Feministe and Pandagon readers simultaneously terrified, a little thrilled. From the WSJ:
The likely Democratic presidential nominee will need to win over the female voters who rallied behind Sen. Clinton during the prolonged and often heated primary. Before claiming the nomination, Sen. Obama showed strong support among affluent whites and African-American voters, but struggled to gain the backing of older and working-class women in some states.
On Feb. 5, or Super Tuesday, Sen. Clinton beat Sen. Obama 53% to 43% among women. She defeated him 60% to 36% among white women, according to exit polls.
As the primary season neared a finish in late May, Sen. Obama’s popularity among white women had declined. According to a Pew Research Center poll, as many as 39% of Sen. Clinton’s female backers said they believed her gender hurt her candidacy, in part because of how she was treated by the media and her rival. Sen. Obama’s favorability rating among white women dropped from 58% in March to 43% in May.
[…]
As part of his plan to support working women, Sen. Obama pledges to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 from $7.25 an hour in 2009, reduce health-care costs per family by as much as $2,500 and promote equal pay for women.
[my emphasis]
Naturally, how he’ll do this exactly is left unexplored — my guess? Print more money! — but with politicians, it is generally more about the targeted promises than about the (unspoken but universally understood) inability to follow through on those promises, and in this sense, Obama is no exception.
Still, while that frank discussion on race we were all going to have is on the back burner (Obama evidently needs time to flush all the Whitey references out of his support system), perhaps the Obamas can take some time and give us a frank discussion about sex and wages. For instance, it is true that — as the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports — “women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men,” with the “pay gap […] greater for minority working women, […] Hispanic women earning 53 cents and African-American women 62 cents for every dollar men earn.” But those numbers alone don’t tell the entire story — particularly in an era where lawsuits for gender or sexual discrimination are available to those who feel wronged economically.
So when Obama said in a speech earlier this week that “I don’t accept an America where a woman earns less than a man for the same work, or an America that makes women choose between their kids and their careers,” what, precisely, are the assumption that underpin such a pretty paean to equal pay and equal rights?
First, what is left unsaid here is that people who perform the same jobs for a greater duration are often paid more — and very few people would dispute that seniority is a perfectly acceptable metric for determining pay scale, at least legally speaking. Which dovetails into the second point Obama makes, one that seeks to undercut the perfectly benign rational behind the explanation for the first, namely, that many women leave the workforce for a time to have / raise children, and as a consequence, they lag behind in seniority, which accounts (at least partially) for the differential in pay. Other factors, too, include women who try to balance taking care of children and having a career — an arrangement that often leads them to take jobs with more flexibility but less pay. Jobs with more flexibility, generally, require less education or specific schooling, and so the pool of competitors for such jobs is higher than that for jobs that require a constant learning curve for advancement. And this just scratches the surface of the set of variables at play here.
All of which brings me to the central claim of Obama’s thesis, namely, that we live in “an America that makes women choose between their kids and their careers.” Leaving aside for the moment that more and more men are making that some choice, what, precisely, is “unfair” about choosing between the desire to raise a family, and a desire to have a full-time, uninterrupted career?
That is to say, it is not “America” that makes “women choose between their kids and their careers,” but rather women (and men) themselves who make those choices. Having children is an awesome responsibility. Raising them is a rewarding experience, not a punishment — and if it is a punishment to some, then clearly they’ve made the wrong choice.
Is it the role of government, then, to somehow compensate these people for choices freely made? Is it “fair” to those who work full-time and build up seniority, for instance, to receive the same amount of money as those who have been in and out of the workforce repeatedly? Or, to flip it around a bit, should businesses be required to keep wages equal across the board without giving those who have built up seniority the kind of leave time taken by those who choose to start families?
Obviously, I don’t have the answers to all these questions — nor do I pretend to. But if we’re going to have discussions about “equal pay” and “fairness” in the work force, then we should be willing to introduce into the calculus all the factors that come into play, rather than to easily insinuate that women are being mistreated as a condition of their sex.
As a stay at home father, I’m willing to listen to ideas for a tax break for performing such work — particularly because I think it more valuable to the child than sending him off to daycare while I work almost solely to pay for that daycare. But the fact of the matter is, we had our child by choice, and when we did so, we knew we’d have to make certain sacrifices to raise him in a way we thought most beneficial to him. And so long as abortion remains a legal option, at what point do we say that the idea that having a child is akin to forcing a women into indentured servitude of a kind?
To demand that those who run businesses be forced to foot the bill for our choices by way of unfairly adjusting pay scales in the name of “equality” is nothing more than demanding a forced egalitarianism that brackets merit in favor of cosmetic statistical consistency.
Will women buy into the promises? Almost certainly. And why not? They’re being promised what amounts to special treatment (the same can and should be said for stay at home fathers, incidentally), and why would they vote against their best interests? — particularly if all they’ve ever heard is the statistical breakdown on wages without ever once being exposed to some of the decidedly non-sexist reasons for the wage disparity.
But then, it is easier to stoke a grievance than it is to have a substantial discussion. After all, in the world of soundbite politics, who has time to put out a detailed analysis — particularly when the only goal is to use the issue as a way to gather a particularl coalition of identity voters?
