Women have kept wages low....
Mon, 2008-01-07 09:57
#1
rural - Francesca
Women have kept wages low....
Mon, 2008-01-07 09:57
#2
rural - Francesca
...it's all our fault
From: [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080104.wliveincome0... and Mail[/url]
quote:
[b]Donald Campbell, Meaford, Ont.[/b]: In my view, the reason that incomes have not increased proportionately is that women entered the workforce in greater numbers in the 1970s, and began to compete with men for most jobs.This, in effect, doubled the supply of available labour and continues to suppress wages.
[b]Dr. Nicholson: [/b] Donald, there may well be a gender effect on income distribution — the entry of more women in the labour force has certainly helped to support family incomes — but I am not familiar with studies that have established a depressing effect on wages as a result of more women in the workplace.
This has not been cited as a significant factor in the extensive academic literature on income inequality in the U.S., as far as I am aware.
We do see plenty of evidence of pressure on wages in a number of traditional male-dominated occupational categories, particularly in the manufacturing sector. But these would not be due to "competition" from new female entrants.
You could refer for further information to a 2001 paper by Marie Drolet of Statistics Canada entitled "The Persistent Gap: New Evidence on the Canadian Gender Wage Gap" and to a recent report from TD Economics "Markets are a Woman's Best Friend" (Sept. 25, 2007).
[ 07 January 2008: Message edited by: rural - Francesca ]
Mon, 2008-01-07 10:29
#3
I've heard this so many times before - it's feminism that made it impossible for a single-income family to survive!
Maybe if unpaid work weren't, well, UNPAID and unvalued, and the people who did it weren't considered much more than chattel to the main wage earner, and it was considered okay for MEN to stay home and women to work outside the home, then a one income family as the norm would be acceptable. But, socially constructed as it was, it was not.
As someone mentioned in another thread, I'm sure that abolishing slavery was probably also economically difficult for everyone. But you know what? Civil rights are more important than economic inconvenience.
Mon, 2008-01-07 10:43
#4
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Civil rights are more important than economic inconvenience.[/b]
Exactly, and men like, Donald Campbell, of Meaford, Ont who state it is women's fault, sound like petulant children who unfaitly want it all.
Moreover, if this was the case, and woman in Canada have doubled the supply of labour, thereby supressing wages, why then are their job shortages with our having to import people to fill labour market shortages? Could imagine how much "male" labour would have to be imported, if women were not working? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Why aren't these men screaming about the millions of dollars in salary CEO's are collecting? They are the ones supressing front line workers wages, so they themselves can have more.
Mon, 2008-01-07 10:55
#5
Maysie
This thread is bringing up a number of random thoughts from my brain:
* This standard phraseology never ceases to irk me: "Women" did not enter the workforce in greater numbers in the 70s. White middle class married women entered the paid workforce in record numbers in the 70s. Single and married women of colour and working class white women have never left the paid workforce.
* Unions, it could also be argued, and I know it is, can be blamed for increasing the standard of living with all their "fair wages" and incremental wage increases, leading to employers not being able to pay the cheapest wage possible. (insert smilie of The Man stamping His foot and making a pouty face)
*I found the following very telling; it's good that it's being talked about, although the dry academic tone is disturbing:
quote:
While poverty is still, and may always be, a significant problem, it is increasingly concentrated in certain groups — e.g. single mothers, certain new immigrants, aboriginal people. Great strides have been made in reducing poverty among Canada's elderly.
Mon, 2008-01-07 11:10
#6
The comment posted in the G&M is so useless I don't know why this is worth even discussing.
Mon, 2008-01-07 11:21
#7
Because this is one of those anti-feminist myths that keep cropping up here and there. So why not discuss it if it comes up?
You can, of course, feel free to not discuss it or address it at all if you feel it's not worth discussing.
Mon, 2008-01-07 11:25
#8
rural - Francesca
Well considering Meaford is a mere 20 minutes to the East of me, I NEED to discuss it.
The attitudes towards women in our rural community are horrendous. Add poverty to the mix and you get some pretty nasty situations.
Mon, 2008-01-07 11:34
#9
From experiences I have been privy to,women have kept their wages low by accepting the dictates of superiors to allow men to take over successful projects just prior to completion.
They have also kept their wages low by not rising to the challenge when told that their wardrobe,social position,golf handicap etc are limiting their ability to be promoted.
Additionally,they keep their wages low by accepting promotions that do not change their pay grade while men are offered pay grade raises that do not promote them but still include a nicer office with a window.
Mon, 2008-01-07 11:45
#10
rural - Francesca
[img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] Well gee whiz, and all this time I thought it was:
- the boss who told me if I made a fuss about my wage I'd get fired (and what single parent of two children living in a town of 2 500 wants to get fired)
- the same boss who did find me an extra $50 a month when the ex and I split because obviously now I "needed" the money, not that I was doing a better or worse job - my "needs" changed
I have never let a man take credit for my work, and have been told off for having such an attitude
I've never taken 'perks' over money, give me money!! I want MONEY!!!
