http://english.people.com.cn/200702/21/eng20070221_351539.html

Quote :

"Women take over half of new jobs in U.S. in 2000-2005: report font size ZoomIn ZoomOut Women took on slightly more than half the jobs created in U.S. in the first part of the decade, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. Women posted a net increase of 1.7 million jobs paying above the median salary, while men gained a net increase of just over 220,000 of such positions, the newspaper said, citing a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for the years 2000-2005. Overall, men gained 1.804 million jobs and women 1.996 million, or 52.5 percent of the total increase, for the period studied. Women outpaced men in obtaining work that pays in the top quarter of all jobs, primarily positions in the health-care, financial and managerial fields, according to the report. The BLS also found that from 2000 through 2005, service jobs accounted for the largest portion of the net 3.8 million increase in jobs. "

2/22/2007 12:47:09 PM

ha you think that they will stop complaining

2/22/2007 12:56:33 PM

they don't stop bitching, they merely move on to different topics.

2/22/2007 12:57:50 PM

all women complain, if they stop, it means they are actually a dude

2/22/2007 1:04:58 PM

That doesn't say how many jobs overall they hold.

2/22/2007 1:07:03 PM

women will never stop complaining. Next they will complain that men have jobs.

2/22/2007 1:10:04 PM

and there are still tons of program to help girls become successful

2/22/2007 2:06:34 PM

They will continue to bitch that there are not enough women in engineering and science fields.

As we all know, men and women think exactly alike, so any disparity in ratios means that there must be discrimination.

2/22/2007 2:11:41 PM

Private business should be able to hire whomever the fuck they want, employers having to worry about being sued or penalized for not hiring enough women/minorities is just stupid.

2/22/2007 2:40:52 PM

never

2/22/2007 2:43:09 PM

This depends, is that picture still hanging crooked?

2/22/2007 2:49:53 PM

a timeless question

2/22/2007 6:20:24 PM

When they stop having PMS

2/22/2007 6:53:43 PM

easy, when they're dead.

2/22/2007 9:12:26 PM

^And that is your answer. Then, you God, get to deal with them.

2/23/2007 12:13:19 AM

Are women still getting paid less for the same work?

2/25/2007 7:23:19 PM

^When were they?

2/25/2007 8:12:32 PM

^^ not unless they suck at it..

most of the time they get paid more.

2/25/2007 8:30:35 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Are women still getting paid less for the same work?"

Are women still 100% more likely to have a baby than a man?...

[/devil's advocate] 

2/25/2007 8:43:22 PM

the women getting paid less is largely due to the professions that women tend to chose and also that they are statistically less likely to ask for more money or bargain over starting salaries

2/25/2007 8:44:28 PM

Quote :

"never"

/thread

2/25/2007 8:51:01 PM

^^Both of those are issues. Obviously, asking for more pay is important.

As far as the professions they "tend to chose" go, that's a particularly revealing point. A lot of those professions are historically female professions, and that is why they aren't high-paying professions. They pay poorly, not because they don't require skill or aren't valuable in the work world, but because they are "female professions."

Quote :

"TGD: Are women still 100% more likely to have a baby than a man?... [/devil's advocate]"

I'm a little confused by this. I suppose you're trying to say that, just like not all women will have babies, not all women are paid less than men for the same work. I would agree. But you can't point to specific instances and ignore a trend. My father is very much well-compensated, and my mother makes almost twice as much as him, but none of us are prepared to declare equality in pay just yet.

[Edited on February 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM. Reason : sss]

2/25/2007 9:29:39 PM

Quote :

"the women getting paid less is largely due to the professions that women tend to chose and also that they are statistically less likely to ask for more money or bargain over starting salaries"

Isn't it also because women tend not to work as much as men because of things like leaves of pregnancy?

2/25/2007 9:38:29 PM

Quote :

"A lot of those professions are historically female professions, and that is why they aren't high-paying professions. They pay poorly, not because they don't require skill or aren't valuable in the work world, but because they are "female professions.""

Please prove this, or STFU with your speculation.

Its not like the business community conspires to supress women's wages. The market sets wages, not a group of evil, chauvinistic men hellbent on suppressing women financially.

2/25/2007 9:42:31 PM

Quote :

"A lot of those professions are historically female professions, and that is why they aren't high-paying professions. They pay poorly, not because they don't require skill or aren't valuable in the work world, but because they are "female professions."

oh bullshit.

2/25/2007 10:05:51 PM

Quote :

"Please prove this, or STFU with your speculation. Its not like the business community conspires to supress women's wages. The market sets wages, not a group of evil, chauvinistic men hellbent on suppressing women financially."

I didn't say there was some group of evil men hellbent on suppressing women financially.

However, in some cases, there is. Like, the whole hygienist/dentist issue. A lot of dentists were fighting to relax standards for dental hygienists to the point of not requiring any education of the hygienists. Why? Because they didn't want to have to pay them as much.

And, I'm right about "female professions" getting less pay because they're "female professions." The best example of this is administrative workers. Administrative work is very valuable work that, in many instances, requires training/skill and also can be a position of serious responsibility. But they're just "secretaries," right? They don't really matter. No, they do matter, and the reason we don't value administrative work with appropriate pay is because it's a historically female profession.