Discuss.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
Merely another excrescence of the appalling proggy concept of what government should do – namely, pretty much everything but wipe your snotty nose for you. And that’s being negotiated, most likely.
Ah, but to the modern progressive, the fact that a choice can have a down side is proof of oppression. There should never be a cost to any choice you make!
Prepare for the onslaught on outrage for questioning the patriarcial memePrepare for the onslaught on outrage for questioning the patriarchal meme. The statistics also do not adjust for the fact that there are certain types of employment that are male dominated: construction, heavy machinery operation, engineering, most hard sciences, etc; nor the fields typically female dominated. Is Obama or those that complain about this post just as committed to insuring men are paid the same or represented in fields like teaching or insuring that the number of college attendees is equal (right now women out number men on most college, co-ed campuses)? My guess is no, because identity politics is all about getting the most for whichever side screams the loudest & I doubt very much that they’ll support any cutbacks no matter the advantage gained over time.
My guess is the response from the usual list of characters will be to attack the questions Jeff’s presented here & to promote the same victimhood mentality that serves as nothing more than cover for revenge or momentary, perceived moral righteousness.
I gave up my brilliant career. Now I must buy a used car.
It’s Bush’s fault.
I loved this post, Jeff. Great great great.
All of which brings me to the central claim of Obama’s thesis, namely, that we live in “an America that makes women choose between their kids and their careers.†Leaving aside for the moment that more and more men are making that some choice, what, precisely, is “unfair†about choosing between the desire to raise a family, and a desire to have a full-time, uninterrupted career?
Great point, but I’d say there’s even more to it. Men that work have always always always had to make the same choice as women that work, it’s just that it wasn’t historically really a choice. I’ve been home with the kids (mostly), and my husband has been the earner. He has missed school plays and swim meets and temper tantrums just as any working mother has to do. He is an amazing father and the kids adore him, but he hasn’t had the freedom to be with them at his whim.
My kids have a running joke about a typical movie scene, with a kid sobbing “But Dad! You promised you’d be at my hockey game” accompanied by a disapproving wife in the background.
It isn’t easy for either gender, this having kids and supporting them thing. It never has been. Yet couples really need to work this out with minimum intervention by the government.
Was the word “sweetie” used during this speech?
Related to Rob’s comment, I would note that proggs seem to have “issues” when it comes to the bearing and raising of children. And there seems to be a whiff of the notion that the role of government is to help people remove that burden, through abortion or shuttling the thing off to daycare without financial consequence.
oh, the movie scene. Happyfeet could write it, I’m sure. It’s always that the dad had to work late and the whole family blames him for it. We always hate on the mom and kid. Buck up, people!
BTW, 1/2 OT — the LeBron Kong cover of Vogue did not sell well.
Raising the minimum wage sound “fair” and “changey” but just amounts to more cost to the business owner that will be passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices..
Why not try something a little bolder.. like locking down our ridiculously porous border to the south and shipping a whole lot of illegal aliens back home, thus cutting the competition for low skilled , minimum wage jobs.. Maybe the employers will then have to raise their wages .. maybe even kick in some benefits .. to fill their manpower (personpower?) needs…
I know..I know… That’s just crazy talk.. way too far outside ‘the box’…
And — according to an oft-denied-but-never-refuted urban legend — fewer entry-level jobs.
I think a study should be done on how men are portrayed in TV ads that include a spouse or girlfriend, vs. how women are portrayed in those same ads.
On the plus side, frumpy men always seem to be with women out of their league ((superficially speaking; who knows, maybe they have great personalities, are good dancers, etc.). On the minus side, they are routinely portrayed as ineffectual dullards, or else beer drinkers who have to lie about having a drink with friends.
Or maybe I had just better stop watching the Lifetime Channel. Because I gotta tell you, I’m this close to trying out a nice refreshing douche.
I’m with you on this Jeff, but I also have to bring in my annoying habit of thinking of society at large as well as contributions to the future of the country as well. A parent who stays home to raise their child contributes something to the future of this country that a single person with no kids does not. Should this merely be ignored in favor of those who are more measurably productive? I’m not quite as sold on the “well you made a choice” argument, because we all benefit from having the next generation brought forth.
Here’s an interview with Thomas Sowell focused on pay gaps.
Are they coming out with the show Desperate HouseHusbands anytime soon?
#12 Jeff:
It’s not just the ads. TV shows — particularly sitcoms — have a whole genre of the doofus going with or married to the woman who is so much smarter, sensible, beautiful, etc.
Of course, if you’re of the feminista bent, you will see this as evidence of The Man trying to convince women they have to settle for less. Because of teh patriarchy.
This is where I think Baracky won’t go with this little marketing pitch. How really snotty of him I think to frame raising the minimum wage as somehow a woman-friendly thing to do. More and more women are signing these minimum wage paychecks.
Yeah, no kidding. There’s an ad for the cable company that has an overweight, balding, sloppily-dressed guy sitting in his recliner extolling the virtues of the new DVR, while his immaculately groomed, attractive wife heads out to buy something utterly critical. The “zinger” at the end is when she points out to him that he’s wearing two different colored socks.
