Wash. Times falsely asserted "occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked" are "ignored by those citing the wage gap"
SUMMARY: In an editorial about the pay gap between male and female workers, The Washington Times falsely asserted that "the relevant factors that affect pay -- occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked -- are ignored by those citing the wage gap." The editorial also asserted that "women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment" than on higher pay. In fact, a GAO study found that a pay gap persists even when controlling for work experience, seniority, education, industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure.
In a July 14 editorial about the gender gap among American workers, The Washington Times asserted that "the relevant factors that affect pay -- occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked -- are ignored by those citing the wage gap." The editorial also claimed that many women "freely choose to be the reason for their own 'unequal' pay," later adding that many women "tend to make their homes, families or hobbies a priority." The Times went on to assert that "women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment" than on higher pay. The Times' assertion that "those citing the wage gap" ignore "the relevant factors that affect pay" is false. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, a U.S. General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) study found that a pay gap persists even when controlling for work experience, seniority, education, industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. Additionally, a 2007 study by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) found a wage gap among college graduates both one year after graduation and 10 years after graduation. The gap persisted even after controlling for several factors, including "[w]orkplace flexibility, ability to telecommute." The study, "Behind the Pay Gap," also suggested that a lack of workplace flexibility itself was an issue that needed to be addressed and proposed several methods to increase flexibility in a chapter titled "What Can We Do About the Pay Gap?"
The GAO study, released in 2003, found that after controlling for "work patterns" -- including "years of work experience" and hours of work per year -- as well as differences in "industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure," "women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000." The GAO stated that it was unable to determine whether the remaining gap was "due to discrimination or other factors that may affect earnings," such as an effort to "trade off career advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities." The AAUW study, conducted by researchers Judy Goldberg Dey and Catherine Hill, also controlled for "[w]orkplace flexibility, ability to telecommute," as well as other several variables including "occupation," "industry," "hours worked per week," "whether employee worked multiple jobs," "months at employer," and several education-related and "demographic and personal" factors, such as "marital status," "has children," and "volunteered in past year," and found that "the portion of the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation. These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force":
The pay gap between female and male college graduates cannot be fully accounted for by factors known to affect wages, such as experience (including work hours), training, education, and personal characteristics. Gender pay discrimination can be overt or it can be subtle. It is difficult to document because someone's gender is usually easily identified by name, voice, or appearance. The only way to discover discrimination is to eliminate the other possible explanations. In this analysis the portion of the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation. These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force.
Regarding workplace flexibility, Dey and Hill also found that one year after graduation, "[w]omen graduates are not trading lower earnings for flexibility or other benefits."
Dey and Hill also stated: "Research indicates that leaving the work force or working part time results in less work experience and diminished earnings potential" and separately that "[f]lexibility, meaningful part-time work opportunities, and expanded provisions for medical and family leave are important to help women and men better balance work and family responsibilities. Making gender pay equity a reality will require action by individuals, employers, and federal and state governments."
In their chapter on "What Can We Do About the Pay Gap?" Dey and Hill suggested several changes to increase flexibility in the workplace: "Encourage employers to offer high-quality part-time employment opportunities"; "Rethink using hours as the measure of productivity"; "Protect and Extend the Family and Medical Leave Act"; and "Increase women's employment options by supporting high-quality child care in conjunction with other family-friendly policies."
Dey and Hill also asserted that "[m]others are more likely than fathers (or other women) to work part time, take leave, or take a break from the work force," and therefore "[t]he gender pay gap among full-time workers understates the real difference between women's and men's earnings because it excludes women who are not in the labor force or who are working part time."
From the July 14 Washington Times editorial headlined "Fairness is not equality":
What the situation needs is a little common sense. All the relevant factors that affect pay -- occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked -- are ignored by those citing the wage gap. As a result, this inadequately researched viewpoint fails to consider the different roles that work tends to play in men and women's lives. In truth, thousands of women freely choose to be the reason for their own "unequal" pay. Many women have a good education and work full-time for 10 years or so. Over time, they tend to make their homes, families or hobbies a priority. Many women seek out a specialty or an employer that encourages balanced work and family life.
