The 'left' = dirty? (2 Viewers)

[MoonlightSonata]

The problem is that the cornerstone of capitalism, and therefore our economic system, is competitiveness. Companies must compete for customers, and so those within the companies must compete for positions.

That's true, but could a women not make a company competitive against other companies through the quality of her work, rather than competing within a company?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes she could, however as we have seen 1000000x over, you can build a beautiful perfect machine and have no one buy it.

 

[Sarah]

Did you ever stop to think that women are lazier, or work less, hence why they do not receive as much money? equality is about equal oppurtunities, not equal money for unequal work.

Did you ever stop and think that there may be other factors which contribute to women working less?

Perhaps something like childbirth could be a factor as to why women work less, or when they take maternity leave, they may have missed out on openings available for promoting staff.

The point you make about women being lazier is something i'm very uncomfortable with. I could say that women are judged more harshely than men when it comes to performance management. That is a point i could make and stand by however i choose not to because it's unsubstantiated.

I mean look at the article:

'Women earn on average 67% of male earnings, or $271 pw less than men do. This data is skewed by part time employment. When only full time jobs are compared, women earn $171.00 pw less than men, or 81% of male earnings.


When overtime is excluded, full time female ordinary time earnings are 84.6% of comparable male earnings.'

This shows that clearly women are working less hours, and likely less commited to their jobs, which would be the primary reason for their lower pay.

You know, i'm amazed at how this conclusion came about.

That must mean i would be the least committed person at my workplace. Afterall, just becuase i'm one of two staff members (employed casually) who have been there the longest and work less hours than other colleagues, that must mean i'm less committed to my job in comparison to a high school work colleague of mine who works 3 more hours than i do however avoids working at the busy times.

Hmm... good point that you made about part-time employment and earnings. You've still managed to show that women earn less than men even if you exclude part-time and focus only on full time employment.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Perhaps something like childbirth could be a factor as to why women work less, or when they take maternity leave, they may have missed out on openings available for promoting staff.

Yes that is perhaps a factor, also - while men are being promoted within a company (20-30) this is usually a womans prime time for birth, so it sorta slows them down.

I do believe that there are more factors than simple "lazyness" as to why women get paid less, however I don't believe that they're being paid less only due to their sex... tho it may have a slight impact.

Due to the lifestyle of women (that they choose to live), it can be much harder for them to get paid the same ammount. Not taking as much overtime so that you can "be with the family" (while a nobel and great thing imo to do), will mean that you will have less pay than your average man who works 6-6 on an average day.

I would like to see a comparison of a woman who works the same hours, same job, same qualifications and work ethic to get a better idea of what really is sexual discrimination.

 

[Generator]

Life that they choose or a life that is chosen for them given the structures of society, NTB? I don't think that motherhood (or fatherhood, for that matter) is necessarily a lifestyle that one adopts as a 'choice'.

As for laziness and competitiveness, I don't see much point in arguing against such terms when the opponents are staunch capitalists (I'm more of a social democrat, though I'm sure that that would be known to most by now). However, I will say that I believe that time spent at work is not what should be considered as being indicative of commitment or performance.

 

[NonExistant]

Life that they choose or a life that is chosen for them given the structures of society, NTB? I don't think that motherhood (or fatherhood, for that matter) is necessarily a lifestyle that one adopts as a 'choice'.

It's absolutely a choice. I know a couple, in their 50's now, married never had children. Both have become high paying executives and have lived a life they found perfectly happy. You do have the choice to place career before family, whether you make that choice or even WANT to make that choice, is up to the person themselves.

Again, none of this is evidence against why men's higher average earnings are unjustified?

Do you honestly think women should receive a bonus at work, just for being women? Of course not.

A perhaps more contraversial issue, would be "do you think it's right that a company should have to promote women, even if they have a child and put in far less hours, simply because they are having a child?" I mean consider the point, they simply will have had less experiance than another person competing for the job, whether they be male or female.

That is why I feel it is very important in this debate to differentiate between male/female inequality and child birth/no child birth inequality.