Haw. Haw. Haw.
At least the actress isn’t “Stacey” from the Disney World TV channel. The ones with her in it are still annoying, though.
Well, that’s why I brought out the bit about being open to a tax credit for stay-at-home parents. I think they do perform a service — one that could impact the economy in measurable ways, from lower crime, to, well, follow the ripples. And I think having children, particularly well-adjusted children, is in the best interests of the society.
So we aren’t as far away on this as it might first appear, EG.
The .77/1.00 claim is absolute b.s. This claim could ONLY be made in good faith in the same employer for 2 employees in the exact same position with the exact same level of experience (years in the work-force or at the company). The proponents of this statistical lie are never able to come forward with such evidence. Moreover, if any woman had such evidence, she could easily sue and win. So instead, they use statistical tricks to try and “prove” this nonsense.
One of the ways they get to that .77/1.00 ratio is to compare non-alike jobs. They do this by coming up with some kind of class of jobs, which may include, for instance, municipal garbage collectors and clerical employees. So, they then look at what a secretary earns in a year versus what a garbage man earns in a year, and conclude that women earn less than men. this is a kind of “comparable worth argument”.
Another trick is simply to take all wage earning women, average their salaries, and compare them to the average of wage earning men. this, of course, does not take into account personal choices, such as length of time in the workforce, choice of career, etc.
obviously, if you are fishing for a particular outcome, such as a .77/1.00 ratio, you can cook all kinds of stats by claiming certain jobs (firefighter and nurse) are equal and therefore comparing those salaries is kosher. but anyone with common sence, an understanding of the labor market, etc. knows that you can’t do that. Just b/c a firefighter makes a base salary of $45k, does not mean that all nurses in the area must also be paid a base salary of $45k. This argument has gained currency with the left and with ambulance chasers who are constantly trying to get the courts to sign on to “comparable worth”. that way, a nurse could sue if she was making less money than a firefighter, and the Court would determine that the two jobs have “comparable worth” and the employer must pay the woman nurse what the male firefighter is making.
As stated, the other major trick in coming up with this figure is that they use averages without in any way, shape or form, accounting for time in the position or in the work-force. thus, if you take the average of 100 women attorneys versus 100 male attorneys at a law firm, you will find that women make less. However, a closer look will reveal that most of the women at that law firm are junior associates b/c the vast majority of woman leave the firm w/in 5 years to have children. Thus, you are comparing men who have been at that firm and/or practicing law for 10-20 years and made partner against women who have only been at the firm and/or practicing law for only 5 years and are not yet partner.
Finally, as to “minorities hardest hit” are those figures minority women against all men, or minority women against minority men? Again, many factors other than the alleged “sexism” account for these disparities.
Finally, as anecdotal evidence, I know for a fact that in most organizations (companies, municipalities, etc.) I have represented the starting salaries are the same. And generally, the raises are the same. the differences occur when woman leave the workforce for X number of years to have children. When they come back, they are not, and should not be, on the same salary level as their peers who stayed and worked during those years. Moreover, if we are talking about professional women, most places make all sorts of attempts to keep them for “diversity” reasons, going so far as offering them more benefits (more time off, more flexible hours, etc) then their male counterparts in an attempt to keep them from leaving.
Now, I have seen the argument that women should not be “penalized” for leaving the workforce for 5-10 years to raise children, and thus should be paid the same as the guy who stayed and worked for that time. That argument is too ridiculous to even respond to.
Ultimately, this meme is about communistic central planning. the left wants the gov’t to be able to determine what employers can pay for each job.
I’m with you on this Jeff, but I also have to bring in my annoying habit of thinking of society at large as well as contributions to the future of the country as well. A parent who stays home to raise their child contributes something to the future of this country that a single person with no kids does not. Should this merely be ignored in favor of those who are more measurably productive? I’m not quite as sold on the “well you made a choice†argument, because we all benefit from having the next generation brought forth.
And what do you propose? Force the employer to pay the women the same salary as her male counter-part who now has more than 5-10 years (or more) experience than the woman? If you were hiring a lawyer, would you be willing to pay a woman who practice for 4 years, took 10 years off, and is now back in practice the same hourly fee as the male attorney who has been practicing for 14 years straight?
Or, if you are getting an operation, would you rather have the surgeon who has been performing surgeries for the past 15 years straight, or the woman surgeon who has 5 yeasr of surgical experience – but that experience was from 10 years ago?
What about fairness to the male employee who worked at the position, strived, made sacrifices (such as not staying home with the kids) and gained experience, etc., to get where he is. Should the women come back after a 5-10 year hiatus and be on the exact same level and pay as that guy?
It is a choice to stay home. I believe it is the right choice. But, in all choices, there are pros and cons. One of the cons of staying home is that you are leaving the workforce and losing ground amongst your peers in terms of earning potential. I believe that such is more than made up for in the ability to be at home with you children. Some people don’t believe that and stay in the workforce and get day-care.
