More evidence that the "Gender Wage Gap" is complete, utter nonsense, with no basis in reality. (self.TheRedPill)

{TheRedPill}

193 ups - 55 downs = 138 votes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/

I almost have a half mind to post this in /r/feminism and watch the hamsters go absolutely thermonuclear, but I'd rather not burn brain cells.


Childless Women In Their Twenties Out-Earn Men. So?

By MATTHEW ROUSU

Last month, President Obama repeated an often-recited line that women “make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns” and that “a woman deserves equal pay for equal work.” This isn’t a new argument; politicians and others have used these types of statements for years to vilify big businesses as anti-women. Over a decade ago when she was a senator, Hillary Clinton attempted to pass the “paycheck protection act,” claiming it was un-American for firms to discriminate against women.

But this is misleading. The statistic Obama cites is only the average difference between men and women, across all jobs. It doesn’t control for the types of job, the number of hours worked or for time taken off (to raise children, for example).

If you insist that the gender wage gap is a result of discrimination against women, here are a few other claims that must be equally true. By the same logic, young men are discriminated against in favor of young women. Women in their 20s without children out-earn men by as much as $1.08 to every dollar, according to some estimates. It must also be true that white men are discriminated against in favor of Asian-American men, who earn over 5 percent more than white men. To claim either of these as discrimination would be ridiculous, though, right? There are differences in job types, education levels, hours worked, and other factors that lead to these wage differentials. But these factors are just as responsible for the overall difference in wages between men and women.

Once you control for factors such as college major, time off of the labor force to raise children, and hours worked per week, the gender wage gap essentially disappears. A big part of the difference in pay is due to the choice of jobs: women choose to enter career fields that pay less than those that men choose. Women are still more likely to be Kindergarten teachers while men are more likely to work in finance. In short, firms aren’t discriminating against women. The reality remains that women, on average, do earn less than men. But to blame it on discrimination is misguided.

Solutions to the gender wage gap aren’t simple. Taking time off from a job, or working fewer hours, will reduce one’s earning potential, but many people (rightly) relish the opportunity to take time off to raise children. There are no easy policy recommendations to deal with the loss of earning power for those who take time off to raise children. But there is one thing we can do that would decrease the gender wage gap with no negative consequences: ensure that women are encouraged to pursue work in high-paying industries.

In the not-so-distant past, when our society deemed some work as “women’s work”, women were often discouraged by parents, teachers, companies and others from pursuing certain high-skill jobs. Thankfully these attitudes aren’t as prominent today, but they still persist. Girls should be encouraged at a young age to achieve excellence in math and be encouraged to consider pursuing degrees that will allow them into high-paying sectors of the economy like engineering, finance and computer science.

Women may earn less than men, but causes are more complex than the cries of discrimination we hear from politicians. When politicians mislead the public on this issue, the consequence is our delay in solving the real problem.

Matthew Rousu is professor of economics at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa.

70 comments submitted at 19:33:39 on Feb 26, 2014 by JP_Whoregan

  • [-]
  • bedroomacrobat
  • -7 Points
  • 07:14:38, 27 February

great point, but there would also be a lot more lawsuits. just remember, someone sued mcdonalds for their coffee being hot.... who woulda guessed.

  • [-]
  • Humble_harpdarp
  • 6 Points
  • 10:16:21, 27 February

Dude, no. That coffee wasn't just hot, it was boiling, and I think they didn't put the top on right either. She had like third degree burns.

  • [-]
  • bedroomacrobat
  • -1 Points
  • 17:03:21, 27 February

"Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10]"

So, she did everything like a retard, and as far as I can tell it wasn't boiling. (Also, most things tend to stop boiling after you take them off of the burner they are on)

Also, your statement is dumb.. How do you want your "hot coffee" served? Hot? Or room temperature? It's still served at the same temperature's today. She literally did everything herself that caused her own injuries

  • [-]
  • pokemonlvr
  • 2 Points
  • 17:18:41, 27 February

The coffee was well above just "hot". McDonald's at the time didn't want people getting refills on their coffees, so would make it extremely hot so the customer wouldn't finish the cup until their meal was done.

  • [-]
  • bedroomacrobat
  • -1 Points
  • 17:24:25, 27 February

Do you know how coffee is made? Usually it involves boiling water... How else would one possibly expect the coffee to come out? Cold? (inb4 inced coffee teehee)

So, they boil the water, get the coffee made, then serve it to her because she's at the drive through. Or no, is your male hamster suggesting that they wait 10 minutes for it to cool down, holding up the rest of the drivethrough to serve it to her?

  • [-]
  • pokemonlvr
  • 2 Points
  • 17:27:24, 27 February

Judges throw ridiculous cases out of court all the time. Why was this one the exception if not for the fact that coffee should not be able to give someone third degree burns.

Also: male hamster? Really? Stop trying to show how alpha you are.

  • [-]
  • bedroomacrobat
  • -1 Points
  • 20:03:05, 27 February

> Judges throw ridiculous cases out of court all the time.

Judges also make terrible decisions ALL the time. Come on now, just how biased are judges towards men? What a terrible argument.

> Why was this one the exception if not for the fact that coffee should not be able to give someone third degree burns.

Except:

> they also argued that the coffee was not defective because McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards,[2] and coffee continues to be served as hot or hotter today at McDonald's and chains like Starbucks.

> Since Liebeck, major vendors of coffee, including Chick-Fil-A,[22] Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King,[23] hospitals,[24] and McDonald's[25] have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. The courts in these lawsuits did not find hot coffee unreasonably dangerous or defectively manufactured.

> In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two locations tested served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[26]

tl;dr your arguments are weak. "welp just cause a judge allowed it and didn't throw it out means that mcdonalds did in fact serve too hot of coffee" wait what? do you even understand how courts work?

  • [-]
  • dostoyevskian
  • 1 Points
  • 00:00:47, 28 February

Read the judgement. It was considered and decided upon by vastly more intelligent people than you and I, and they considered a huge amount of evidence, which you clearly have not read.

Mcdonalds were negligent.

  • [-]
  • bedroomacrobat
  • 0 Points
  • 02:07:28, 28 February

> they also argued that the coffee was not defective because McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards,[2] and coffee continues to be served as hot or hotter today at McDonald's and chains like Starbucks. > > Since Liebeck, major vendors of coffee, including Chick-Fil-A,[22] Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King,[23] hospitals,[24] and McDonald's[25] have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. The courts in these lawsuits did not find hot coffee unreasonably dangerous or defectively manufactured. > > In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two locations tested served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[26]

^ My reply to an earlier post.

Ok, so they're negligent which is exactly why they haven't changed the temperature that they serve their coffee at, and several other chains that serve coffee serve it at the EXACT same temperature?

I don't want to sound annoyed, but you guys are either brilliant trolls or straight up stupid. This is completely ignoring the fact that the lady spilled the damn coffee on herself. Are you then suggesting that if I make a pot of coffee with my homebrewer, and decide to pour it over my face, I can sue the company that made my homebrewer? STRONG LOGIC.

  • [-]
  • dostoyevskian
  • 1 Points
  • 03:10:46, 28 February

I assume you've read the case, and can point out logical flaws with the judicial reasoning?

Please do so, because it is one of the most straightforward cases I've read.

  • [-]
  • randomdude600
  • -1 Points
  • 13:18:19, 27 February

Who'd a thunk that coffee be hot, also she used her crotch as a cup holder