Since HBO is Doing a Documentary

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

This article also addresses some of the stuff you brought up, Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

This article also addresses some of the stuff you brought up, Mike

Women are more likely than men to work part-time. However, most gender wage comparisons leave out part-time workers and focus only on full-time, year-round workers. A close look at the earnings of women and men who work 40 hours or more per week reveals that the wage gap may actually widen as the number of hours worked increases. Women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn; women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics). Furthermore, women may work longer to receive the promotions that provide access to higher pay. For example, among school principals, women have an average of 3 years longer as teachers than men do (Source: National Center for Education Statistics). So it is hard to argue that women’s lower earnings are simply a result of women putting in fewer hours per week, or even fewer years than men.

Of course, that study simply combined ALL women and men into their statistics, and not simply women in identical positions.

Some people think that if women move into male-dominated occupations in larger numbers, the wage gap will close. However, there appears to be a gender-related wage gap in virtually every occupational category. In researching this issue at the Center for Gender Studies, we found only four occupational categories for which comparison data were available in which women earned even a little more than men: special education teachers, order clerks, electrical and electronic engineers, and miscellaneous food preparation occupations (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics).

This study fails to take into account experience or what the job actually is. Women who take time off for family concerns will be paid less than men in identical positions who don't take that time off.

The movement of women into higher paid occupations, whether male-dominated or not, may not have the impact of narrowing the earnings gap. Social psychologists have demonstrated repeatedly that occupations associated with women or requiring stereotypically feminine skills are rated as less prestigious and deserving of less pay than occupations associated with men and masculine skills. Thus, as more and more women enter an occupation, there may be a tendency to value (and reward) that occupation less and less.

To be technical, this is a theory without even the tiniest sliver of evidence behind it.

Another thing that is apparent from the graph is that there is some minor fluctuation in the size of the wage gap. For example, the gap widened in the 1960s, closed a little in the 1980s, and widened slightly in the late 1990s. Thus, depending on which chunk of years one examines, it may be possible to conclude that the gap is either widening or narrowing. The only way to get a clear picture of what is happening is to examine the whole series rather than a few years at a time.

Ignoring that the high-tech fields, which led to much of the income growth amongst men, was and still is not something women tend to gravitate towards.

As women and men left their jobs this spring because they were called up for military duty, employers scrambled to make sure that these workers did not suffer losses of salary and benefits. In a number of cases, organizations made up the difference between their employees’ military pay and their normal pay, held jobs open, and made sure that benefits continued during workers’ absence. At the same time, the media made a hero out of a father who chose to ship out with his military unit rather than stay home with his infant son who was awaiting a heart transplant. The message about what we as a society consider important is clear:

 

    * When something perceived as very important needs to be done outside of the workplace, employers feel obligated to provide support for their employees to go and do it

    *

 

      In the eyes of society, or at least many employers, family concerns and the care of children do not fall into the category of “very important” --- certainly not as important as military duty

 

Are these the values we want to live by? If women and men continue to accept the notion that the domestic and caretaking work traditionally classified as “women’s work” is not important enough for employers to accommodate, the gender gap in wages will never close. A few individual women may be able to evade the gap by choosing to be childfree, being fortunate enough to have a supportive spouse, and carefully following a model of career advancement that was developed to fit men’s needs. However, to make the wage gap disappear will require that we stop buying into the idea that the rules are gender-neutral and that men just follow them better than women do. One by one, employers must be convinced to re-examine assumptions that unwittingly place higher value on the type of work men do than on the type of work women do. The most important step in closing the wage gap is for all of us to give up the notion that, to be paid fairly, a woman must “make it in a man’s world.”

A good point about values. A red herring in regards to the wage gap myth.

 

And the other study?

Differences in labor market experience between men and women are far greater than differences in their educational attainment. But in the 1980s, the difference between men and women workers in average labor market experience began to fall. The increase in women’s relative experience by itself would have reduced the pay gap by about 3.5 percentage points over the 1980s. Still, as of the late 1980s, when such data were last analyzed, remaining differences in work experience between men and women were found to explain about one-third of the pay gap that existed at that time.

Ignoring that the gap in experience between men and women would not have changed as men ALSO increased their experience in this period.

Second, an even smaller set of studies attempts to measure productivity of female and male workers directly to determine whether gender pay differences can be directly linked to productivity differences. This approach is rarely implemented because it requires information on wages and a reliable (and non-gender-biased) measure of productivity such as physical output per hour or sales. But a recent study of this sort found that pay differences between comparable women and men are too large to be explained by productivity differences: Using a large linked employer-employee data set, it concluded that "at the margin" women were 85 to 96 percent as productive as men but were paid only 66 to 68 percent as much as men.33

Why this is included is lost on me, as the authors mention, because getting reliable info is not too easy.

