Forum Post: Women Rally for Equal Pay in Madison
Posted 11 years ago on April 22, 2012, 8:15 a.m. EST by GirlFriday
(17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Roberson also noted that Wisconsin women lose a total of $10 billion per year, or $11,000 per family, due to this wage gap where women earn $.75 on the dollar as compared to men. She contended that this gap is due to a systematic bias that the Republicans are now exacerbating with laws attacking women. “Women voting for Republicans are like deer voting for the NRA. They have us in their sights,” she quipped.
Sara Finger tied the wage gap to unequal health outcomes and increasingly negative effects on children and families. “Economic security is a women’s health issue since it determines the type and frequency of healthcare services they can access.” http://www.progressive.org/women_rally_for_equal_pay_in_madison.html
Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Act afforded women a remedy by allowing them to file suit in District Court for claims of wage discrimination.
To me that sounds like a bad idea. It is government interference on private enterprise. The lawyers love it because they benefit the greatest.
Why would a company pay a woman less for the same job? It makes no sense at all. There has to be more to the statistics posted.
I got a larger raise this year than my colleague who is a man. I worked harder than him and accomplished more. This happened five years in a row. I now make 12% more than him. He is a slacker. He does his job to the minimum. If he were a woman he could sue under that law.
My daughter who is only 16 has received three raises and is making more than colleagues that have been there for years. Her boss told her "you are the only person who really works around here" One of her colleagues who is a boy found out he makes less and has been there two years longer. I am not sure if he could not sue under this law.
Ultimately, companies are in business to make money. They want the best person on the job to make them money, regardless of gender.
Because we know that corporations are always pure and honest, Joe.
Your anecdotal evidence will only ever get you so far.
Why would a corporation want to pay women less?
Because they can. This is why unions are a good thing.
Now, historically it was to force women to live with someone. Especially, single women who were viewed as a threat so surveillance was necessary. The way to achieve that was to force them to live with a male family member or other.
Many companies assume that women are going to get married and leave the workforce. That isn't what they have been doing for many, many years.
That is a common Corporate or general Business excuse for under paying.
Yes. One of the primary reason that unions work well is that many women have been socialized into not being aggressive when it comes to negotiating wages. However, many of the lower paying jobs are just we know you are completely and totally desperate and we intend to use that to our advantage.
Exactly they ( the greedy corrupt ) prey on the need as well as the fear of being homeless and they feed on those very real things.
There is a difference in career choices between women and men.
I went to school for engineering and in my classes of more than 40 students there were only two girls and they were not even from the US, One was from Denmark and the other was form Portugal.
Hey, Joe. Good to meet you. You obviously weren't in my class at Purdue. Read my comment above. And wake up. Jesus.
I did not say there are no women in engineering. I said when I went to school in the 80s/90s there were very few woman in my classes. Currently women make up 11% of the engineering graduates in the US.
What was you major at Purdue? Were there a lot of females in you class? My major was Electrical Engineering undergrad and Computer Engineering grad. There more than 2 girls in computer engineering but not many may 5-7 in each class.
That said I have worked with some great programmers that are women but still they are few and far between. I am not sure why females do not chose engineering and programming.
Industrial engineering followed by a computer science degree. I did back-end sql for a while and realized that I would rather work in a big dirty machine shop than a cubicle.
In response to your not being sure why women don't choose engineering and programming:
But enough about me... let's talk about the female engineers I know:
My friend M, who is a EE from Rose Hulman - worked for a big international company until last year when she left to go get a PhD in some math intensive branch of psychology. She realized that she was never ever going to be promoted because she wasn't perceived as having 'killer instincts', which are chiefly demonstrated by being loud and brash. In a man, that's drive and leadership ability. In a woman, it's good old-fashioned bitchiness.
Another friend of mine, C - works in purchasing because when she was a project manager, her entire crew would retaliate if she disciplined one of them. The general concept (civil engineers doing infrastructure work) was that she didn't belong there. One guy almost killed her (backed a truck into her, knocking her under a moving back-hoe) 'just trying to scare her a little'. She LOVED that job. But not as much as she loved her life.
A mentor of mine, P. got her petroleum engineering degree in the 70's and worked on drilling platforms for the first several years of her career. It was fairly common to use maxi pads for a couple of specific applications where you needed to soak up leaking fluid in a small area. I doubt it was that common to save up all of the used, chemical filled maxi pads and fill your foreman's bunk with them.
Seriously, I could go on and on. The real question might be why a woman with a good grasp of math and science would ever choose engineering and programming. You could do research, you could be a botanist or a marine biologist or a vet or an architect... or you could fight for your dignity every god damn day for the rest of your career.
OK, you named one woman engineers.
If you are really an engineer than you understand that it does not take away from the fact that women make up 11% of the engineering graduates and 95% of the nursing school graduates. You can blame it on your guidance counselor or some uncle, parent, colleague or boss but I did not listen to my guidance counselor and would not let a colleague intimidate me.
[Removed]
"Because they can" - They can pay men less too.
"Many companies assume that women ..." You like to make it up as you go along...
Not at all Mr. Anecdotal. You just don't like what I am telling you.
Where is your evidence that "Many companies assume that women are going to get married and leave the workforce."