Jeff,
Of course, Baracky’s just pandering, and won’t do a damned thing with the minimum wage or the wage gap myth. Congress is stupid, not crazy.
That said, a rational and civil discussion about supporting families is welcome. I tend to shy away from social engineering of any stripe. I don’t want the Feds to raise my kids. Hell, I don’t want the Feds any where near my family. So I’d be interested in ideas that remove Federal influence–say school choice.
So we aren’t as far away on this as it might first appear, EG.
Indeed. I must have missed that bit on the first read through. Thanks.
I expect any stay-at-home clause of a tax break would be fought tooth and nail by those dedicated to the idea that day care is just as good for all children as their actual parents are.
I imagine a lot of them think day-care is better for the kids than their parents.
With all that said, I have no problem for a tax break. the problem with a tax-break though is that the dems will realize that people who don’t pay taxes don’t actually recieve anything then, and they’ll end up getting some kind of “rebate” for taxes they never paid. So, it’ll end up being just another welfare entitlement for poor people to have more kids.
Make the tax break a fixed amount, not dependent on the number of children, and you won’t end up with it being too bad an influence. In any case, welfare already “rewards” people for having more children (at least it used to, could be wrong).
Cranky, that’s exactly it. Head Start was created for kids whose parents had no books in the house, etc. Now there’s a big push to expand it to pre-school for all children.
Well, the condition would be that one parent would be working full-time. This is not a child tax credit, after all, but an answer to the very specific problems Obama is raising here.
Besides, the tax credit would be uniform (not dependant on the number of children), and would hardly be enough to support a family financially. Because it’s not supposed to — but rather to provide a measure of reward for those who choose to sacrifice careers in order to make sure a child has a parent around. And even that “reward” is based solely on the idea that the service the stay at home parent performs will lead to a net reduction of governmental outlay down the road.
Ok. Cranky-d beat me to it. The bastard.
For instance, it is true that  as the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports  “women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men,”
Doesn’t this figure represent all men versus all women, as shown on tax returns or summat? That’s pretty deceptive, because it implies that two people in the same position are getting disparate pay based only on sex.
What a crock! If you can pay women 77% of what you pay men, then why hire men?
Furthermore, there is the fact that men are more likely to be aggressive in negotiating their salaries and demanding raises than women are. That’s just how it is.
The salary of a worker should be the result of negotiations between the employer and the employee: market-determined, in other words. It’s not the job of an employer to engage in social engineering. You pay a person what they’re worth to the business, period, and if the worker isn’t happy with the salary, they can renegotiate or go elsewhere.
It’s also not the job of government to dictate the terms of that negotiation. Geez! People can vote with their feet in this society. It’s not as if we all lived in a one-factory town.
Ah, but to the modern progressive, the fact that a choice can have a down side is proof of oppression. There should never be a cost to any choice you make!
Well, doesn’t this come out of Liberal Fascism?
Conservative:
Fast, Good, Cheap: Chose any two
Progressive:
Fast, Good, Cheap: There’s no reason why you should accept that only two can be achieved at once. The government should mandate that companies have to provide ALL THREE options at once.
I bask in the glow of your insult, sir.
Minimum wage and living wage sorts of proposals have always been an evil thing. Cui Bono? Politician’s bono without question. Unintended consequences are real and harmful. Get government out of the way. The economic health of the nation is none of their business as they wouldn’t recognize it if it hit them over their respective heads with a 2×4. Leave us alone to conduct our affairs. Free Inquiry!
I would support a tax credit for you Jeff…but only because of the psychotic episode you suffered putting that bunk bed together. So it’d be a one time thing.
Oh, and if I find out you put the bed in an arm bar, forcing it to submit to proper assembly, the deals off.
Barack Obama (as Black Bart): “Baby, I am SO talented…and they are SO dumb.”
That there’s an “O” missing from “choose” in my previous post in no way implies that O! doesn’t understand that life is a series of trade-offs. The management apologizes for any confusion this might have caused.
What I think is kind of petty maybe but I think he tax credit should be contingent at least on having logged five years or whatever in the workforce first. I think the rationale for this is kind of self-evident. A bit judgey, but self-evident really.
Obama’s thesis… we live in “an America that makes women choose between their kids and their careers.â€Â
A child being punishment and all…
Well, the message to Hillary’s camp is pretty hard to miss.
I wonder if the party bigwigs have thought an Obama presidency all the way through? Probably not, probably not.
There’s a parallel in history for what’s about to happen to the Dems, but I don’t want to be indicted for Godwinning here.
I could be wrong. They (the Dem upper crust)might be positioning Obama for a crushing lesson in power and its application. In my opinion, the Dems never seem to execute well when they finally do grasp the reins – for a lesson, judge the congress since 2006 – they spend so much time scheming and backstabbing that the actual assumption of power seems to lock them up like deer in the fast lane. For them to be ready to cut Obama off at the knees when he attempts to assert control over the party would require that the upper cadre of the DNC to actually be twice as cynical, mendacious, and hypocritical as I already judge them to be… and I don’t see how anybody like that could function outside of organized crime.