Surveys have also shown that women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation; they take more time off and they spend fewer hours in the office. The logic is not so complex that Mr. Obama and his campaign managers cannot come to the same conclusion. They are simply ignoring common sense so that Mr. Obama can advocate social engineering in the name of equality.
this is the washington times we're talking about here, not some reputable paper, that actually attempts to deal with real facts. they speak to a choir that's drunk the kool aid many years ago. no one else takes them seriously, if at all.
this is a paper that's never posted a profit, ever, in its entire history. it's a mouthpiece for the rev. moon and his republican, right-wingnut buddies.
That's almost an insult to Fox News
They are simply ignoring common sense so that Mr. Obama can advocate social engineering in the name of equality.
And exactly what would be Barack Obama's motivation for attempting to advance "social engineering" if it were not for the sake of effectuating equality?
This is similar to Science101 the other day saying that the US Federal Government's finding that any additional offshore drilling rights ignored the issue of how prices are driven by oil futures! He knew better than the experts did, and so he knew that if we would only drill offshore, it would drive prices down because futures would go down.
Of course the government experts who have predicted that oil prices will not be significantly affected by additional offshore drilling have considered all the relevant factors. Science 101 is not some brilliant mind who all of a sudden discovered an overlooked variable. And the Washington Times is not a brilliant newspaper that all of a sudden discovered that people studying wage gaps have ignored highly relevant factors that explain the gender gap in wages.
similar to Science101 the other day saying that the US Federal Government's finding that any additional offshore drilling rights ignored the issue of how prices are driven by oil futures!
Ahh yes blondie, that "drill drill drill" speech, and lifting an executive ban as a first step to beef up supply, has had nothing to do with 3 straight days of oil futures drops....including the highest amounts in 17 years.
Silly me, what was I thinking.
I don't know what you were thinking, because if you think that the oil speculators are dumb enough to believe that 1. allowing drilling would bring any oil to the market within the next few years and 2. lifting the executive ban means anything, then you have a pretty low opinion of investors.
I don't suppose the drop in futures had anything to do with the overall tremors in the market with the terrible news about the mortgage and banking industries. Nah, I guess they were awed by the meaningless executive ban.
I don't suppose the drop in futures had anything to do with the overall tremors in the market with the terrible news about the mortgage and banking industries. Nah, I guess they were awed by the meaningless executive ban.
They wouldnt have had anything to do with that, in fact, if the stock market plunges based on mortgage and banking negativity, it puts out more of a reason to invest in commodities because they are considered a sure fire hedge market.
Given the falling value of the dollar, and oil falling as well, your theory has been fully debunked.
Science,
Your right, those things have had nothing to do with the drop in price.
Anybody that knows anything about this, says that this indicates extreme volatility and the large drop is in part due to accelration from computerized sell programs.
The sell off has been by "partially fueled by cash strapped banks selling energy contracts to raise money for other needs". We also have the decline in demand by the US due to high prices.
Finally the dollar strengthened which decreased the need to buy oil as a hedge against inflation.
No one has mentioned lifting the ban as a rationale for the price fall.
Finally the dollar strengthened which decreased the need to buy oil as a hedge against inflation.
False, the last two days the dollar has not strengthened. In fact, on Monday & Tuesday, the dollar has hit historical lows versus the Euro.
Oops, there goes that theory!
Science,
Now your insincerity comes through. It wasn't my theory, it was Ben Bernanke's theory. Plus, that was one of many factors cited. Care to discuss those other ones?
Also, The oil market doesn't have an immediate adjustment. If the futrures traders think the dollar will continue to strengthen based on what they have seen then they will drive the price down.
The dollar weakened over the last few days due to some other things like the mortgage crisis.
We will see what effect that has, but it all depends how the speculators view that news, not what you think.
The futures market has nothing to do with psychology. It's gambling, plain and simple.
Science:
There are millions of acres currently leased for drilling that they are not using. You don't know what you are talking about.
You dont understand those acres at all.
They will NOT lease every acre on the grid. If there are 4 different grids in an area, lets say A, B, C, D. A company can buy all 4, but only needs to drill on one. Chances are if they hit oil under A, they can take whats under B, C, D without drilling again.