While it may appear from the outset that they may be one and the same, it is clear that they infact are not. In either case though, we have to remember companies will always act in the companies best interest, it is safe to assume these days that they will always choose the best candidate for the position which will help their company the most. There is no deep seeded opression of women purely on a male/female basis, and any inequality or descrimination based on child birth/no child birth risk, is infact an economically justified stance. Whether you feel this is wrong is a social concious issue, and naturally one which is a personal opinion and therefore either side will find it very hard to be swayed. Regaurdless, it is up to the government to decide on issues like this (in an attempt to represent the majority), as this is again one of many issues where each side will be rock solid in their beleifs, so the majority/government must be left to decide which cause of action to take, the issue cannot simply be overcome by education or debate.

 

[Sarah]

It's absolutely a choice. I know a couple, in their 50's now, married never had children. Both have become high paying executives and have lived a life they found perfectly happy. You do have the choice to place career before family, whether you make that choice or even WANT to make that choice, is up to the person themselves.

I think Generator was referring to the Social context in which this 'choice' is made in. It's not simply a matter of "i choose to have a career instead of a family" and vice versa.

Again, none of this is evidence against why men's higher average earnings are unjustified?

Do you honestly think women should receive a bonus at work, just for being women? Of course not.

Ok, i'll reverse the question: Why is it justifiable that women should be earning less then men?

I know you mentioned in a previous post that "women are lazier or work less" however in a previous post of mine i've mentioned that there may be other factors which influence why they work less.

And no one here (from what i've read) has suggested that women should receive a bonus at work just for being a woman.

A perhaps more contraversial issue, would be "do you think it's right that a company should have to promote women, even if they have a child and put in far less hours, simply because they are having a child?" I mean consider the point, they simply will have had less experiance than another person competing for the job, whether they be male or female.

I think promotions should be based on merit.

That is why I feel it is very important in this debate to differentiate between male/female inequality and child birth/no child birth inequality.

Sorry, that's in part my fault. I raised the possibility that childbirth could be a factor to explain differences in pay. If you read the previous post of mine, i stated that when women take maternity leave, they miss out on promotion opportunites which become available. NTB and Generator were following on from my point.

However, i didn't say that was THE factor as to why there's difference, i said it was A factor.

While it may appear from the outset that they may be one and the same, it is clear that they infact are not. In either case though, we have to remember companies will always act in the companies best interest, it is safe to assume these days that they will always choose the best candidate for the position which will help their company the most. There is no deep seeded opression of women purely on a male/female basis, and any inequality or descrimination based on child birth/no child birth risk, is infact an economically justified stance.

Economic justified stance? You do realise there's a reason why legislation exists right? Because if we're going to use economics as a way to justify business and employer behaviour, we may as well scrap Industrial laws altogether.

Whether you feel this is wrong is a social concious issue, and naturally one which is a personal opinion and therefore either side will find it very hard to be swayed. Regaurdless, it is up to the government to decide on issues like this (in an attempt to represent the majority), as this is again one of many issues where each side will be rock solid in their beleifs, so the majority/government must be left to decide which cause of action to take, the issue cannot simply be overcome by education or debate.

Yes you're right, i am approaching this from a social conscious and personal point of view but i'm also trying to look at it critically from other's perspectives. This is why i raise these questions in order for you to sway my opinion.

And decisions the govt make do not always favour the best outcome (i know, you haven't suggested they do). I just think that at times, govt decision impedes on choice and as you've implied, individuals have a choice

 

[NonExistant]

Ok, i'll reverse the question: Why is it justifiable that women should be earning less then men?

I know you mentioned in a previous post that "women are lazier or work less" however in a previous post of mine i've mentioned that there may be other factors which influence why they work less.