That is total assumption based on a feeling.
http://www.workplacefairness.org/family-responsibilities-discrimination?agree=yes
It isn't assumption. It has happened. It will continue to happen.
It is an assumption.
As a consultant I have worked at dozens of medium and large corporations and have never seen this type of discrimination. I am not saying it cannot exist however to say that "many corporations assume" is not based on fact. Pointing to an article that defines FRD does not mean many companies do it.
The problem is not that companies discriminate, The issue is that not enough men take responsibility for raising children. This means that women are less likely to work continuously.
http://www.pay-equity.org/info-top10.html
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/andor1.1.1.html
Try again.
So you found some people that agree with you. Would the National Committee on Equal Pay say anything that does not promote their agenda?
I don't think so.
And the Lew Rockwell site is a fake site created by :
Jose Gomez Santa Librada Calle 1era Panama, 34234 PA
who pretends to be people like Lew Rockwell and Jakab Andor.
It hands down beats your "as a consultant" shpeil. Yeah?
Yeah.
Although it is good to know that it's a fake site. I can't stand the crap on it. It is the most ridiculous shit.
Except that my experiences are based on reality to make a point that people should not be paid equally if they do not perform equally. They should be paid according to what they bring to the table regardless of race or gender.
You supplied an activist site with an ax to grind and a fake site.
I know you don't like my real world examples however... In one of our facilities there are four sales directors all males and 10 order entry folks 9 of which are female. The white male directors make a lot more that the mostly female order entry group which is mostly females. Is that discrimination? Were men chosen to be directors unfairly? The order entry folks make less and it sure appears that the company has a habit of discriminating. What happened is that they are selling highly engineered products and the directors have an engineering background. Only white males applied. Now someone might wan to go sue for unfair promotion of white males and even if they lose it will cost the company a lot of money. If you go down the hall to the finance department you will find the CFO is female, corporate controller is female, finance director is female, and the four accountants and 2 invoice processing folks are all males. ↥like ↧dislike permalink
It isn't that I don't understand that. In fact, there was a problem with a university that had openings but could not get anyone to move to the location--it was a quality of life issue. People of color and/or women of any color were not even applying.
That said, don't kid yourself. You can deny all that you want that this doesn't occur. But, you will have to sell it to someone else. Now, in the first link that I gave you and the one that you didn't like because it was an activist site--it says in there that gender discrimination is very hard to prove. In and of itself, that should tell you that there is protection. This is good.
You either have a case or you do not. The bill provided an avenue for recourse that had not been available. Women across the rest of the nation are 78 cents to the dollar, Wisconsin is 75 cents to the dollar. It didn't overstep it's boundaries into the private sector. It was simply an avenue.
In the link that I provided for DB, it showed that even with doctors in the medical field there is still bias in being passed over in promotions and their male counterparts acknowledged that it was a gender bias. You can find the same stuff up at John Hopkins.
I did not say it does not occur. My guess is that it happens both ways. There are already actions available both state and federal. This Equality Act is not needed.
I believe the 78 cents on the dollar figure but I do not believe it is due to discrimination. You can make data say whatever you want when you slice it a certain way. Trust me, data mining is part of what I do.
Yes. It is a fucking ax to grind. Equal pay for equal work.
I know you don't like my real world examples however...
In one of our facilities there are four sales directors all males and 10 order entry folks 9 of which are female. The white male directors make a lot more that the mostly female order entry group which is mostly females. Is that discrimination? Were men chosen to be directors unfairly? The order entry folks make less and it sure appears that the company has a habit of discriminating.
What happened is that they are selling highly engineered products and the directors have an engineering background. Only white males applied.
Now someone might wan to go sue for unfair promotion of white males and even if they lose it will cost the company a lot of money.
If you go down the hall to the finance department you will find the CFO is female, corporate controller is female, finance director is female, and the four accountants and 2 invoice processing folks are all males.
Statistics show that Women do not get the same pay for the same work OVERALL in this country. There are always exceptions, hence you anecdote.
They also tend to get promoted with less frequency. The Class action gender discrimination suit against WallMart (that the Supreme court scurrilously refused to hear) laid it all out very clearly.
Why it happens is not the issue, THAT it happens is.
I believe that women make less overall and am not surprised. That does not mean there is rampant discrimination.
As I said I believe it is based on the choices we make. Leaving the workforce to raise children, working part time. If more men chose to take time off to raise children things would be different.
Career choces are different as well. In my engineering classes of 40 or more there were two women. In my grad computer science classes of 75 there were about 5 on average. The university was almost all male so we had to go down the road to the liberal arts school to find parties with girls.
I can tell you when I hire someone I do not care about their race or sex I care can the out program the competition, are they smart, are they creative, do they use both sides of their brain. I hire people that will create the best code.
It is not about career choices, Women are generally paid less than men for the same jobs in the same careers. That is discrimination. That is the issue.
Show me evidence of this.
I do not believe that if a woman has been in the same position at the same company and has worked the same number of months without taking leave you would have a difference in pay.
I pay a woman more than another employee that has been there the same amount of time simply because she out performs him. Companies care about the bottom line and performance not gender get you there.
Why do you insist that what you do is what everyone does? GirlFriday put of sources. I have read several myself. Google pay equity by gender and I'm sure you'll find plenty. Te entire WallMart class action suit of last year was all about that. Women were not paid the same for the same work, and ere not promoted, often despite having better work records than their male counterparts.