 

And I'd love to see this study. I've seen enough sham studies in my day to not believe this (such as wage gap or other ones I won't mention out of respect for not changing the topic too wildly)

 

The case has not been made yet and is unlikely to suddenly be made. Women's lower wages are due to their personal choices in jobs and being less willing to sacrifice everything than men are.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

What, exactly, is wrong with talking about equal pay?

Nothing. Except that it's a crock of shit.

 

I see Mike is already on this subject. I haven't read any of his posts regarding this matter, but he typed a bunch of stuff and linked some web sites so it's probably true.

 

It's funny, most of the bitches in my lifetime who have whined about "equal pay" are the ones who did jack shit at their job...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Those men vs. women wage things are stupid. Half of the justification on the last study I saw was because they took the highest paid female CEO that was making something like 400k a year and then compared her to Bill Gates and cried foul.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I should listen to Ed Schultz's show more, but he makes me kind of upset because they cut off other Air America shows for him.

 

But still, from the few times I've listened, I found that his Chris Matthews impression is gold.

 

 

HELLO THERE IM CHRIS MATTHEWS LETS PLAY HARDBALL I AM SHOUTING REALLY LOUD

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

To be honest, I don't listen to Air America. (I'd have to do it over the Net, since it's nowhere near KC). But, I prefer a station with music on it. Which disqualifies most AM stations.

 

Air America has time to improve, but there may not be much ground to gain among those who regularly listen to AM stations

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I work second shift. As with Peter in Office Space, I have "as many as three people under me." There is a 50+ year old woman who is my counterpart on the other side of the plant. There are two women in the positions on first shift and third shift has one woman, as one of the sides of the plant does not run a third shift. I'm about fifteen to twenty years younger than all four of them.

 

They all suck. Badly. Me and my counterpart's boss, who is a twenty-six year old male, know it. His boss, a thirty-three year old male, knows it. HIS boss, a forty-something year old male knows it. I have been commended by all of them, by other departments' management, even by the complex manager. But when it came to raises last year, me and my counterpart got the same amount, because they had to be "even handed." It's supposed to be up to the direct supervisor's discretion as to how he divvies up the funds given to him for raises. Technically, he can take money away from individuals if their performance so warrants it.

 

I spend some of my time every day doing my counterpart's work just because she sucks and can't do it. She takes two one-hour breaks, doesn't do anything our boss asks of her correctly (if she does it at all) and constantly goes to his bosses and tells them that he takes two-hour lunches and other such crap. They tell him that she comes to them and they all laugh it off. My wife, who works on first shift, said that the two women in the same position as I can be heard making fun of my e-mails because they are written intelligently. These two cunts are fucking rednecks and should be ashamed of their poor grammar and lack of social grace that they display in both their verbal communication and e-mails. The female on third shift missed six months of work due to the beaut called FMLA. My work output is probably 30 to 40% more than theirs and I still have time to fuck off.

 

All of this kind of makes me want to try less, because I know I'm not going to be rewarded as I should be in the end. But I see the bigger picture. Like it or not, companies are made of "good ole boy" networks. If I gain this reputation as someone who gets the job done, I will be moving up the ladder. In fact, when they opened these positions last year, the five of us were selected from more than sixty bidders. In our department, seniority is not taken into account when being considered for a job. I was told by someone high up that if I bid on one of the jobs, I'd have it locked. I didn't get the shift I wanted, but to make lemonade out of lemons, at least I get a $.35 premium for working second shift...

 

But in all honesty, I should have gotten a better raise than my counterpart and the three other women on the other shifts. But I didn't...so is that company rewarding due to performance or due to political correctness?

 

And in closing, should the "gender gap" be closed by rewarding due to one's gender?

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I'd be curious to hear Schultz. I've seen him on TV a few times. That's all.

 

Ever heard of TIF's?

 

No. What is it?...

Tax increment financing. Generally, Republicans and Democrats support it, depending on who the money goes to. Libertarians should oppose it. It basically pays for something through the assumed future value of a property. Hippies like to use it to pay for stuff like the Xavier Institute for Gifted Children-style homeless shelter mentioned in this forum...

[Guest MikeSC]

Update:

 

Randi Rhodes is being investigated by the Secret Service over a sketch aired on her show.

 

No, it's not simply because the sketch was pure shit. That goes without saying.

 

It's because the sketch might have implied a desire to assassinate Bush.

 

So AAR has gone beyond anything conservative talk radio has discussed. Kudos.