The mob and the Left? Not such a gulf to bridge, at that.
oh. *the* tax credit … mostly I think though that there’s probably also a window of maybe up to 12 years old or so, and that’s being pretty liberal I think, after which the tax credit thing would actually not be a good thing at all.
It’s one thing to encourage sacrifice and another thing to encourage abject martyrdom I think.
“It’s always that the dad had to work late and the whole family blames him for it.”
And there’s always some big, bad corporate boss that he had to impress. Or he’s gunning for “partner”, or a “promotion”. Sometimes he’s sexually harassed by his beautiful female boss while working so close for so long.
But most of the time, his kids just need a good healthy dose of the “Shut up you spoiled rotten little shit, I’m not quitting my job because you teared up. If you were better at baseball in the first place I wouldn’t have to be at every game hoping to see you actually hit something. Now pull up your jock, and do what your coach says. And get rid of the Adam Rich haircut, you look like a douchebag. Can’t you see all the cool kids are wearing spiky mullets and bandannas? And while you’re at it, tell your mom if she doesn’t stop undermining me at every opportunity, I’ll sell the gigantic pre-war house in the pristine, tree-lined suburb and move to a three-bedroom split level next to the highway. Now I’ve got a lot of shit on my mind, I either have to save the world, win a case, solve a murder, kick the shit out of your future step father, hide my clones, or invent the world’s greatest toy. All you have to do is stop being such a little tool. And tell your sister she’s a slut, and if she ever talks back to me like that again I’ll sew her nethers up like they do in Pakistan and her little boyfriend with the earring and feathered hair will find my foot so far up his ass when he brushes his perfect teeth he’ll be shining my shoes. So get back in the dugout you little pansy and stew, while my childless best friend, Tom Arnold, Damon Wayans or maybe Dave Chappelle, will sit in the bleachers and frown disapprovingly while I walk to my car and go back to work.”
I have to walk that one out every once in a while when I get delayed at O’Hare.
@36
I don’t know happyfeet. Now you’re injecting age incentives into birth choice/age. What if it turns out that all other things equal, outcomes are better all around for children who are born to women between say 17 to 24, rather than say 22 to 27, let alone 28 to 33? Were that to turn out to be the case you’ve got an unnecessary distortion introduced into the outcome with unknowable (or at least unpredictable) downside effects.
This is a perfect excuse to cart out a Blazzing Saddles quote ..
That said, it was a real bummer when I found out that I couldn’t be both a honest upstanding citizen and a politician. .. or was that a rock star and astronaut ?
Hilarious.
From comment #1: “excrescence” – awesome word.
Perfesser: Good, yet depressing analysis.
(I did not get to finish arguing with you about your analysis on Bambi yesterday due to thunderstorm/power loss, but oh well.)
Maybe Obama could work with the Congress to add an extra hour or two to each day, so then I could be a rock star and astronaut.
An easier solution might be to redefine an “hour” to be 48 minutes, thereby allowing 30 hours in each day. Hey, even the minimum wage folks could get a raise or shorter time .. but there is another choice .. oh darn .. why not both ?
Oh. Most sdferr I’m just suggesting that once we open up this idea, there is definitely the possibility that there are ways to optimize it for outcomes. I think though the more I think about it the less I like it over and against tax simplification for everybody. But also this whole thing resonates really uncomfortably with that liberal creepy endeavor to privilege non-profit ngo careers I think. Here’s an example. And remember we talked about this article, where we learned…
Oh – and what about tax credits?
If it’s the f*cking government writing checks with my money, the Democrats will swear on a stack of Marx and Engel that the recipient’s behaviour will be snapped into the desired direction like a mouse following crumbs through a maze.
Then when you try to sell tax CUTS as a vehicle for stimulating economic activity, based on the undeniable evidence of the growth associated with the Kennedy (eek!), Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, they just hike up their skirts and flounce out of the room.
It’s awfully hard for me to find any profit – ANY at all – to attempt debate with the Left. Loyal opposition you can compromise with.
The enemy? Defeat, with prejudice. Extending respect at this stage is just a waste of resources.
Didn’t O! imply that children WERE, in fact, “punishment” during the primaries? In reference to his daughters, I believe.
TmjUtah
No man is an island, and you too will need doctors and mechanics and snot nosed drive thru attendants. They have to come from somewhere, and the best source is a from a family who takes the time and economic hit to do it right. Not that there are any guarantees. So a tax break on something like this is our way of encouraging this behavior.
I figured you’ld come around ‘feets. And I used to live in Madam’s Organ back in the day. The young’uns and their troubles weren’t any different then, but I wouldn’t hire the little buggers as they just didn’t know how to do anything useful.
Imagine if we were able to extend tax credits for stay at home parents to those who homeschooled. Bring on the standardized tests to check to see if those parents are doing it correctly.
Man, that’d sure chap the asses of the teacher’s unions.
Of course it would chap their asses, the education of the nations children is at best a distant second concern for them.
I just know that the real world effect of his position is going to be to make it far more difficult women to find flexible employment, or even for mothers to find employment at all. Employers will find ways not to hire people who they know they’ll have to pay as well as they could pay someone who will do more work. As they should. But the net effect on women will be negative.