Back in the day, people perceived women to be working just for supplemental income. So professions in which women worked were not well-compensated--even if the jobs they did were considered just as valuable as jobs that men did. And as these jobs continued to be filled at low pay, they began to seem less and less valuable.

2/25/2007 10:34:22 PM

And we haven't even touched on the issue of children. Some folks would say that we're never going to see equal pay because women will never get enough years of full-time experience to match that of men who do not have to leave work or go part-time to take care of things at home, like children.

Which brings me right back to my cause that I've repeated on here over and over again...

PUBLIC DAYCARE! PUBLIC PRE-SCHOOL!

[Edited on February 25, 2007 at 10:37 PM. Reason : ]

2/25/2007 10:36:12 PM

Quote :

"PUBLIC DAYCARE! PUBLIC PRE-SCHOOL!"

Why should I and everyone else pay for your babysitting?

2/25/2007 11:02:50 PM

Quote :

"The best example of this is administrative workers. Administrative work is very valuable work that, in many instances, requires training/skill and also can be a position of serious responsibility. But they're just "secretaries," right? They don't really matter. No, they do matter, and the reason we don't value administrative work with appropriate pay is because it's a historically female profession."

They are just secretaries, and anybody can do that kind of work. It has absolutely nothing to do with sex. If it was so tough to do, fewer people would apply for administrative jobs and the pay would be higher.

The market dictates wages. For the 5000th time, take a goddamn economics course Bridget.

2/25/2007 11:06:05 PM

You are not naive enough to believe we have a true free market, right?

2/25/2007 11:13:47 PM

Quote :

"Why should I and everyone else pay for your babysitting? "

Because it make the world a better place for everyone.

2/26/2007 12:29:05 AM

^^^I aced microeconomics, the only economics course I've ever taken.

I got a little e-mail inviting me to take more economics courses and consider joining the economics department at State. (They must be hard up for ladies or something.) There was one small problem: I thought almost all of what I learned was absolute bullshit.

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 1:32 AM. Reason : It's a joke. A course of study that ignores reality.]

2/26/2007 1:30:21 AM

^ I agree with that assessment, but I've heard that being attributed to the fact that it's an intro class to the study of economics.

It's like how in the scope of actual physics, the stuff in your intro classes is relatively useless in the real world (since nothing is ideal).


[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 2:38 AM. Reason : ]

2/26/2007 2:38:51 AM

I'm gonna draw a fire with this post. Sorry ladies

BridgetSPK

Hate to tell you this but the reason secretarial work is so poorly paid is because the skills required to do the job are easily obtained. I'm NOT saying that a well learned secretary is not worthy of good pay but that's why there are new titles like "Administrative Assistants" who's duties include more than just typical secretarial work.

Secretaries are also lower paid because there are 10 secretaries just waiting to fill that position. If secretaries were hard to get they would make more money.

So why do women do this more than men? Because the men at this level of education (I'm not talking well educated secretaries that work for large companies), but men at the same level of education generally prefer manually labor because women cannot perform as well/don't like it. The previous peform as well/don't like it is a generalization of a group as a whole.

Noone goes to college to be a secretary. Man or woman. Most of the positions I've ever help make decisions on took into account their personality big time. And fact is... a woman typically has a more gentle subserviant personality than men. That's not saying ALL women are like that but most are unless it's a high profile position which requires agressiveness.

That said, every single female manager I've had seemed to be able to perform her duties much better than the men that have been in similar positions. I think that's because they aren't worried about alpha dog status as much and focus on their job which makes them superior to egotistical men.

Some of the best developers I know are women. One of my friends works for Red Hat and moved up extremely fast because of her skills.

The laws we put there to make sure that a business (regardless of gender of the management) could not base a decision on Gender. But personality and agressiveness usually fall in line with that. The truth is that women did not change business. Business changed women to comform with the standards needed to perform the job well.

Women are no longer thought of as weak and unable to handle stressful situations because women as a whole have proven themselves.

But... back to my subject. A secretary is at the same level as a construction worker. Both can easily be learned within a months time and there are a dime a dozen.

That's why you see more and more positions called Administrative Assistants... these are NOT a dime a dozen. They manage the books, edit websites, manage online calendars ... you get the idea.

2/26/2007 7:39:14 AM

^Most "secretaries" are administrative assistants. That's why I called them administrative workers.

Or did you think there's this huge number of women who get paid to look cute and sound pleasant on the phone?

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ???]

2/26/2007 9:11:56 AM

so I missed the part where females were still required to work "historically female" positions

2/26/2007 9:59:34 AM

I wonder in prostitution and porn are averaged into the "Women make less argument"...

2/26/2007 10:05:35 AM

^^^ Secretaries =/= Admin assistants. I found this out when I asked the Dean's new Admin Assistant about how her new position was. I called her the Dean's Secretary. Trust me... there's a huge difference which she let me know in no uncertain terms.

Secretary, takes notes, types up letters, files paperwork... some excel work... organize schedules, answer phones etc.

Administrative Assistants, on the other hand manage college schedules, key access, software purchases, organizations funding, etc. They are in fact, administrators who assist the administrator.

Along with the title comes the authority. Authority deems more responsibility = more money.

2/26/2007 10:18:05 AM

^No shit. I'm saying that many of those people who we consider secretaries are actually admins.

2/26/2007 9:02:53 PM