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.
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
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
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
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?
There is no question that women in the work place are being
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
Either way, it will be a first.
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?
What part of same pay for same job did you miss with your above
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.
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?
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
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
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.
The numbers don't really bear that out.
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.
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
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"
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.
Oh lord - how assumptions can raise so much hell.
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
Annual Performance Evalution: Good
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
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
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
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
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:
2) Viet Nam vet
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.
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
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.
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>
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.
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.