And this point I can answer, with various reasons:
1) They may not work as many hours - regaurdless of whatever other factors influence this, the bottom line is if you work less hours than someone else doing the same job, and achieve less, then you deserve less money. Do we give equal pay to two telemarketers, one who has a slight stutter and hence can only make 40 calls per hours, comapred to his competitor who can make 45 calls per hours? Assuming they sell the smae percentage of calls, no, the one who is better and gets the job done better/quicker deserves more pay than the other. If a women has household duties, is this the fault of the company that their man doesn't pitch in around the house? Should they be paying them proportionally more, for less work, just because they also have other duties to perform or that will hamper their ability to work? From the companies perspective no, any inequality that has to be fixed in this instance should only be done through welfare payments, not through wages.

2) Many women may be supported by their husbands currently - There is nothing wrong with this of course, however this clearly explains the gap between average wages. The man may make enough for both to live comfortable, so the woman does not need to work, and hence stays home and raises a family or does house duties. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, however this explains the distortions in the incomes, as the womans work at home isn't seen as tangable, so therefore isn't inlcluded in the statistics, therefore unfairly scewing them to make it look like men are being paid more for the same work, when infact they are not.


Aside from this, there are other more "contraversial" or debatable points on the issue":

3) Child birth risk - Is it fair that a company should take on the risk training a women ect for high power critical positions, but then have the added risk that she may leave on maternity leave if she gets pregnant? Why should this burden fall on the company when she likely signed a contract indicating she would work for that perdiod of time in that capacity, and now she is unable to forfill her duties. This is why companies may be less inclined to take on women for some of the more critical (and high paying) jobs. However a signed contract indicating she did not intend to have a baby during her employment period at the comapny would solve this problem, if it were legal.

So any of these points can explain why there is an offset in wages. I do not believe that men and women currently get paid differently or are allowed unfair oppurtunities simply because they are male. If anything women now have a greater amount of socially acceptable oppurtunities compared to men (however this is also becoming more even due to generally homosexuals opening up many new areas that it is now acceptable for males to work in).

So in conclusion, I do not think there is anything wrong withthose statistics presented. If they were dead even it would likely be the males who were getting underpaid, due to the way the statistcs are measured.

 

[Meldrum]

I'd love Moonlight to scour this thread under the new rules

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Personally I would hope to see some more statistics brought up with each point raised and the source quoted/linked.

There have been a lot of claims about women working less hours, earning less, etc. As far as I can see, only Sarah has bothered to back up some of the factual groundings of her argument (right or wrong) with stats from the ABS.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes, however some things such as "men are more likely to work longer hours" you'd think would be common knowledge.

 

[katie_tully]

I stare in disbelief at this thread.
Since when as the "left" been associated with being "dirty", and to be avoided at all costs? The feeling I get on here is that it's the right who aren't liked, and should stay in their racist, white supremist hovel.














.... Bleeding heart nancies.

 

[NonExistant]

Personally I would hope to see some more statistics brought up with each point raised and the source quoted/linked.

There have been a lot of claims about women working less hours, earning less, etc. As far as I can see, only Sarah has bothered to back up some of the factual groundings of her argument (right or wrong) with stats from the ABS.

Well it can easily be deduced from the ABS statistics, that women work less hours, as it was shown much of the wage differential was due to males working overtime, and working fulltime compared to part time.

 

[neo o]

if I remember correctly there was this article I read before that males are more competitive and take more risks so are more likely to get better jobs as they are singular focused.

Heh. I remember that, it was in the NY Times. I pasted that article on to my door (at college) and it lasted for about half an hour before someone ripped it down.

 

[katie_tully]

After the feminist movement, females expected equal pay without having to put in equal hours/equal workload, etc. Purely for the sake of equality.
Doesn't work that way, sweet cheeks.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I understand that in some circumstances women have to (for whatever reason) not work as long hours... however that doesn't mean they should get paid the same as a man who doesn't.

 

[neo o]

What bothers me is that whenever there are disproportionate amounts of men in any occupation (or in the higher echelons of said occupation) feminists complain about "the boys club" and the "glass ceiling" assuming that men and women are completely equal, and therefore every occupation should be 50/50. Similarly, scholarships are offered to women in science, it and engineering at many Australian universities, because it's assumed that something is wrong because more men study these subjects.

What feminists fail to realise is that women aren't going to become CEO's within even a decade of the passage of legislation barring sexual discrimination. It takes time, and considering that 60% of university graduates are now women, I'd say that in the next 50 years or so the scales would have tipped the other way.