Nobody is comparing apples and oranges here. It is about comparing apples with apples.
People are not apples. Not everyone is the same and not everyone should be paid the same. It makes no absolutely sense and there is no benefit to paying someone differently based on gender.
Reply to your post below:
Perhaps not everyone should be paid the same, but paying one entire group of people less than another solely because of their gender is discrimination. Whether doing it "makes sense" or not to you or me is beside the point. The point is that it is, in fact, being done. And that is wrong, as I believe you would agree. The fact that you are flabbergasted by it convinces me that you don't like it any more than I do. That is to your credit, in my view.
You cannot say that an entire group of people is paid less. You have to look at career, time in career, years of service. There is no way that a company in today's day and age would discriminate based on sex. It makes no sense.
My problem with laws that promote equality is that not everyone is equal. Not everyone has the same talent and more important, not everyone has the same dedication to their job.
These laws force you to pay under performers the same rate as performers. I believe in merit increases based on performance. Now if a woman happens to be the under performer she can sue for discrimination because her colleague received 5 years of higher merit increases.
Reply to your post below.
"Will you at least admit that it is just as easy to "suppress" a man's salary as it is a woman's?"
No. If was were just as easy, there would be no gender gap in pay that we are seeing.
"Will you at least admit that laws that force equal pay based on anything lead to situations that promote equal reward for unequal performance?"
Since I have no idea what laws you are talking about, there is no way I can answer.
Did you actually read anything from the links GirlFriday presented? Not yet?
Yes I read what she posted. Did you read my replies? I prefer not to type them again.
I know what law we are talking about. Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Act afforded women a remedy by allowing them to file suit in District Court for claims of wage discrimination. I think it is a bad idea.
reply to your post below:
Regarding the WalMart case, WalMart did NOT win the discrimination lawsuit in the Supreme Court. Th court in a SPLIT (not unanimous at all) decision made no ruling at all on the merits. It simply decided that it could not be pursued as a class action, (that the group of women had no standing as litigants) that each and every individual woman had to sue personally. The court pointedly refused to hear the merits of the case. The discrimination case was never, in fact heard by the court. The reasons were manifold, but the Roberts court has been all about strengthening corporations. Undermining the basis for all citizen class action suits - which this ruling was designed to do - is consistent with Roberts's record.
One does not need to discriminate to suppress ALL salaries. But it is much easier to do with discrimination than without, because it is easier to not give women a raise they are due than without it from a man. That has to do with historical wage expectations, and it has to do with excuses men in charge give when making decisions.
I have been willing up to this point to give you the benefit of the doubt. HOwever, it is becoming clear that you did not go to the links provided. You are refusing to look beyond your personal beliefs at the facts. As such, you are not doing anything other that propping up your pre-made mind, and actively rejecting any attempt at arriving at a credible truth. At this point, you are being nothing other than intelectually dishonest. Your complete misrepresentation of what occurred with the WalMart case only speaks to your insistence on misinformation, and in your arguments arguments about sex discrimination, to making assumption based on no information at all.
You opinions do not constitute fact. You are confused if you think they do. And you are dishonest if you insist on maintaining them in willful rather than naive ignorance.
Will you at least admit that it is just as easy to "suppress" a man's salary as it is a woman's?
Will you at least admit that laws that force equal pay based on anything lead to situations that promote equal reward for unequal performance?
Reply to your post below.
"You have to look at career, time in career, years of service."
The investigations and multiple studies have done just that. The result if those investigations and studies is a clear patter of bias.
Your saying sex discrimination makes no sense. Sure it does. Any excuse can and will be used to suppress slasries and benefits, and whatever can be gotten away with will be. What's more, some of the discrimination might not even be the result of one single conscious decision, but a series of unconscious, incremental bias by many in the decision making chain over time. The effects of tIny attitude differences accrue over time, the effects are additive. But they need not be so subtle: the WallMArt case show a pervasive culture of sexism throughout the company.
No one is talking about underperforming. The fact of a nationwide income gap for the same jobs between men and women is not the result of a nationwide difference in performance between the two sexes. Women do not underperform men consistently, but they are paid less for the SAME jobs consistently. Or are you really saying that women can't do their jobs as well as men? Personally, I don't think you are. I think you just don't understand the statistics.
Your implying that you need to discriminate to suppress salaries. That is not true. You can just as easily suppress everyone's salary.
As for the Walmart case, they won the case unanimously in the United States Supreme Court. Just because you accuse someone of something does not make it so.
I was talking about under performing. Laws like this promote equal reward for unequal performance
any plans to rally at the White House? or are we giving out free passes again?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/war-on-women-white-house-found-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/
Here is a thought: you know why the big DC rally didn't get much? Because it happens all the freaking time. All the time. It's called the definition of insanity.
A lot of this can be related to women entering the mommy track and leaving their careers just as they reach peak earning levels.
I wish the whole damned country was Madison.
In saying that, do you mean you wish the whole damned country blamed the Republicans for their problems when the Democrats are equally guilty? And given that Madison is in Wisconsin and you live in "the jungle", what would you really know about what Madison is really like anyway?
