The Binder is a lie.

[Ziggurat]

I really do believe it is pretty bad, but not that bad;

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html

As long as it isn't 100% we have a huge problem.

So if it's 99.9%, that's a huge problem? I think you have a funny definition of "huge".

Furthermore, why is it a problem? Most of the difference seems to come from differences in career choices. But is that something that even needs fixing? Why should men and women have, in aggregate, the same career preferences as men? And is it even possible for government to do much about that? I think the answer to both is no.

As a specific example:
"Unsurprisingly, children play an important role in men and women’s work-life decisions. Simply put, women who have children or plan to have children tend to be willing to trade higher pay for more kid-friendly positions. In contrast, men with children typically seek to earn more money in order to support children, sometimes taking on more hours and less attractive positions to do so."

Again, is that something that should be "fixed"? Is it possible to fix that? And Are we sure the results would be an improvement? I've seen multiple sources note that other developed countries have lower gender pay gaps than the US. But most other developed countries also have lower birth rates than us too. Given that some of the gap is attributable to differences in the choices men and women make in response to having children, I think there's a direct connection. If policies that decrease the gap end up further decreasing our birth rate, then they aren't necessarily good for us in the long term. I think we've already recently dropped below replacement rate, it would be very bad to get into the kind of demographic death spiral some other developed countries are already in.

 

[A'isha]

It sure would have been nice if Romney actually talked about all these issues when he was directly asked about them, instead of bringing up binders full of women.

 

[Brainster]

I really do believe it is pretty bad, but not that bad;

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html

As long as it isn't 100% we have a huge problem.

From the article:

That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics.

So right off the bat, we've gone from 72 cents to 77 cents as of 2008. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that women's pay has regressed under Obama? But wait, there's more:

Some say 77% is overly grim. One reason: it doesn't account for individual differences between workers. Once you control for factors like education and experience, notes Francine Blau — who, along with fellow Cornell economist Lawrence Kahn, published a study on the 1998 wage gap — women's earnings rise to 81% of men's.

So there's another 4 cents; can we shake another dime or so out? Why, yes, we can!

Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%.

Imagine that! Without any government intervention whatsoever, we have eliminated over 2/3rds of the reported pay gap.

 

[BenBurch]

So 91% is acceptable? Nope. Nor is 99.9% as long as that isn't a temporary blip as it swings back and forth around 100.

 

[Unabogie]

From the article:



So right off the bat, we've gone from 72 cents to 77 cents as of 2008. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that women's pay has regressed under Obama? But wait, there's more:



So there's another 4 cents; can we shake another dime or so out? Why, yes, we can!



Imagine that! Without any government intervention whatsoever, we have eliminated over 2/3rds of the reported pay gap.

So even after all that, women still earn less than men.

 

[Minoosh]

Obama did the same thing with some questions, so I can't fault Romney much.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So right off the bat, we've gone from 72 cents to 77 cents as of 2008. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that women's pay has regressed under Obama?

Does that mean women have equal pay now?

And funny that Romney decided to ignore the question altogether.

 

[A'isha]

Imagine that! Without any government intervention whatsoever, we have eliminated over 2/3rds of the reported pay gap.

And what's right after that sentence you quoted?

That's partly because women tend to cluster in lower-paying fields. The most-educated swath of women, for example, gravitates toward the teaching and nursing fields. Men with comparable education become business executives, scientists, doctors and lawyers — jobs that pay significantly more.

Still, workers don't choose their industry in a vacuum. "Why do you think [male-dominated industries] are sex-segregated?" says Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. "Very often women aren't welcome there." Real or perceived, discrimination in certain sectors could discourage women from seeking employment there. A dearth of role models might, in turn, influence the next generation of girls to gravitate toward lower-paying fields, creating an unfortunate cycle.

The article follows that up with:

But industry doesn't tell the whole story. Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers, for instance, earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts. Perhaps the most compelling — and potentially damning — data of all to suggest that gender has an influence comes from a 2008 study in which University of Chicago sociologist Kristen Schilt and NYU economist Matthew Wiswall examined the wage trajectories of people who underwent a sex change. Their results: even when controlling for factors like education, men who transitioned to women earned, on average, 32% less after the surgery. Women who became men, on the other hand, earned 1.5% more.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Imagine that! Without any government intervention whatsoever, we have eliminated over 2/3rds of the reported pay gap.

So if that's Romney's position, I'll bet he doesn't have the guts ever to say it.

Q: What would you as POTUS do about the gender pay gap?
A: Nothing whatsoever. It'll go away by itself eventually.

I suppose that's why he didn't even attempt to answer the question.

 

[Brainster]

And what's right after that sentence you quoted?

Do you really believe there are a lot of high-paying fields where women aren't welcome? Law and medicine? Nope. Maybe some Wall Street fields which require heavy mathematics, or engineering, but again, that violates the similar education issue.