This is a simple concept. They purchase different grid points, do some drilling. Some areas have oil, some dont. End of story.
Not all 50M+acres have oil, and you dont need to drill on each acre to get the oil.
"Ahh yes blondie, that "drill drill drill" speech, and lifting an executive ban as a first step to beef up supply, has had nothing to do with 3 straight days of oil futures drops....including the highest amounts in 17 years."
Proximity is not necessarily proof of causality
Good job at making a strawman argument.
My point was that you claimed that the experts in the Dept of Energy haven't been looking at the futures market when they've been talking about the impact of drilling offshore.
You were wrong then, and you're still wrong and you're following the same formula as what happened in this posting by Media Matters.
Daily drops or increases are not very relevant. The Dept of Energy can't tell you the exact price of oil on July 15th, 2018, but they have considered oil futures changes due to new supply into their considerations, because that's their job to think of all the variables that might potentially affect the price of oil in the future.
Daily drops or increases are not very relevant. The Dept of Energy can't tell you the exact price of oil on July 15th, 2018, but they have considered oil futures changes due to new supply into their considerations, because that's their job to think of all the variables that might potentially affect the price of oil in the future.
Oh and what a bright job they've done of it the past 30 years. First you complain about them controlling our energy policies...now you back them when they say something that benefits your environmentalist agenda.
Not so smart blondie.
Daily drops or increases are not very relevant. The Dept of Energy can't tell you the exact price of oil on July 15th, 2018, but they have considered oil futures changes due to new supply into their considerations, because that's their job to think of all the variables that might potentially affect the price of oil in the future.
Oh and what a bright job they've done of it the past 30 years. First you complain about them controlling our energy policies...now you back them when they say something that benefits your environmentalist agenda.
Not so smart blondie.
You're right when you say that you're not so smart. We've all already figured that out.
The group within the Dept of Energy that's being discussed is the group that figures out what future prices might be. Those kinds of groups have always done a pretty good job of looking at all the variables that might affect future prices.
Another strawman argument from you? I haven't complained about that group controlling our energy policies once, because that forecasting group doesn't control it. They're a bunch of number-crunchers.
I back people that know what they're talking about. That's why I mock you instead of backing you, because you've proven on every topic you've ever commented on that you don't know what you're talking about. On Social Security you said that it was an investment, when it's nothing of the sort, and then after you were told you were wrong, and given links to learn more, you continued to spout nonsense and failed to learn a thing, and then refused to acknowledge your errors after you made them and show appreciation for others who helped you learn new things! Don't you get that people who are really educated appreciate being told the right info?
It's sort of like when conservatives see a cold day in Maine in December, and they bark about, "Now THAT'S what I call global warming in effect. Har har har..."
It's called trends Science. One or 2 days a trend does not make. A short trend, maybe, but this stuff has been trended out over years. A short fall doesn't mean anything. Once it's consistent for a week, or a month, then we can start talking about a falling trend.
I wish every thread didn't turn in to a pissing contest.
While I have been reading these comments for some time, I only recently started posting.
I have noticed that some folks who post here seem to not know what they are talking about - despite their assertions of expertise, derail the dialog and, in general, gum up the works.
An 'outstanding' example of this phenomenon would SCIENCE101.
I have an idea - I don't know if it is appropriate but, I'd like to see what everyone thinks.
What I suggest is: the first person who comes across a posting from such a person reply with an appropriate message, perhaps:
BS ALERT, read if you like but responses to this posting are discouraged.
What do you think? This can't be the first time this situation has arisen, does someone have a better idea?
These boards would suffer a lack of levity without our conjob punching bags. And I say "OUR conjobs." because we own them..., daily.
I don't really need anyone to tell me whether someones response is bs and I don't mind reading bs responses to the original article. What gets really tiring is this sort of thing: "You're an idiot." "No. You're an idiot" "No. You are. And you're a hypocrite" "No I'm not. You are because last week you said this on a thread" "Well 3 months ago you said this on another thread." "You're parents must've been brother and sister." etc., etc, etc.