Hey there Iron butt. I hear you're spreading bullshit about me on twitter. Truth is, I don't give a shit; but keep following me around and you'll have to get yet another user name.
Actually Twitter is where I learned about this forum and your questionable contributions to it. Anyway, tell us all more about "the jungle" where you live.
woman get paid more in my field
i really feel that this is an issues that just has lag. Women in there early twenty and thirties are getting paid the same. its the older class that isn't being as paid as well. I know for a fact my girlfriend will be making twice a much as me when we leave college. This doesn't bother me at all this will just happen. I also know that she wants to be CEO of a company and i know that if/when she reaches that point she will be making around the same salary
of course there is always lurking variables. most of these variables are explained int he video posted below http://www.learnliberty.org/content/do-women-earn-less-men
i do think in some places there could be gender differences in pay but this might be something that deals with the limitations of women biologically
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2011/11/28/getting-more-women-in-the-boardroom-should-the-u-s-use-mandatory-quotas-like-europe/
What biological limitations are we talking about?
Men are know to work different under stress than women. So if a job is high stress it may go to a man because they are likely to have less chance of a "freak out"
But really there are limitations on our bodies. For example Firefighters have to go through training and if they can not pass they don't become a firefighter. It was thought that the test was sexist till they found out that women just can't do some of the test in time or carry enough weight.
We are separated in how we think in almost every aspect its not meant to be offensive but it becomes just that. Our make up our chemical balance is different and will always be different.
I read the article interesting but unneeded we don't need to force something that will happen naturally it already is happening. Things take time to change and no force is needed foe this one.
I would watch the video it has some better points than what i can say here.
Men are know to work different under stress than women. So if a job is high stress it may go to a man because they are likely to have less chance of a "freak out"
Back it up.
http://www.wisegeek.com/do-men-and-women-manage-stress-differently.htm
http://women.webmd.com/features/stress-women-men-cope
http://thestressoflife.com/why_men_and_women_handle_stress_.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/12/women-economy-health-flew-cx_kb_0112suicide.html
in these article it explains although women deal with more stress they are encourage to talk about it more. While men are more likely to hold it in. Now since men hold in the stress it makes it more appropriate to the work force with less distractions and dealing with clients. Women are more likely to show the emotion by complaining, crying, and over reactions. These are some things that can be considered a freak out.
Now this doesn't mean that men wont have these "freak outs" it does happen but ours is usually due to a build up of stress then a final out cry of a rage based anger. This is all based on how our body chemistry is based. its a chemical imbalance that happens to coup with the stress. So they weigh in is done and men usually are picked for the less risk factor.
Its one of many factors that go into job decisions there are many things that can be a reason for pay, job tittle and if you get the job.
Now since men hold in the stress it makes it more appropriate to the work force with less distractions and dealing with clients.
That is bullshit. In all that was in those articles there is no indication that women did that while at work. It states that it is after work. It also states that chronic stress is not good for anyone. In fact, it indicates that women are more apt to work through it (Fight rather than flight).
Women are more likely to show the emotion by complaining, crying, and over reactions. These are some things that can be considered a freak out.
Not during work. After work. Nor does it say that they are more apt to complain. As opposed to men who have a higher rate of coronary disease and are committing suicide at a higher rate. Yeah, you guys show us girls how it's done.
Dude, I have a high stress job and it's a no freak out zone. I am married to it.
We have different chemicals in our bodies its not anyone fault. This is data that is used to find people for jobs they chose to pick someone with a low risk rate. Also like you there is many cases that don't fit into the norms this is due to details that are included into all of this.
But this isn't the only issue it brings up to the point that women don't get paid less than men based on them being women. Its based on a multitude of things.
lets get off this tangent of stress. There are ways that men and women do things that are differently so this can attribute to the total affect of what the final pay is.
what im trying to get across is that women go into fields that just pay less than men. I am in a major where there is one girl for every 10 boys. This is a high paying major of mechanical engineering its attractive in the aspect of being able to be versatile. My friend is a male is in hospitality and tourism management there the ratio is reversed. This major on average makes less than a ME degree. Now this isn't because of sexism this is based on choices and desires of a career. Things like that must be put into account of why salaries are based off of.
Now as i said before though women in my major are paid more then men this i based off them being a women for their thought process. And again before i stated that my girlfriend will be making twice as much as me. She is in bio-medical engineering this is a rising field with very few people in it that explains the salary difference. Now something to think about most BME are female so in the future we will see more women with higher salaries.
Which bring me to my final point the difference between female and male salaries is at a lag since 30 years ago women were not planning to become full time works like they are today. Since there is this lag we will see in the future and even if not uneven salary difference in the women favor.
Again please watch the video it explains a lot of information in a short time.
http://www.learnliberty.org/content/do-women-earn-less-men
Ok. That is it. DanielBarton.......do not try that Austrian Economics crap with me.
Secondly, all of your articles stated that the chemicals in my body are more suited for the workplace. So, we should probably end that. Except, that is the same tired line that is used to justify the less pay crap.
"what im trying to get across is that women go into fields that just pay less than men."