The article follows that up with:

Is there any good reason why female truck drivers might earn less than men? Well, there is the obvious issue of upper body strength; if they have to lift what they haul, it's pretty apparent that the man is going to be much more productive. Male secretaries make more than female ones? Could it be because they are more willing to work late on a rush job, while the woman has to pick up her kids from daycare?

I'm not saying that there's no discrimination in pay between men and women. But I suspect it's a lot smaller than the absurd 28 cents on the dollar quoted by the questioner. Indeed, I've always felt that if there were really that kind of pay gap between men and women of similar skills, experience and work habits at any company, it would be relatively easy for a competitor to hire all its women away at (say) 86 cents on the dollar. The women would get a pretty nifty pay increase, and the competitor would still have a 14% labor cost advantage.

 

[Puppycow]

So even after all that, women still earn less than men.

I'm going to side with Brainster here: if we're going to have this debate, let's have it based on real numbers, not bogus numbers. The numbers in the 70% range that get thrown around so often are bogus from a scientific point of view because they are just raw numbers. A good scientist wouldn't design a study without a control group, and a good social scientist shouldn't cite raw, uncontrolled numbers as if they were meaningful.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm going to side with Brainster here: if we're going to have this debate, let's have it based on real numbers, not bogus numbers. The numbers in the 70% range that get thrown around so often are bogus from a scientific point of view because they are just raw numbers. A good scientist wouldn't design a study without a control group, and a good social scientist shouldn't cite raw, uncontrolled numbers as if they were meaningful.

I don't know what the actual numbers are, but if you take Brainster's entire argument as gospel truth, and accept everything he claimed with that link, women still earn less than men. That's all I was pointing out.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know what the actual numbers are, but if you take Brainster's entire argument as gospel truth, and accept everything he claimed with that link, women still earn less than men. That's all I was pointing out.

I'm with Unabogie on this one. Quibbling over the numbers doesn't support the notion that there is no problem, or that the policy that will get you elected is to say let free market forces handle it. I'm sure it will. . . . eventually.

But again, Romney didn't say that. He just ignored the question and instead talked about "if you're going to have women in the workforce" which is a question that has long since been settled and ought not ever be raised again as a serious matter of debate.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm going to side with Brainster here: if we're going to have this debate, let's have it based on real numbers, not bogus numbers. The numbers in the 70% range that get thrown around so often are bogus from a scientific point of view because they are just raw numbers. A good scientist wouldn't design a study without a control group, and a good social scientist shouldn't cite raw, uncontrolled numbers as if they were meaningful.

While I lean left, I, too have to side somewhat with Brainster. I am not convinced the numbers in the 70s are entirely accurate. It is difficult to identify all the variables that go into setting pay rates and even more difficult to back them out of the calculations to the point that the only remaining variable is the sex of the worker.

I am not saying there is pay equality, I am just saying that the 70% range is a bit off.


ETA: on the other hand, if a man and woman are hired on the same day for an entry level position, their pay rates should be identical.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

A woman's place is in her binder, obviously.

I'll give you my binder when you take it from my cold, dead hands.

 

[AvalonXQ]

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/barack-obamas-white-house-pays-women-18-percent-less-men

A quick Google search will also show how women in the Obama administration feel marginalized and consider it a hostile work environment for women.

The "binders full of women" and picking apart Romney's words are necessary because throughout his career, Romney's record on hiring women has been far superior to Obama.

It's Big Bird all over again - form over substance. And fortunately, it won't win Obama any votes.

 

[Tricky]

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/barack-obamas-white-house-pays-women-18-percent-less-men

A quick Google search will also show how women in the Obama administration feel marginalized and consider it a hostile work environment for women.

The "binders full of women" and picking apart Romney's words are necessary because throughout his career, Romney's record on hiring women has been far superior to Obama.

It's Big Bird all over again - form over substance. And fortunately, it won't win Obama any votes.

Secretary of State, two Supreme Court justices, nine members of the Cabinet, signing the Lilly Ledbetter act... Seems like a whole lot of substance to me.

I don't think you're making a very good case, Avalon. Women see Obama as a champion of women's rights. And the statistics bear this out.

 

[joobz]

Romney's big mistake here was that he revieled simply how anachronistic his views are. His answer was as out of touch as "a series of tubes".

 

[Olowkow]

Willard's binders ====>Rabid Nerd's Swill

Anagram

 

[AvalonXQ]

Secretary of State, two Supreme Court justices, nine members of the Cabinet, signing the Lilly Ledbetter act... Seems like a whole lot of substance to me.

And yet when he has employees of his own, he underpays and marginalizes women. It sounds like he only "walks the walk" when it scores him points and doesn't affect him personally.