 

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED APRIL 27, 2005 09:01:25 ET XXXXX

 

AIR AMERICA RADIO INVESTIGATED AFTER BUSH 'GUNSHOTS'

 

**Exclusive**

 

The red-hot rhetoric over Social Security on liberal talkradio network AIR AMERICA has caught the attention of the Secret Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

 

Government officials are reviewing a skit which aired on the network Monday evening -- a skit featuring an apparent gunshot warning to the president!

 

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

 

The audio production at the center of the controversy aired during opening minutes of The Randi Rhodes Show.

 

"What is with all the killing?" Rhodes said, laughing, after the clip aired.

 

"Even joking about shooting the president is a crime, let alone doing it on national radio... we are taking this very seriously," a government source explained.

 

An Air America official tells Billboard Radio Monitor that they have no comment and are conducting their own internal investigation.

-=Mike

...I mention it because, obviously, nobody besides the S.Service LISTENS to her abysmal attempts at broadcasting...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But it was done in the name of satire, so it must be OK.

 

Christ, this will just give AA more of a reason to whine about being held down by the Bush Administration or something. Although I thought those people hated guns -- it was probably a really loud walkie talkie.

 

And is this supposed to be funny? Please tell me AA produces better material than this.

 

I will leave the "I froze..." joke to someone else...

[CanadianChris 0]

I'm confused as to how anyone could interpret that specifically as being aimed at the President.

 

I'm more confused as to how someone could think that was funny.

[Guest MikeSC]

But it was done in the name of satire, so it must be OK.

 

Christ, this will just give AA more of a reason to whine about being held down by the Bush Administration or something. Although I thought those people hated guns -- it was probably a really loud walkie talkie.

 

And is this supposed to be funny? Please tell me AA produces better material than this.

 

I will leave the "I froze..." joke to someone else...

kkk, no, AAR doesn't produce better material.

 

The "Best of the O'Franken Factor" is the perfect example of what a "relative" term is.

-=Mike

...I think Glenn Beck once said "The 'Best of' doesn't always mean it's actually good. It's just the best of the crap"...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

"A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore..."

 

Spoiled child = Bush

 

It's not hard to interpret...

[CanadianChris 0]

"A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore..."

 

Spoiled child = Bush

 

It's not hard to interpret...

Gotcha. *smacks forehead*

 

Maybe they'll get anough publicity from this to be able to stop counting listeners on one hand.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

this will just give AA more of a reason to whine about being held down by the Bush Administration or something.

Feh, the SS is not part of the Bush Administration. Their job is to protect the president, not the man, if that makes any sense. If AA doesn't like it, they can kick rocks all the way to Canada.

 

Although I thought those people hated guns -- it was probably a really loud walkie talkie.

 

Spielburg must be working with them...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

the sketch might have implied a desire to assassinate Bush.

 

Admittedly, the gunshots kind of send it over the edge, and I don't even know why they did that sketch when support for Bush's SS plan is so low.

 

But I honetly don't think it's any more serious than that one "Kill Bill" Al Franken Show sketch where Katherine Harris (or it could have been Karen Hughes, I forget, but either way she was voiced by Al's co-host with a fake southern accent) goes undercover as a reporter interviewing Bill Clinton (voiced by Al) as they go to brunch and she tries to stop Clinton's heart by feeding him a crapload of fatty foods that he can't resist.

 

In the end, Clinton is saved from eating himself to death by George Soros (voiced by someone, I forget), who uncovers the scheme and foils the plot. As entertaining as it was to hear Al's impression of Clinton, it was kind of unnerving that they'd imply, even humorously, that the Bush campaign was desperate enough for re-election to have Clinton die.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ironic that the left-wing radio shows, designed to answer the hate and violence of the right-wing radio, are the ones advocating killing of opponents while right-wing radio does not.

 

And, rest assured, if somebody takes a shot at Bush, he won't blame liberal radio, as Clinton blamed right wing radio for the OKC bombing.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But I honetly don't think it's any more serious than that one "Kill Bill" Al Franken Show sketch...

 

Wow, and I thought the Bush/SS skit was bad. Who's writing these things -- CheelsalaIsGood?...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"Robert Novak, are you calling Matt Drudge? I don't know what's going on I don't have a computer, but a kid from Air America called me this morning because he saw something on the Drudge Report. Anyway he's got this thing going on with his website that says I'm being investigated by the Secret Service. So when I left my house I expected to be surrounded, I even wore comfortable shoes for the investigation, but there was nothing.

 

One thing about this show is you're not to make threats about other people. One time we had a guy who did this. The Secret Service called, asked me what I know about this guy, I said 'He's a kid, he probably got caught up in the heat of the moment," they said okay and left. I thought 'cool guys, do their job, whatever.'

 

So this morning I get a phone call (...) that says that Matt Drudge says that the Secret Service investigates ME. I am the most nonviolent person...

(...)