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Women in Medicine: Are We "There" Yet?: Gender Bias in the Workplace http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/732197_3
I couldn't see the article not a member but what i did read it looked like the job market was improving in the medical field
Im stating facts here women are more likely to enter public sector jobs than men. Its not a bad thing it a career choice. Most people don't chose a career based on its salary its based on preferences. I chose mine because i like engines and manufacturing. My girlfriend picked hers because she wants to deal with nanobots, tissue etc. My friend picked his because he wants to start his own hotel chain. We don't care what me make as long as we can live with it. These are factors and always will be including the factors that are not seen. This is how nature works. we have cause and effect actions most people understand this. I bet even you went into your field with the thought of doing something good and not what type of money you will make.
Paahahahahahaha. I went into college so that I wouldn't be stuck working at a low end job. I thought a lot about making money. I wasn't looking for a whole lot of money. I wanted to live a normal live.
What I didn't realize was that a bunch of dipshits were going to literally kill everything. Hand everything to the Koch heads. Nice job.
Well you went for the wrong reasons. money is just a benefit not the reason most of us go at least in my circle. For example i just learned that my dream may be fulfilled of going into space. We are going to start to mine the moon and asteroids. I want to be on that team that goes and starts it. I would happily do that for free, since it will be a turning point in human kind.
Everyone points right to Koch brothers. I know they are a major influence but end the end they are only two old men who will retire soon. Ignore them there are better things
You have no idea why I went, or what I was trying to achieve. So, save it. You are not adult enough to comprehend the reasons. I am quite aware that it wouldn't matter what reason that I give, you will find some reason to degrade it. You are, if anything, transparent.
You need to pay attention to the Koch brothers and other corporations that write legislation.
You are going to need money to mine those asteroids. You did read that as well. Yeah?
OK no judgement on your past check.
I have been but it looks like everything is checking out with them. Personally there is nothing i can do since they aren't in my state and the don't influence my congressman.
The company needs money to mine the asteroids i don't. I know if i work for them they will pay me a good wage since the risk are high and i will be a specialized worker. This assuming that i can get on the project it will be a very competitive field.
i did find out something cool though any money i make in space is nontaxable since it isn't in a country
[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (600) 10 minutes ago yes it is it will force things into a new space revolution.
and we will finally have our Enterprise.
yep
Glad you liked the link.
i really dont care who im working for as long as im on the team pushing the limits
If you are interested in space, and not already biased against this individual, you may find the following page interesting:
http://larouchepac.com/space
You will find some articles on fusion propulsion, travel to Mars, mining of the moon, and the study of cosmic rays.
thank you for the link
I came across it the other day and read about the money issue.
Any time is a good time to get started even if it takes decades to fully accomplish.
yes it is it will force things into a new space revolution.
DB, I told you to get off this forum !
Why im still for the movement i found and support it.
so im doing good here. Plus its public man you cant get rid of me because we don't agree. It normal to disagree with someone so please have more merit than what you have. If you want to talk about anything message me anytime here
Daniel, These people are generally so whacked out that it doesn't matter what you say. I posted quite a bit in the fall and I found that about 10% of the posters were rational, intelligent people. It was great debate! That number is now down to about 1%.
Here's the key: the higher their post number, the crazier the poster. If their number is over 1,000, they refuse to accept any dogma other than the Marxist-central planning nonsense.
i'll keep posting because honestly i know its working. I see my ideas being tossed around and the realization that not everyone is evil nor is it bad to have a free market society.
im a big advocate of freedom but not for parties. i stay clear of parties because i know that the words are corrupted in joined with a party.
No the problem is the is a 1% on this forum who bully people and make them leave. Its a problem because ideas are not share out of fear. People on this forum became what the set out to destroy its sad that people like this infected the movement outside of the forum for own personal gain.
I agree with you completely. I started posting here last year because I wanted to help make a difference. It was quite interesting until the initial "list of demands" came out. Then the unions became involved.
Posting activity has decreased by about 90% since last fall, and the tone of the conversation has taken a serious downturn. I think we are left with the hardcore, Marxist remnants.
It is sad, but the movement never defined a platform or list of goals. I still support the concept and will continue to post until the website disappears.
I've been posting the ideas of voting for people not party and for tuning the system but not getting rid of it. I know that this system is the best in the world it just got a flat tire that needs fixing
obama and his minions are busy letting the air out of the other tires.
I'm sorry. The GOP and it's neolibe(R)tarain cohorts did that in 2008.
At least get your facts straight.
They slammed the "car" into a wall.
Well put. Keep posting and keep making a difference.
i will every time i have time. Busy college student and i have finals in two weeks
Hey, I resemble that remark. Well, actually I don't, but look at my points, just over a thousand, and I ain't no Marxist Communist.
This is a classic Mike IN O H i O. So glad I found your diamond in the rough.........
Just to get it straight, you say, quote:
These people are generally so whacked out that it doesn't matter what you say.....they refuse to accept any dogma....
LMAO....Right On Man, Right ON!!! I'm with ya!!!
There is no correlation between the number and the mental state of the poster. The higher the number, the more times they've commented, nothing more. It's a completely useless feature, IMO.
I disagree. You are 5 times crazier than I am!
I was making a joke out of the fact that people who post heavily tend to lean farther left than most people. I'll tell you this, there absolutely is a correlation between a foul-mouth and number of posts.