– Education. Do they still do that in the school system these days?
“But the net effect on women will be negative.”
– Unintended consequences is to the SecProgs as Garlic is to the Vampire.
BBH – Yes, but it costs extra.
#45: Lisa,
Don’t you just hate it when you try to speak truth to power and the power goes out?
I think just as a matter of equity homeschooling parents ought by right to have some (at least partial) rebate of their property taxes or whatever other vehicle their locale uses to fund public schools.
LOL!! I am going to kick your smart ass Karl.
As a childless shrew who makes a lot more than her broodmare peers, I have to agree.
On the surface, it seems unfair. Why should they make less? But the fact is that they work fewer hours, they are less available for important projects, and they are unable to do as many creative endeavors that go above and beyond their regular duties. Not that they are lazy, stupid, or not creative. But it is definitely a source of great rending of the garments and gnashing of the teeth.
Lisa,
You write that like I wouldn’t enjoy it. ;-)
Plus, they do not have sugartits, so you have that going for you too. ;-)
“Bring on the standardized tests to check to see if those parents are doing it correctly.”
Ha! That would be awesome.
I’m not for a tax credit for stay-at-home parents unless they increase the tax credit for daycare-using parents. Or unless they try to raise my taxes for universal pre-k or headstart. I don’t want my family’s sacrifice to go solely (tax-wise) toward other people’s children.
– Sdferr – If that was ever mandated the public school system as we know it would cease to exist.
– SOT – Phill Grahmm, one of McCains chief finance advisors, has opened up another opportunity for Obama. with his comments to the effect that Americans in general have become a “nation of whiners”, responding to whether or not we are in aa recession.
– Obama, in his normal style of arrogant elitism, said “america doesn’t need aanother Doctor Phil”.
– McOldFude shot back with “I know the fellow that has just lost his job isn’t simply a whiner”. Wow. what a rejoiner.
– McCain isn’t cutting it. This would be a perfect opportunity to bring attention to Obama’s un-seriousness and elitism. Hes just not rising to the occasion, time after time. Unless he does a dramatic change in the way hes conducting this campaign, I don’t see how he can compete.
– How about “Mr. Obama seems to think America could be run by a TV show host. When he stops making a joke out of America’s financial future, maybe at the point he might be equipped to start thinking about running Americas finances.”
– McCain needs some better campaign people.
“…If that was ever mandated the public school system as we know it would cease to exist. …”
And that would be a bad thing how exactly?
Jeff, check out this 2002 study:
http://www.utdallas.edu/~nberg/Berg_ARTICLES/BergLienCEP2002.pdf
The authors say that there’s a wage-gap between heterosexal and “non-heterosexual” women, with the gap FAVORING non-heterosexual women by some 30%
Obviously, the real culprit has something more to do with children and lifestyles rather than sexist men discriminating in favor of lesbians.
– Sdferr, practically nothing could be worse than what we presently have. We have one middle school, Ray Kroc of all things, a model school when it was opened, that had to be shut down for two weeks and basically operated by the San Diego police until the district could double thw staff and get it back under control.
– My comment was snark to indicate why it will never happen.
No, I feel ya BBH, no mistake.
So we take a lesson from the donks. They want to end the Iraq war by cutting off the funds. We want to end their hold on education by cutting off the funds, en masse. Fait accomplis. (I been paying attention to BHO and consquently brushing up on my frogish.)
Well, some of my new boxing gear arrived yesterday, so I have to go set that up, which means schlepping to the hardware store to pick up sand bags and an eyehook.
Small price to pay to be able to duck and weave like a wiry little Mexican kid fighting for pesos and tamale scraps in the barrio. LOCO JEFFE!
Cool! Does it print the labels and tape them shut automatically?
What?! Why are you all looking at me that way?!
I dunno, Q30. Discriminating in favor of lesbians makes a certain sort of patriarchical pig sense. Provided they’re hot-looking lesbians who like a hetero male audience when they’re doing their thing.
#38 Tmj:
The answer to your observation about Democrat congresional ineptitude goes directly to the leadership. Nancy Pelosi is no Sam Rayburn; Harry Reid is no Lyndon Johnson.
That, and they have the smallest of majorities. Without a sizable majority in both houses neither can effectively lean on their fellow party members – they need each vote from each member, and that means the individual representatives and senators are in the catbird seat. They must be courted and have their egos stroked before they will do anything, and that means a massive compromise in the Democrat’s caucus before they even address dealing with the Republican caucus.
Neither has the power that ‘Uncle Joe’ Cannon had. From Wikipedia: In 1910 an Insurgent revolt flared in the House as both Democrats and dissatisfied Republicans stripped the Speaker of some of his powers, such as heading the House Rules Committee and ability to appoint members of other House committees. Without the power to punish errant party members, a speaker or majority leader must instead court other members if there is a slim majority. And with the loose party system the United States has (it isn’t a parliamentary democracy) where each representative and senator looks first to their electoral base and then the wishes of party leaders, none of this is overly surprising.
The Republican congresses that George W. Bush had to work with were similar – a slim majority means that party leaders have less control, and committee chairmen have greater control in the subject areas their committees deal with.
