The 77 cents on a Dollar Pay Gap

How many of you heard this mentioned by Democrats in the last few weeks in their efforts to swing women voters?

This figure is based on an average of both sexes. It does not take into account things like women taking time off to have and raise children, low paying career choices women make, men are more likely to be work higher paying dangerous jobs, men are more likely to work overtime and men are more likely to work weekends. These variables all drive down the average amount women make.

Any politician mentioning this number is either A)purposely trying to deceive you or B)is complete moron and should probably be flipping hamburgers in McDonalds. It is of course questionable whether it's A or B and it could be both.

Yep, I'd have to run with both on this one. SURPRISE, SURPRISE

I was under the impression that it was equal pay for equal work not averaging anything out. I know when I started in the steelmills there were no women at all in the inside workforce when I left there were many same goes for a lot of jobs like police & fire, women were simply believed at the time to be incapable to do the job. I have also had some jobs where even as a male I was paid less than a driver with lets say relative ability. I will have to investigate this a bit.

My last job was a union shop. If you were doing a job with a particular pay grade, you got paid a certain amount. Sex had nothing to do with it.

There was only one female running a machine, but how many women WANT to run a machine?

I learned long ago that if they make it sound like they are doing you a favor & starting you out at a higher rate because of what you know & not to tell anyone else what your making, your screwed.

samhill wrote:I was under the impression that it was equal pay for equal work ....

That's already a law, the recent ones proposed and enacted increase what women can sue for. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for example increased for how long they collect back wages, as I understand it they could only go back 6 months. This act allowed them go back indefinitely as long as they were still actively empoloyed within the last 6 months. There is some good arguments for both sides but the bottom line is it's open for abuse, if you weren't being paid right for 20 years who's responsibility is that?

The recent legislation struck down by the Republicans would have increased punitive damages. It would have been a windfall for lawyers. The Democrats pushed it knowing full well it wouldn't pass so they could use it for political ammunition which seems to be a more common tactic amongst both parties. Get ready for the "<insert republican politician here> hates women and voted against them" ads.

not averaging anything out

Again when you hear a Democrat claiming 77 cents on the dollar that's exactly what they are referring too. Every article I've read on this has the same 77 cent figure cited. It's just the average wage of women compared to men based on US census data. There is absolutely no adjustment for any variables, it's not an apples to apples comparison where they have compared women and men doing the same job with the same experience.

I'll try & find the article I read that gives both the 77 cent figure & then makes allowances & comes up with much higher figures.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert ... -not-less/ Found a different one but it still factors things in & comes up short.
Doesn't include females but I was involved in a case where we as new re-hires for U.S.S. had to start from scratch with our pass service only counting for pension. Only got one week vacation after a year & had last choice & so on. After years of trying to get information we finally got it & found that others had gotten everything back & there were even guys that came from another Co. that had been bought out & got all their time. After all the BS it came down to us being right but it was untimely so we lost. A employer that is discriminating isn't going to give information against themselves.

samhill wrote:I'll try & find the article I read that gives both the 77 cent figure & then makes allowances & comes up with much higher figures.

That might be possible but try finding one with a Democrat that isn't citing the 77 cents.

I think your looking at career choices & I'm looking at hourly or salary for the same job. Before I retired I worked side by side with a couple of women doing the same job, they were getting paid equally but because it was a union job where we were paid that way. You might go off the wall & say men are more prone to call off to go golfing or sporting events, not all women get pregnant & what about later in life after raising a family would it still be OK to assume that they should make less?

samhill wrote:I think your looking at career choices

I'm not looking at it Sam, that is what the 77 cents represents and Democrats are using it as if represents a fair comparison. The article you cited cites one study that puts it at 92 cents which is almost believable but I've seen it as high 99 cents from other studies.

in life after raising a family would it still be OK to assume that they should make less?

Sam it comes down to experience, if you have less experience you get paid less. Just because you chose to have kids doesn't mean there should be some exception to that. A male cousin of mine helped put his wife through school, he does a lot of the house duties and watches the kids because she can make a hell of lot more than him. He'll never make as much as her over his lifetime even if went back to school and the kids weren't part of the equation. He'd have to spend the next 4 years at school and for those 4 years she's earning a very high salary. She''ll be 500K and 4 years experience ahead of him by the time he graduates.

Richard, everyone doesn't get the chance to go get the high degrees & earn a couple hundred K, I'm talking a scenario (& I believe it's what this bill is about) where lets say a male & female both get jobs doing the same work at much the same time & one gets paid more than the other. It does still happen this day & age & not only between different races & sexes. If I'm wrong no big deal, that's happened before I can't find the actual bill to read for myself.
Found this & there is wording in there about still being able to use the factors some of which you mentioned like experience.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3220

Different people are payed differently for doing the same job all the time. you're payed what you're willing to work for and what you're worth. A friend I've known for many years who owns a small factory told me, "I've got guys working down there who've been working for me for three years and they're making $10/hour, and I've got guys that started at the same time that are making $19/hour. The difference? The guys making $19 asked for it and are worth it."