Five times, Mike? Four, four-and-a-half, tops. But you may be on to something in that statement of a correlation between a foul mouth and that number.
It did it again. I can't reply to your last post.
Two of my best friends, who were rip-roaring conservatives in college, are now liberals. Neither has been particularly successful, and one now considers himself a member of the "working poor".
You may be right.
I can't reply to your last post for some reason.
You hit the nail on the head. I think most conservatives feel content, or lucky, while most liberals feel short-changed.
I'm trying to figure out the cause of this phenomenon.
See those grey lines on the left? When there are too many, the "reply" link will disappear, because if you kept replying, your posts would eventually be pushed off the right side of the page.
You up-voted me, man. What are you trying to do, turn me into a crabby old sourpuss?
Is it that conservatives feel content and liberals feel short-changed, or do the content tend to be conservatives, while the less-content become liberal? I would guess the latter, although, admittedly, I haven't spent much time thinking about it.
And you have a sense of humor?
There is also a negative correlation between sense of humor and number of posts, by the way
I have never encountered more foul-mouthed, angry people in my life (except at the Ohio Statehouse union rally in Oct.). Of course, people who post a lot tend to be opinionated so you would expect that, I guess.
It's really a shame that so many people feel like they have been screwed by society. I'm trying to learn the basis of these feelings, and hopefully offer some productive ideas to the conversation.
I implore you, and anyone else reading this thread, to start a massive campaign of down-voting my comments. My sense of humor is far too important to me to jeopardize it with useless 'karma points.'
A lot of you guys misunderstand something though. You believe many of us feel society screwed us specifically. Some feel that way, I'm sure. But, it's more a feeling that society has been screwing ALL of us, whether you feel directly affected by it or not. I think that even the most hardcore anti-OWS people out there would have a hard time denying that, if they would just do some research.
Lol, wow, you are a Republican. Look how you make up correlation stats as you go. Stop it with the staticulation, please. You correlation hypothesis is not even correlation without causation. it is just plain mental masturbation.
Oh, I'll bet you say that to all non hard core (R)epelican'ts.
You need to trademark that word. Maybe you can sell it to King Obama and become one of the 1%?
(Daniel, shooz is 6.43 times crazier than the average 1,000 point wacko. Please be careful)
nah shooz has some good ideas he just puts out alot to the point some become hidden. He does have alot of post but its not as bad as you think. I do try to tell him to let off of the party stuff but he can post what ever he wants. I think he i doing what he thinks best and i have no problem with him .
I go off on WallStreet every chance I get...........:)
o i know you do believe me im mad at them. But i know things just need tuning not redone. its ok we'll never see eye to eye and thats fine
Come back in a month or two and I'll be crazier still.
Your check will still not have cleared though.
OK, he's 4 times crazier, but I still stand by my theory.
the debt that obama has piled on in 3 1/2 years,.......the higher and higher unemployment, obama owns this,..............not bush.
Sorry. This was due to the ongoing crash, and that crash is Bush's and his neolibe(R)tarian cohorts.....100%.
All of it set up for him by WallStreet.
Not surprising, that it took you three days to come up with lame unfactual response.
unlike you,........i don't sit and monitor this site minute by minute,...............you must have an empty life. The truth is,........obama is intentionally killing the usa.
He can't do, what Bush already did, along with the rest of his (R)epelican't colleagues and the Neolibe(R)tarians.
Bush fucked it all up over 8 long years.
In your case, they're probably minimal. LOL.
How is the wage gap calculated?
[Removed]
Divide the median annual earnings for women by the median annual earnings for men.
It is interesting to note that, historically, women's wages were kept low to keep them from living independently.
I don't doubt there is a gap, but that simplified method of calculation inflates it a bit. Coincidently I read an article on this topic this morning and some of the jobs with the biggest disparity are commission driven. That would place some responsibility on the individual. Some of the inequity is also due to women taking time off for raising a family.
I see the cause as being somewhat the reverse of what you say. The archaic attitude some employers still have is that a job is somehow necessary for a man but only a pastime for a woman.
Two years? I heard that before. 'Cept more women are having less children or none at all.
And having a child should not be a consideration in the 1st place as like any guy - when on the job you are on the job - the work gets done or you don't have a job ( unless they are an owner or owners relation then likely they are a back rider anyway and no use to anyone ) - so lame excuse.
No, it shouldn't matter. It's just a bunch of BS all the way around.
Another ploy of the greedy. There are so many.
Greedy tactic 1091. LOL.
{:-) gotta laugh at the shit heads it is good personal defense.
Leaving and having a family puts you on the "mommy track" in a lot of places. There is some choice involved and that influences those average numbers too. I'm not saying there isn't a disparity, just that taking an average and ignoring all the other factors inflates the difference.
It is the potential for mommy track that shows up all too frequently.
HEAR HEAR!!! I interviewed for jobs for 2 years in my field before finding one I would actually take. I showed up for technical interviews and they took one look at me and came up with 'straight, single, fertile woman of breeding age'. I got offered a few jobs, just not the ones I was interviewing for. You don't really care if one of your pretty little sales people misses work for 'mommy' bullshit, but you can't have an engineer or a project manager missing a deadline because little Billy came down with a tummy ache and your lead designer left work in the middle of the day.