I think it also explains why earmarks are so prevalent in recent years – the coin of congress to get support for something else, so to speak.
#41 – LMC:
Damn, that was bee-ah-yu-TI-ful.
I love the “choice” bullshit. Like “the choice” is a bad thing. Have kids and stay home, don’t have kids, have kids and work. Pick one. A lot of brave cone shaped maidenforms were burned alive so today’s women have that choice. Just don’t tell me that if you work less because you are taking care of your kids you should get paid as much as the person who works more than you.
I, of course, have an anecdote. And if they’re good enough for Presidential candidates, they’re good enough for me.
I worked with a man who worked closer to his kid’s school than his wife. Therefore every half-day or sick day, every early practice or away game, this guy was out of the office. Now, I realize that I could have done the same thing, if my wife worked. It was understood, that if your wife worked, or if you were a working mother, your time was more valuable than say, mine. Such was the curse of working for a “family-friendly” company. It got to the point where I was pulling on-call work for nearly everyone in my group. I got tired of being the only guy expected to be at my desk at 4:55 to pick up the disaster calls, eventually I said something to the wrong person and had a “friendly” call from HR “explaining” the company’s “family-friendly” policies. So a couple of months later I told the boss that my wife was working and I had to be home every Monday, Wed and Fri by 4 pm to watch the kids. Worked about as well as you think.
My point, and I do have one, is that if you are going to to take responsibility for your kids, and are going to work full-time, chances are neither your kids or your job are going to get your full attention. You’re going to do a shitty job somewhere and your kids, your boss or your co-workers are going to notice. At least if it’s your co-workers, all they can do is complain. If it’s your kids, they’ll end up on reality TV or in Congress, and if it’s your boss, you won’t get paid as much as the guy or gal who supports a stay at home spouse.
But, LMC, you didn’t get paid more than those others. But I do, because I don’t work there any more.
So get back in the dugout you little pansy and stew, while my childless best friend, Tom Arnold, Damon Wayans or maybe Dave Chappelle, will sit in the bleachers and frown disapprovingly while I walk to my car and go back to work.â€Â
Ha ha ha ha ha!
As a stay at home dad, I denounce all of you. You insensitive coozemufflers.
Mikey NTH –
I understand the leadership vacuum. Better that band of campus commies and hacks chew on each others’ hands than actually coordinate a formal assault on the nation. I further believe that Pelosi and Reid may actually owe their positions to the fact that the brighter bulbs in their party was man enough to step up to the plate knowing what is coming.
I’m getting mighty tired of being Chicken Little but I could die a happy man being wrong … or even half wrong… about what I think is coming down the pike.
The people we elected to govern us have created a government that panders to us, then goes about its business of taking more and more oxygen out of the room. And the people we elected have recognized this for generations yet keep on adding layers and offices and regulatory agencies.
How much of our liberty, happiness, and security are those folks willing to sacrifice to keep what they have usurped?
Fannie Mae/Freddie MAC. Iran. Energy. Inflation. CFR. Where the DOW will be a week from now. Three weeks. And Jesse is miffed that his scam is threatened, McCain can’t find a reason for me to vote for him, and Obama thinks a pressing issue is that my kids can’t order off the menu if they end up in Paris.
We’ve got four thousand and counting lives on top of an unimaginable amount of money toward an ongoing investment in the freedom of over forty million people… as a means to ensure our own national security. And here we are on tenterhooks waiting for our candidates to make their next gaffe or next flip flop. Both of them.
I’m plumb past being scared. Not much I can accomplish going that route anyway. Tomorrow I talk with our financial adviser and get his best guess, then sit down with Mrs. Tmj, maybe telcon with the extended family, and make some moves. Being under the weather is just spice.
Have a weekend. Enjoy. I’m out.
As a childless uncle, I accept denouncement. And with the same level of seriousness I will decide that I need another beer.
N.B. – That is a high level of seriousness. As serious as ‘Top. Men.’
TmjUtah describes the genius of the scheme brought to life by FDR and his good people and it has lasted a long time now. Best captured by Amity Schlaes in the Forgotten Man, it was years in the making, decades in its flowering and will be decades in the getting rid of. We’re only in the first quarter of that effort. I will likely be dead before the long ridding is done.
Tmj – I’lljust say have a good wekend also. I’ll be down at USCG Belle Isle helping with the Gold Cup races. (A jet engine-powered hydroplane race – how anti-PC can you get?) I’ll just finish by noting that the USA has seen many dooms over the past twenty years, yet still – we are here.
(And that is why I am an optimist. Remember, as PJ O’Rourke found that the bureaucrats at NHTSA were car-lovers, not every bureaucrat wants to destroy any thing. There was the Sultana, and there was the US Steamboat Inspection Service. There was also the G.P. Griffith.)
Went to the cemetery holding the victims of the Sultana. It’s a beautiful place unto itself.
Never been there, sdferr. I would like to visit it, as I would Pearl Harbor, or the wreck site of USS Shenandoah.