We're here in Florida, we're not in New York, we didn't produce that bit, I'll apologize because I don't believe, you know, I didn't even hear it. I put on the headphones and heard gunshots and something about the "American Association of ARMED Retired People." The AAARP. And I said 'No, don't arm the old people, I'm here in Florida where they all are. Why all the killing?'

(...)

So people ask me if I have email, and I say no I don't have email, and they can't believe it but they say 'Well you better get ready because they're going to surround your house' and I said 'Who? Who is surrounding my house?' and they said Matt Drudge says the Secret Service is investigating Air America.

(...)

So I apologize to everyone, I apologize to the President of the United States, I don't really believe in violence, we didn't make that bit and I don't agree with it anyway. But now the question is for you, Matt Drudge, who TOLD you that the Secret Service was investigating Air America? Who's spying? What government agent, who told you about it?

 

Was it Robert Novak? Was it Judith Miller through Robert Novak? Was it someone from the New York times, the liberal paper? Anyway, if the Secret Service wants to talk about this, let's make this clear, we're at (address) at the Clear Channel building. If this is happening then please come and talk to me about it.

 

Anyway, only happy talk about the President's safety from now on, please. T-shirts anger this administration, a bumper sticker can get you kicked out of a 'town hall meeting,' so just imagine what a radio bit can do."

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, so Randi Rhodes is now trying to peddle the myth that Novak did ANYTHING illegal in the Plame affair.

 

Got it.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I don't even know why they did that sketch when support for Bush's SS plan is so low.

While somewhat on that subject, I have a legit question: Does any media outlet mention that the whole idea involving SS accounts is optional? From most media accounts I read/hear it makes the whole thing sound like W. is going to force a gun -- maybe an Air America gun -- to every person's head and make them invest in the market...

[Guest MikeSC]

No, that hasn't really been reported.

 

But, as I said, the media is insanely lazy. Which is why bloggers have any semblance of influence nowadays.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I don't even know why they did that sketch when support for Bush's SS plan is so low.

While somewhat on that subject, I have a legit question: Does any media outlet mention that the whole idea involving SS accounts is optional?

Just like the media isn't reporting the fact that the proposed changes to the Senate rules on filibusters is to only have a majority vote when it comes to judicial appointees, not changing the rules to do away with filibusters altogether.

 

Maybe they're just being lazy fucks, but it's stuff like this that gives fuel to those who claim bias in the media.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I don't even know why they did that sketch when support for Bush's SS plan is so low.

While somewhat on that subject, I have a legit question: Does any media outlet mention that the whole idea involving SS accounts is optional?

Just like the media isn't reporting the fact that the proposed changes to the Senate rules on filibusters is to only have a majority vote when it comes to judicial appointees, not changing the rules to do away with filibusters altogether.

So it IS just optional?!? God damn fucking media lied.

[Guest MikeSC]

It was always optional.

 

However, one can argue, if one REALLY chooses to, that given that it's optional, more and more people will opt for the private accounts. Which means it won't be that optional since the gov't will have to cut benefits to deal with that.

 

Of course, they'll cut benefits ANYWAY since people ignore that the average life span wasn't 65 yrs old when FDR proposed Social Security and it was never meant to be more than a stipend, anyway...

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

I feel that if people want to opt out, they can, but they better know their shit when it comes to investing, because if they fuck up, they can't get bailed out. Maybe some sort of "are you more than a drooling idiot when it comes to handling money" test, but then that goes against the whole key issue of moving the government out of our lives. Also, I'm not more than a drooling idiot when it comes to handling money.

[Guest MikeSC]

Just keep one thing in mind.

 

If people invest in the most conservative mutual fund known to man, it'll return several times more money than the government will with Social Security.

 

As conservatives point out, it's pretty damned hypocritical of the AARP to pretend that investment is such a bad thing when they invest their OWN money in the stock market and the like quite heavily.

 

If the AARP feels comfortable enough investing its money in the market --- why shouldn't the elederly?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

While somewhat on that subject, I have a legit question: Does any media outlet mention that the whole idea involving SS accounts is optional? From most media accounts I read/hear it makes the whole thing sound like W. is going to force a gun -- maybe an Air America gun -- to every person's head and make them invest in the market...

The whole thing is so fucked up.

 

I'm warm to private accounts. I'm a little concerned because a CEO is much more difficult to kick out than a politician is, but your money is practically guaranteed to be stolen from you the way things are right now.

 

I am HIGHLY against any plan that involves stock market investments, though. That's just crazy to risk people's retirement futures on the health of the American economy. If Dubya introduced a plan with private accounts without the stock investment jazz, hey, I'd be there with a big grin on.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

This leads to another question -- do the contributions have to be in the stock market? Can't they be put in "lower-risk" areas?...