Suffice it to say that I finally took a job. Any liberal arts major with a decent technical mind could do my job. I haven't touched CAD software since I started. I came in to interview for a highly technical job, and they offered me the job I currently have.
2 months after I was hired, they hired a man with less technical experience to do the job I originally interviewed for.
I explained 5-axis machining to him this morning.
Life can truly suck. Don't help the asshole who should not be doing the job. I mean it is nice of you to support his keeping a job - but - let everyone see that "YOU" should be doing that job and He should be doing the one they have currently stuck you with. Hell maybe a floor/shop super might have more sense then whoever hired you and maybe that super might have some pull.
Congratulations in finding a somewhat acceptable job and I pray for your recognition and advancement.
Awww... thanks!
The way I see it, I took a job I could do (in my sleep) at a company I can be proud to work for. I absolutely hate the ridiculous, institutionalized sexism that got me here, but I think the company I work for is doing a vital, important, and morally good thing.
I also happen to think American manufacturing could and should be the best in the world and any part I play toward that goal is worthwhile. I am genuinely happy to help the guys, and I see their improved performance as a benefit to the entire system. From an occupy standpoint, I work for one of the good guys.
And to be perfectly honest with you, my anonymous internet pal, I'm playing the long game. In 7 years the owner plans to retire. If I had actually gotten the technical job I was after, I would be stuck in a thousand crises and minute details all day, every day. In my current job, I'm exposed to almost every facet of running the company. I am positioning myself to be the successor to the president when he retires.
Muahahahaha.
Good on you!
I wish you good fortune in your strategy.
So, no other possible reasons come to mind, none? You propagandists come up with Republicans? That's it? Really, get out more and start hanging out with some normal people for a change.
Pull your head out of your ass. Get an argument together and then come back.
[Removed]
What is Spank the Bull?
Spank the Bull! is a 570 page 8.5x11 Occupy Your Mind Art Manifesto
Spank The Bull! will become available to the public for free download in PDF formet. On July 4th 2012
Hard copies of Spank The Bull! will be delivered to New York's Occupy Wall St. General Assembly and other Occupy locations in other states on JUly 4th 2012
To view teaser of Spank the Bull! please visit...
http://www.occupywallstreetmanifesto.org/
or
http://www.spankthebull.org
Thank you so much for yet another triffic post! Glad you're on our side GF!
Really? Should we now legislate minimum salaries for women? Aren't you aware that women have overtaken men in tertiary educational achievement? It seems rather obvious to me that in 10 or 20 years women will be making more than men, on average.
Oh yes, all Republicans hate women. I think that if you would educate yourself you would see that the conspiracies you envision are nothing more than figments of your imagination. Of course, I know this is hard to achieve in Madison.
Way to go extreme there, Mike. Yes, I am aware. It seems rather obvious to me that outsourcing and union busting is making sure that nobody makes money now or in twenty years.
Grow up.
Are you in tears yet? Why don't you run down to the Statehouse and break some windows; I think you will feel better.
You idiots in Madison are the greatest advertisement for the Republican party I have every witnessed. Of course, OWS is a close second. Please, please continue the hysteria.
Unions ruined our automobile and steel industries during the 70's and 80's, and have been ruining our public education system for decades. Union workers (especially public workers) are grossly overpaid by nearly anyone's standards.
In 1955 about 32% of the US workforce was unionized. Since that time it has fallen every single year. It now stand at under 12%.
I, and millions of others who are like me, will not rest until every single corrupt union is as dead as Jimmy Hoffa.
916 (and counting) anti women's rights legislation passed by (R)epelican'ts.
I think it's pretty safe to say they don't like women much.
Maybe someday (after receiving a brain transplant and a university education) you will understand. Until that time I don't hold out much hope.
(R)epelican'ts? Did you think that up all by yourself? It's brilliant!! Geez, I may vote for Obama now.
Pretty good avoid the facts.
Your check still hasn't cleared, and it shows.
We know you hate (R)epelicant's. How do you feel about Democrats? Are you a Democrat?
They haven't passed 916 acts of anti-womens rights legislation.
Do you agree with this behavior?
Of course not, but other politicians sure don't mind. The President, Mr Hope and Change, presides over a White House were women are paid less than men. The most powerful man in the free world and he doesn't have the guts to stand and up and do something. Just like gay marriage, he's too much of a political coward to do the right thing, knowing he has shill's like you cover for him.
You are certainly correct about that! Mr. Hope & Change turned out to be Mr. Do Nothing I promised.
Of course, he did nationalize GM for the benefit of unions, and he did nationalize 25% of the economy (Obamacare). I guess we can give him credit for these wonderful accomplishments.
Do you think Mitt will do any better? I don't. But I think the problem is that both parties are owned by Wall Street. What do you think the problem is?
Yes, I do.
I think we would all be better off with a smaller Federal Government, with more decisions made on the State and local level.
I would be happy to pay a higher tax rate if I knew the money wasn't being pissed away by gigantic Federal agencies (like GSA, Fannie, Freddie, etc.).
Mitt will piss it away on foreign wars and globalization. His whole gig was breaking down American companies and selling them off, wasn't it? We need a leader who can establish an alliance between capital and labor.
I would be for a Republican candidate if there was a good one, but I think the last good one was Eisenhauer.