IMO, claims that "it's bad" that more women than men are relegated to low paying casual jobs are also exaggerated. Many stay at home mothers work a few hours to help pay the bills or leave the workforce to have children (and return later). Feminists abhore motherhood.

 

[Sarah]

And this point I can answer, with various reasons:
1) They may not work as many hours - regaurdless of whatever other factors influence this, the bottom line is if you work less hours than someone else doing the same job, and achieve less, then you deserve less money.

I refer back to what u said in an earlier post:

I mean look at the article:

'Women earn on average 67% of male earnings, or $271 pw less than men do. This data is skewed by part time employment. When only full time jobs are compared, women earn $171.00 pw less than men, or 81% of male earnings.


When overtime is excluded, full time female ordinary time earnings are 84.6% of comparable male earnings.'

This shows that clearly women are working less hours, and likely less commited to their jobs, which would be the primary reason for their lower pay.

You've referred to statistics which include and exclude part time workers. And yet there's still a difference in pay.

2) Many women may be supported by their husbands currently - There is nothing wrong with this of course, however this clearly explains the gap between average wages. The man may make enough for both to live comfortable, so the woman does not need to work, and hence stays home and raises a family or does house duties. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, however this explains the distortions in the incomes, as the womans work at home isn't seen as tangable, so therefore isn't inlcluded in the statistics, therefore unfairly scewing them to make it look like men are being paid more for the same work, when infact they are not.

Those ABS stats you quoted made a within groups comparison by exluding part-time workers and comparing full time workers.

3) Child birth risk - Is it fair that a company should take on the risk training a women ect for high power critical positions, but then have the added risk that she may leave on maternity leave if she gets pregnant? Why should this burden fall on the company when she likely signed a contract indicating she would work for that perdiod of time in that capacity, and now she is unable to forfill her duties. This is why companies may be less inclined to take on women for some of the more critical (and high paying) jobs. However a signed contract indicating she did not intend to have a baby during her employment period at the comapny would solve this problem, if it were legal.

I'm not persuaded by that point. Becuase most ppl start off in an entry level position and gain skills along the way. If they move to a different workplace, it's after they've gained skills which make them employable for whatever position they're offered. It's mainly entry level positions which require training. High power positions are available after you establish yourself.

Ok umm... when your saying "this burden", do you equate child birth as being a burden?

(Moonlight or McLake, am i being too politically correct about this? I know in the new guidelines, there was something mentioned about political correctness. I don't mean to be, i'm just trying to figure out what was meant with that sentence.)

"This is why companies may be less inclined to take on women for some of the more critical (and high paying) jobs. "

Which shows the relevancy of EEO and Affirmative Action

If anything women now have a greater amount of socially acceptable oppurtunities compared to men (however this is also becoming more even due to generally homosexuals opening up many new areas that it is now acceptable for males to work in).

*sigh* I'm not even going to bother commenting on this.

Whilst i do think that feminist can exaggerate the inequalities, what i do think is difficult to accept is that there is no inequality. This is what i'm interpreting from what you're saying

How about we agree to disagree?

I tried to suggest we broaden the scope of what the left involves but obviously ppl are interested in labour market inequalities. Maybe this topic needs it's own seperate thread if it's going to be the continually discussed?

 

[Sarah]

I stare in disbelief at this thread.
Since when as the "left" been associated with being "dirty", and to be avoided at all costs? The feeling I get on here is that it's the right who aren't liked, and should stay in their racist, white supremist hovel.

It's due to how ppl see the left. The media is a strong tool of communication. When ppl see protestors getting violent, shouting and heckling politicians, there's a negative image formed about the left.

It's more the extremists on both sides though. I guess it's easy to view the left negatively as their actions aren't viewed favourably.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No Sarah, it's not quite as simple as "the media's fault".
Those people protesting and getting violent.. WERE LEFTIES, and a large number of them.
When's the last time you've seen a large congression of conservative right-wingers going crazy in the streets?