The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap

yep.... when a 35 y.o. woman, who started working at 25, only has 8 years of professional experience due to taking 2 years off for pregnancies, and a 35 y.o. male who started working at 25, has 10 years experience.... you can't complain when a man with more experience gets the job over you, or makes more at 35 than your do.

 

I guess women should just stop procreating and keep having abortions to solve this problem then?

 

no. have the parents share time spent taking care of children. that'll even it out somewhat.

 

Not sure how you plan to work that out when normally one parent takes a full time job while the other becomes the caretaker. I suppose you could say they both get part-time jobs, however part time jobs don't come with all the same benefits as full time ones do or the same rate of pay.

Sounds like corporate society will have to make major changes in it's work places to allow both parents the ability to work and be caretakers of their kids. 'Course I don't see Capitalist America ever giving a damn about this sort of thing. Most companies are just interested in bringing in as much money as possible, screw the little guy and his family.

 

I see the state having a role in encouraging and helping with raising children. Thus, I'd like to see the state step in to offer money as an incentive, and pay for the cost of children, as well as for the lost wages. The couple would be given x amount of days to spend with their child, and that time could be partitioned between them by their choosing. And preferably, they should have some kind of agreement -perhaps backed up by a union- with their employer, so that they can just get right back into work afterwards.

 

That actually sounds like a good idea. Also in this way both men and women may continue working, gaining experience and should they decide to split up for any reason they both still have an opportunity to support themselves on their own. Also it would create a good precedent for ending child-support laws as both parents would be required to support their children with their own money that they regularly earn and there would be no excuse for either party to produce child support to the other. And on that note it might eliminate the need for alimony payments as well.

 

This is how the swedish model works, nearly.

 

Well I wish you any and all luck in presenting it to conservative Americans. If their tax money goes to helping people they generally object to it. lol

 

Liberals are manipulating the numbers on this one to make it look worse than it is...

Obama’s ‘77 Cents on the Dollar’ Claim Debunked:

http://spectator.org/blog/57588/obamas-77-cents-dollar-claim-debunked

 

choices in life happen.... but if I were to just decide to take 2 years off (for whatever valid reason I may have), I can not (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and complain that I'm not making the same pay or getting passed over for people my own age who did not take 2 years off.


Feminists seem to want to be able to take off for extended periods of time for children, but still have that time they aren't working professionally, counted towards professional experience.... Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

 

yep... here's a novel approach if you plan to have kids and a career.... PLAN FOR IT!!!11 Come up with a plan between parents that say something like "mother will take year 1 off, father will take year 2 off, both will be back working year 3" Having a child is a choice and a consequence.... I plan to have my first child about June next year so my teacher wife and I don't have to lose time from our jobs due to summer vacation. So we have a window.


Now, if your career doesn't offer time off like mine does, decisions have to be made based on consequences and realities. And not all of them are easy.

 

yeah, society totally needs less babies. boo babies, who needs a new generation? Screw that, let's have our population shrink naturally, for that will surely guarantee future prosperity and wealth. Who cares that human nature isn't adapted to a free market system, let's just leave the poor in the streets while we're at it.

 

Hey! I debunked it in the op! I do feel kind of slighted that you had to draw an outside source to do the same!

 

I actually found that its more like a 2% difference, and that even then a lot of experts note that differences in gender psychology are more likely to account for that than sexism. One noted that women are less aggressive in wage negotiation - which some liberals on this forum have even disputed exists, which kind of makes you laugh, doesn't it?

 

To an extent, that's not a logical solution and draws mostly on idealism. There's a reason why women were traditionally the stay at home parents. In the short-term, women actually need (or should have) recovery time. They shouldn't go back to work just after a pregnancy, men don't need any more than a day off. Men have a harder time breastfeeding too.

 

Hence why they should be able to divide them given days as they choose. I wouldn't be suprised if women still stayed at home more, nor would I mind. My post after the one you quoted, explained it better.

 

The gender wage gap is thought of as fact by many people. Therefore, it must be debunked where ever it is confronted.

 

shhhh.... idealism is achievable to many on here, so they think....



year 1.... yeah, it's pretty hard to substitute a mother with even the most progressive minded equal rights, well-intentioned father there ever was. But choices have to be made, consequences are going to happen, no matter what.

part of the planning in having kids... understanding what future sacrifices you must have.... including losing 'experience' in the workplace while raising the kids.