Both Mitt and Obama are likely to get us into wars that could quickly go beyond the local level of a single country in the middle east. Both Syria and Iran are closely connected to Russia and China, and if either of our guys as presidents goes in to those countries, they are likely to get us into a possibly terminal conflict with those other super powers.
I guess my point is that who ever becomes president, we need additional systems which insure that a president would be immediately impeached if he even moved towards getting us into a foreign war. I think this is necessary for the world's survival.
The president should also be impeached if refuses to take the steps necessary to revive the economy, which is to pass Glass Steagall, and to start a recovery program like the New Deal that would put millions of young people to work learning trades. Both of these are absolutely necessary to insure our survival.
No, investment bankers aren't in the business of tearing up companies, although it does happen. They are in the business of investing in companies that aren't performing well, and need money. The new investment usually requires some degree of voting power in the company. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It' just like you being asked to invest in the local tavern- you are going to want to have some say in the business if you are going to invest $40,000.
Don't buy the GS regulation argument.
I'm not buying anybody's argument, I'm just looking around at the economy today, and its a disaster. And these people, including Mitt and Obama, and the people they represent or are associated with are responsible for it. If they don't want to take responsibility for it, why would we want them for our leaders? I don't believe that invisible hands or market forces are causing our problem, its real people.
Let's get responsible people to be president, and if we can't, we have to become responsible, by insisting on certain parameters for the presidency that would insure the essentials for our survival in these days of insanity.
You make excellent points, as always.
Let me think about it for a while and maybe we will chat again. I would say this, though. The invisible hand is the consensus of the people.
Ok, by the way, did you receive the article on the history of Wall Street that I sent you?
Now that you are distracted. Let's get you back on point.
Care to enumerate the amount of (R)epelican'ts and Democrats involved in ALEC?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Politicians
[Removed]
I'm curious, how do you intend to right this supposed wrong? Should a Federal Agency be formed to review every woman's salary. Or would it be better if the Feds sent every woman $11,000 per year?
The women who vote Republican tend to be successful, educated people. They simply don't fit into your "victim" culture.
Good luck with the selfish money grab. Maybe you can get all the overpaid teachers to contribute.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb202
The question is not, how am I going to right this wrong? You see, the bill that was repealed allowed an avenue to pursue for recourse. It isn't about asking for women to receive an $11,000 a year check from the Feds.
But since you, in all your mighty little glory, are opposed to unions and firmly support this repeal, then the question here, is what are YOU going to do about it?
That's right, knuckle head, where is your big ass answer?
You don't have one. While I am at it. let me throw this in as a reply to another one of your dipshit posts: I am pretty sure that if I showed up to my state house to protest this, they would be utterly confused.
My God. I don't think this dip has heard of the IRS or W2's or employer reporting. Yeah tracking that kind of information would be just next to impossible. sheesh.
I don't think he has heard of any of this. He got lost in his own shit.
Wonder if he is from farm country - got kicked in the head by a cow or horse or something. Anyway I know he has a difficult time connecting to reality.
It's highly possible.
Corn country round therabouts - could it have an ethanol problem? It is just not the same as corn liquor, but some do have to experiment.
That's too funny.
Probly smokes corn silk too. I reckon.
I have never heard of people smoking corn silk.
You have not met enough farm boys. Corn cob pipes too.
Now, now, I know you people aren't getting your way, and I know you throw temper-tantrums when you don't. Viva Scott Walker!
I wouldn't do anything about it because it doesn't exist. You blame your shortcomings on the "system". There simply isn't a conspiracy to deny women equal pay.
I would guess that your pay isn't as high as you wish because you are a foul-mouthed, know-it-all whackjob who believes in conspiracies. Who would want to employ you? Not me.
Ah, look, the little Koch whore wants to play.
Get an argument together or shut the fuck up.
Again, you really make yourself look foolish talking like that.
I would suggest using your "energy" to work on the Walker recall campaign. It appears you have plenty of spare time.
The only fool here is you. Keep up-the recall election is June 5th.
I'll be watching! Expect a crushing defeat.
[Removed]
I think there may be some gender biases, however I think the GOP will support any move that lowers wages for anyone, I think they hate all workers. I don’t think that makes them less evil, and in truth I think it is a matter of convenience for them, they just figure it’s one more group they can keep accustomed to less, the more people who accept less the more that’s left for them.
I agree. In fact, when they say that the wage gap is lessening, they aren't taking into account the men's wages are stagnant and that the value of the dollar has decreased.
[Removed]
all wages are collasping to zero...well not quite
Just the important ones. :D
true
Now if we just manage to hang on long enough to see it happen to the wasteful ones.
We could just run them the hell out.
I like your idea very much.
They can either operate fairly or GTFO.
I like that idea with an added dash of pay reparations and visit the gray bar hotel on your way out.
Ooooh....added dashes...
Gotsta season it just right.
yeah, although sometimes adding salt directly to the big gaping wound hurts more.
Again I like it. Though it still would not go far enough in making them understand the pain they have caused to millions - In my opinion.
I agree with you there.
How about inflict a million paper cuts then alternately spray it with alcohol and saline? Still not enough I know.
Well apparently we have roused the ire of a greedy corrupt supporting troll. How nice it is being quiet about it.
[Removed]