Not all aspects of bureaucracy are bad. The rules were changed after RMS Titanic foundered, as they were after the Eastland capsized in the Chicago River. Without rules aiming to prevent a tragedy you are left with the courts as your only recourse after a tragedy. We can debate how far rules ought to go, but there have to be some rules first.
Henry Steinbrenner wasn’t lost due to an Act of God, she was lost due to not following the rules, such as putting tarps over the hatches.
Mikey’s right that LMC was brilliant and also poignant at #41. Very Denis Leary except I don’t really like Denis Leary.
Dicentra nailed it. If women would do true “equal work” for 25% less than men, can there be any doubt that greedy corporations would do everything in their power to hire only women? If this .77/1.00 claim were true, there wouldn’t be one unemployed woman in this country. And very very few employed men.
As far as the tax credit goes, count me out. As the father of three I would surely benefit, but most tax credit schemes engage my anti-social engineering gag reflex and this one does too. God, let’s just get rid of fucking income taxes for everyone with a FAIR Tax or National Sales Tax and be done with it.
yours/
peter.
PMain @ #3: […]”The statistics also do not adjust for the fact that there are certain types of employment that are male dominated: construction, heavy machinery operation, engineering, most hard sciences, etc; nor the fields typically female dominated.”
Larry Summers wanted to look into stuff like that. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Tears even. Larry’s got his mind set right now, and no longer asks foolish questions. Resistance is futile- all will be assimilated.
Let the honest debate continue.
O?
I could be completely wrong, but I believe the destination at the end of the “Equal Pay” road has already been reached in Australia. Last I heard, the government of Oz has taken upon itself the power to prescribe the wages to be paid for most jobs and job categories.
Government determining earnings. Does that sound awesome or what?
yours/
peter.
Peter,
That is what I tried (inartfully) to describe above as what is known in the legal community as “comparable worth”. the left has been trying for years to get this put into practice in the U.S. – mostly through the courts.
The left has attempted to use the Equal Pay Act to argue that job “X” is of “comparable worth” to job “y” and therefore the pay disparity between the person in jobs “X” and “y” violate the Equal Pay Act. For example, a nurse and a firefighter. The left argues, inter alia, that both jobs are in the business of helping people, thus they should be paid the same. Now, the fact that there more than 2,500 nurses in my greater county area compared to around 500 paid firefighters does not come into play in a leftists mind, nor any other of those pesky labor market issues. (and, I would also point out that in a market sense, the paid firefighters are vastly overpaid b/c they are municipal employees and have a powerful union – municipalities could easily hire firefighters at 1/2 their current salary and have no problem filling the positions with qualified candidates – after all, most of the communities around here only have volunteer firefighters, we are paying people top-dollar to do a job that others are more than willing to do for free)
Fortunately, the courts have not bought the concept of “comparable worth” yet in this country, but over the years I’ve come to realize that all of these crazy leftist ideas that are pushed on the courts eventually get adopted, once you can find a liberal enough activist judge and Court of Appeals. And, if there is a 5 seat liberal majority on the supreme court – boom, the courts just legislated the pay scale for every job in america. It will happen eventually.
“Comparable worth” is taught in law schools as a valid concept, it is taught in business law classes (I know, I teach one and it is discussed at length, approvingly, in the textbook I have to use), and law school professors write law review articles talking up this outrageous concept’s merits.
the chances of us avoiding this are pretty small unless we can get a really conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the next 20 years or so.
Yep. But to the general public they always call it “equal pay” because it sounds more “fair.”
Anytime you hear some leftish spokesmouth speak, or read some leftish direct-mail scribblings, that feature “equal pay,” you may rest assured what they’re talking about is comparable worth.
Every. Fucking. Time.
I dunno…. In re the .77 / 1.00 idea really being about Time On The Job, instead of SEXISM!!!, I’d like to note that I just lost a job of 17 years in manufacturing, and I’ll consider myself lucky to find a new job that starts at 77% of the money I’ve been making.
Otoh, another thread revealed that my choice of cars clearly made me Ghey, so perhaps getting Less Pay at a new job simply completes my Sex Change….
God that sucks. I hope it works out a lot better than you’re expecting. On the other hand it just occurred to me that it’s a lot unlikely that I’ll ever be able to look back at anything I’ve done for seventeen years. Except maybe taking care of my turtles. I think they’re supposed to live for like 30 years or so.
Actually, feets, I’ve been in this particular trade — Metal Fabricating — for about 30 years; this job was only the 2nd one where I was working directly for an OEM (communications equipment), rather than in job shops.
But, at the end of 17 years, making $75K without overtime (Union Shop; IBEW), I don’t think that starting somewhere else at $50K would be such a bad thing (hehehe)….
And, watch out for those turtles: My aunt had one from when she was a little girl, and the turtle outlived her; maybe Uncle Joe “movin’ kinda slow” had the right idea after all….
Oh. Metal fabricating. That’s good. I wish I had actual skills. You’ll be all good. There’s always metal what needs fabricating somewhere. It’s kind of pricey though.
Yes… the turtle thing is something to think about. I need to look up again what the outliers for this species are… red sliders. Also I promised them one day they would have their own pond. I don’t think they believe me.