women earning 11% to 20% less. While not as high as other categories (some over 25%) the difference does not disappear.
Mike O.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

How do those categories "seem to reduce the need to adjust form seniority for for time off due to child bearing"? Those categories in no way do that.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:53:04 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

It's not a perfect science but 16-24 year olds would seem to have more equal seniority if only due to such a short work history. Also, since most cannot be employed in a "real job" until 18 years old the possible seniority gap is even smaller than is reflected in the age gap.
Secondly, if you have 16-24 year olds with "no children under 18", then I suggest that most have not had children therefore negating the need to adjust for seniority due to paternity leave. This category is very limiting when it comes to children. There may be failed pregnancies in this category but otherwise the woman would have to have a child at age 6 for it fall out of the "no children under 18" category.
Lastly in this same 16-24 age group, the "never married" category also suggests that most (in the age group) have probably not had children. I suspect the number here might be higher than in the "no children under 18" category but I think it's reasonable to suggest that most have not had children.
IMO, the 16-24 age group reduces the seniority gap and the "never married" and "no children under 18" categories reduce the need for paternity leave in that age group. As was stated before, the wage numbers (% difference between men and women) get much closer in these very limited categories but never become equal.
As you move into higher age groups, different marital status, and groups with children, the numbers go up significantly. I'll agree that the effect of seniority, for whatever reason, contributes to the differences in those categories.
Mike O.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oh lord - how assumptions can raise so much hell.
Assumption:
Employee A: Male (probably "white", whatever THAT means) Age at time of appointment to "supervisor" position: 30 Time in Position: 25 years Weekly Salary (arbitrarily assumed at $1000 to make the math easier) Annual Performance Evalution: Good Employee B: Female (again, probably "white") Age at time of appointment to "supervisor" position - in the same company as Employee A and doing the same job - on a different shift - which doesn't have "grave yard shift" salary adjustments for working in the middle of the night. Time in Position: 25 years Weekly Salary ( LESS THAN Employee A - say 79% less, for example)
Five years into the two Employee's careers, Employee B discovers she's making $210 less a week than Employee A, yet is doing the same job according to their job descriptions. She takes this inequity up with her supervisor. Nothing is done. She takes the matter up with "personell" - nothing is done.
Eight years into her career she begins legal proceedings - claim gender discrimination. The case drags out for several years before a jury awards her back pay and compensation for the descrimination. The case is appealed and several years later a higher court upholds the lower court ruling. The case is appealed to the US Supreme Court and is finally heard - let's say five years later.
The US Supreme Court rules that since she did not initiate legal action within 6 months of the initiation of the descrimination, BEFORE she discovered, or could reasonably been able to discover, she WAS being descriminated against -the US Supreme Court rules AGAINST her, throwing out the lower court rulings.
This was not a case of Employee A being On The Job - FULL TIME - year after year - for 25 years vs Employee B who worked a year, took five years off to have and get a good start on raising a child then returning to work. Same jobs, same responsibilities, same years with the same company.
Can you explain why a male dominated job - say a house painter, should make a higher hourly wage than a female dominated job like reference librarian - which requires a college degree, deals with the public and has more responsibilities and requires more knowledge and skills than a painter?
And when it comes to having to take time off to care for a sick child, or having to leave early from work because the babysitter didn't show up, or the friend who was picking up your child from daycare had a car problem - that ain't a male vs female thing. I was a single father and I had those things to deal with too. I was blessed with a job that required brain work - that could be done anywhere, at any time - and a boss who understood that. As long as I got my assignments done - on time, complete and accurate - my employer got their money's worth and I got to be a good father, or try to be.
So please - don't give me the "cause they want to have babies" excuse for taking advantage of someone because of their biological capabilities.
And if you want a 24-7 job, with little if any monetary reward, nor much recognition for doing a good job - try being "The Mom", regardless of your gender. And if you can't understand why anyone would volunteer for that job - well I'm guessing you never will understand - and I've been wasting my time.
rant mode off
charlie b
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"charlieb" wrote:

Back in the days when equal opportunity programs were first being implemented in corporate America, the perfect resume for Chairman/CEO went something like this:
1) Female 2) Viet Nam vet 3) Black 4) Quadriplegic 5) Single mother with 5 kids to support 6) Has a PHD
With the above, guaranteed to be Chairman/CEO before age 30.
Hopefully things have changed a bit.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Same reason a guy puting lug nuts on Chevys on the line makes more. Supply and demand. I don't know that the librarian has more skills, but they are different skills. Does knowing where to find a book under the Dewey Decimal system carry the same hazzard as painting window off a ladder on the third floor? Which of the two professions has the higher accident and injury rate?
Maybe the librarian should go start painting houses to make more money if she is unhappy. One good freedom in America is that we get to choose the line of work we want to go into. Some choose to go a certain way for the money, others for the job satisfaction. If you are unhappy with the potential earnings of your chosen career, change it.
One of my college educated neighbors left her teaching job and now paints and wallpapers because the money is better. She's been at it for 10 years now so it must be OK.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snet.net says...

The real reason is that someone is willing to pay the painter more and the painter isn't willing to work for less.

Absolutely!

I bet she isn't whining about her life either.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You didn't include this --- "Annual Performance Evalution: Good" in the ladies description - so that right there could in fact be the reason why she is making less after x years - she does worse job than her co-workers. The idea that two people of either gender should make identical wages after decades of employment is patently absurd and removes any flexibility the company may have in rewarding those it feels is doing a "better" job whatever "better" may be. The sheer number of variables that could determine a salary adjustment is utterly mind boggling and positively beyond the scope of legislation. The assumption that every single person in Personnel or HR is either male and out to get women or female and robotically following orders from male superiors is far beyond the realm of fantasy. In a major company the sheer number of people involved in wage and salary adjustments makes a willful campaign against women less likely than winning the lottery. In my company at least 15 people would have to be involved in this scheme to hold women back. I cannot accept that as truth, the Illuminati are watching me but only to *protect* me. <my own rant mode off>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Geezus Lew - you really missed this one. Qualifications and time on the job are two different things.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now that is just amazing. Two posts from two different people that rambled on in rhetorical nothingness, and which I'm sure each felt equally fulfilled in as they hit SEND. Neither one said a damned thing.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What? Both McCain and Obama posted here?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.