I've watched my daughter get told she can't even apply for a job, over the phone, just because she's a girl. The then un-named employer phoned and apologized when I wrote about the experience in my column.
You're attitude is so pissy that it is all the women's fault they don't make money. What tripe!
We just don't play the BS game of kissing ass, we want our work to speak for itself.
Mon, 2008-01-07 11:47
#11
Okay, the reason the original post is useless is not so much because it is offensive to equal rights (if his claim was true, it would be worth discussing in spite of such implications), but mostly because it fails as an economic argument. It fails for the same reason the "immigrants take all our jobs" complaint fails. It's because [i]the labour force is not growing faster than the economy[/i], except for during a few brief periods of recession. So if you take out one element of labour force growth, it doesn't make for more jobs, because you've also removed an enabler of overall economic growth.
The post reveals an incredibly simplistic view of economics. It puts me in mind of people arguing that we wouldn't have a birthrate below replacement if there were no abortions. It looks reasonable at first glance but it also happens to be demonstrably not true.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that.
[ 07 January 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]
Mon, 2008-01-07 11:52
#12
quote:
From experiences I have been privy to,women have kept their wages low by accepting the dictates of superiors to allow men to take over successful projects just prior to completion.
They have also kept their wages low by not rising to the challenge when told that their wardrobe,social position,golf handicap etc are limiting their ability to be promoted.Additionally,they keep their wages low by accepting promotions that do not change their pay grade while men are offered pay grade raises that do not promote them but still include a nicer office with a window.
Disgusting post Jester... It's the 'womens fault for allowing it'? I'm hoping you're being sarcastic.
I find this reminiscent of a sarcastic article saying the 'bloody feminists' are responsible for an increase in traffic deaths due to the males they piss off being more suseptable to road rage [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-01-07 12:48
#13
remind
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]From experiences I have been privy to,women have kept their wages low by accepting the dictates of superiors to allow men to take over successful projects just prior to completion.They have also kept their wages low by not rising to the challenge when told that their wardrobe,social position,golf handicap etc are limiting their ability to be promoted.
Additionally,they keep their wages low by accepting promotions that do not change their pay grade while men are offered pay grade raises that do not promote them but still include a nicer office with a window.[/b]
In case you are not being sarcastic
1. we are not talking woman's wages being kept low, but about accusations that we keep men's wages low too.
2. The challenges you express that we need to rise to are nonsense.
3. As for your last point, huh?!
Mon, 2008-01-07 16:15
#14
[img]http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/jesteronomy/wink.jpg[/img]
![http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/jesteronomy/wink.jpg[/img]](http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/jesteronomy/wink.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
There,Noise. feel better now?
Of course I'm being sarcastic. All three examples are of women who worked for a major bank.All three worked for this particular institution for over 20 years. Through the ranks from part-time teller to the highest reaches of low-paying positions.
Right to a full-court press against the glass ceiling. You know, the one that separates the men from the minions.
The first instance is a FN woman who worked her ass off establishing an aboriginal lending program for on-reserve housing. She did a fabulous job but just before signing an agreement with a major band, her VP asked if one of his guys could "sit in" on the meeting. The upshot was that the lending program was transferred to this guy who got a promotion while my friend was given a mandate to make a minimum of 40 cold calls per day on top of her regular duties and appointments.
The second one is of another friend,a single mother. Another hard worker,a real driver,she was informed that if she applied for a promotion,she wouldn't get it because so-and-so was much better dressed and his church and social connections would generate more business than my friend could.
The third lady also worked hard but when she tried to get a raise,a higher pay grade in her position,she was told there was no money in the budget but that she could have a promotion to another position but with the same pay grade and the same office-a cubicle below standard for her position.. At the same time,a man at the bank in an inferior position was given a raise and an over standard office because he was basically, a good golfer.
Mon, 2008-01-07 16:30
#15
Thanks for clarifying, jester. I couldn't quite believe that you were serious on that one.
Mon, 2008-01-07 16:37
#16
rural - Francesca
phew - got me all hot and bothered you did [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-01-07 17:14
#17
Yeah well....I try to be more coherent and get sniped at for using big words - a lot of big words- all together in a sentence and everything. This communicating without body language or rude noises is no easy gig.
I keep trying to think of women I know that are in well paid positions of power and the ones I come up with didn't come up through the ranks. Mostly through family,especially husbands with pull. And....they're all white.
Tue, 2008-01-08 06:43
#18
Heh, thats what I had hoped Jester... And why I listed one of the funnier sarcastic ones I've seen. Internet sarcasm is hard to catch [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
I'm so stealing that wink url
And a quick alteration to one of your quotes:
quote:
This communicating without body language [b]to[/b] rude Noises is no easy gig
[ 08 January 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]