SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 [2] 3 Next > Last »
Statistical stupidity
Author Message
shzl400


Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #21
19-12-2007 09:31 AM

It should be noted that the project management skills required to keep a family fed, clothed and in the right place at the right time with the right kit far exceed those required from me at work. Frankly, I go to work for a rest!!

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #22
19-12-2007 10:26 AM

shzl400 Wrote:
It should be noted that the project management skills required to keep a family fed, clothed and in the right place at the right time with the right kit far exceed those required from me at work. Frankly, I go to work for a rest!!


!!! Hilarious.
Fine, don't expect paying for it, then.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #23
19-12-2007 10:32 AM

baggydave Wrote:
If we did not have kids then there would be nobody to drive your buses, stack your shelves or change your nappies when you are in old age. Society needs to build this into the equation (ie that we need to procreate) when we look at earning potential, and at the least the female of the species has to have a few months off when producing off-spring. Personally I would love to be in a situation where the man does more of the child raising (despite all my dreadful traits). Look to Sweden where the male is forced to take off a long period of paternity leave.
Don't know what this thread is even doing here, surely people cannot support some of the views. Even BD draws a line in his irreverent comments.

BD - burning his dinner.

BD -


Nobody's telling you not to have kids. I just don't think you should get a medal for it, I don't think politicians should vote through rent-seeking tax breaks for those who have them ("Under a Conservative government, more money will be redistributed from people like them to people like me!"), and I don't think that all laws of common sense are suspended just when one can go "Awww, goo goo ga ga" at one's offspring.

And Roz, your leap to accusations of misogyny is as unsurprising as it is nonsensical.

Find all posts by this user Reply
shzl400


Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #24
19-12-2007 11:49 AM

Baboonery Wrote:

shzl400 Wrote:
It should be noted that the project management skills required to keep a family fed, clothed and in the right place at the right time with the right kit far exceed those required from me at work. Frankly, I go to work for a rest!!


!!! Hilarious.
Fine, don't expect paying for it, then.


Paying for the work or the child raising? I appreciate I might be on dodgy ground for the former....

Find all posts by this user Reply
Jane


Posts: 52
Joined: Jan 2007
Post: #25
19-12-2007 01:10 PM

This whole exchange is quite unpleasant. I feel sorry for people who don't like children - fine to decide you don't want any or of course if you can't - but not liking them is must give you an ulcer - all that bile. Ultimately we are put on this earth to procreate-it's a fact of nature. I wasn't crazy about kids in general until I had some of my own and your whole world changes for the better. Perhaps you'll find that out for yourself one day Baboonery, but until then revel in the fact that you can spend more of your own hard-earned dosh on yourself.
My Dad was a Tory and I well remember his Conservative club banning females from the bar except on Sunday evenings (he changed all that when he became chair).
Life for women in this country has changed enormously since my parents' generation. My mother was not allowed to continue being a nurse after she married - many of my former colleagues in the City (in the 90s) believed that women should stay at home once they had children and made sexist comments when they returned. Thank heavens we now have legislation to better protect the rights of women and greater equality in the workplace - but there is still a long way to go in terms of equal salaries! We can thank the EU for most of this - ooh good I can hear another diatribe on the way!
Also, I could retire next year at 60 but will slog on until 65 because I have a child who will not leave school until I reach that age. A lot of childless people are in a position to retire early because they have not had all the extra expense of raising a family.
There are pluses and minuses but a little tolerance and humour wouldn't go amiss.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #26
19-12-2007 01:37 PM

Jane Wrote:
This whole exchange is quite unpleasant. I feel sorry for people who don't like children - fine to decide you don't want any or of course if you can't - but not liking them is must give you an ulcer - all that bile. Ultimately we are put on this earth to procreate-it's a fact of nature. I wasn't crazy about kids in general until I had some of my own and your whole world changes for the better. Perhaps you'll find that out for yourself one day Baboonery, but until then revel in the fact that you can spend more of your own hard-earned dosh on yourself.
My Dad was a Tory and I well remember his Conservative club banning females from the bar except on Sunday evenings (he changed all that when he became chair).
Life for women in this country has changed enormously since my parents' generation. My mother was not allowed to continue being a nurse after she married - many of my former colleagues in the City (in the 90s) believed that women should stay at home once they had children and made sexist comments when they returned. Thank heavens we now have legislation to better protect the rights of women and greater equality in the workplace - but there is still a long way to go in terms of equal salaries! We can thank the EU for most of this - ooh good I can hear another diatribe on the way!
Also, I could retire next year at 60 but will slog on until 65 because I have a child who will not leave school until I reach that age. A lot of childless people are in a position to retire early because they have not had all the extra expense of raising a family.
There are pluses and minuses but a little tolerance and humour wouldn't go amiss.


The portion that I'm not giving to you so you can spend it on yourself, you mean.

And please don't tell me you feel sorry for me. I appreciate you don't mean it as arrogantly as a previous poster did, but I really don't want you to feel sorry for me just because I 'don't like children'. I could turn it round and feel sorry for you that a biological happenstance has changed you into some illogical

By the way, I've never said I don't like children. I don't like children making nuisance in public, or parents who blithely allow this to happen, don't think it's a problem, think it's an inevitable consequence of being a child and should just be ignored for some reason, or fob it off with a glib "but having children is the most wonderful experience ever, man, and I feel sorry for you if you don't". I don't want any of my own, but that may change one day, and anyway, it doesn't mean I dislike them. My friends who have children think I'm great with them. I don't like the cult of family friendliness when it impinges on other people, I don't like distortions to the tax system to favour one particular lifestyle choice over another, but I've never said I don't like children. So please stop saying I have, because it's a lie.

I've plenty of tolerance and humour. I'm not getting much, though.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #27
19-12-2007 01:38 PM

Sorry, that sentence should have ended

'some illogical person who sees any objection to a universe centred around meek quiescence to anything parents or children want as being 'bile'.'

Find all posts by this user Reply
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #28
19-12-2007 01:44 PM

Not sure the initial question is being answered here: if the most women on average work for less years in a lifetime than most men, wouldn't the average woman's pay be less than the average man's? Not trying to be controversial here, just interested in the answer without accusations being levelled of misogyny and sexism.

Find all posts by this user Reply
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #29
19-12-2007 01:49 PM

Sorry, that should start, "If most women on average.... " Wink

Find all posts by this user Reply
Elizabeth25


Posts: 212
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #30
19-12-2007 02:54 PM

In the US a government agency had this to say about the pay gap.

"In attempting to explain the discrepancies in pay between men and women, the GAO concluded:


Women in the workforce are also less likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, further suppressing women's wages. These differing work patterns lead to an even larger earnings gap between men and women - suggesting that working women are penalized for their dual roles as wage earners and those who disproportionately care for home and family.

Men with children appear to get an earnings boost, whereas women lose earnings. Men with children earn about 2% more on average than men without children, according to the GAO findings, whereas women with children earn about 2.5% less than women without children.

Women have fewer years of work experience.
"The world today is vastly different than it was in 1983, but sadly, one thing that has remained the same is the pay gap between men and women," said U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York, 14th). "After accounting for so many external factors, it seems that still, at the root of it all, men get an inherent annual bonus just for being men. If this continues, the only guarantees in life will be death, taxes and the glass ceiling. We can't let that happen."

This GAO study updates a 2002 report it conducted at the request of Rep. Maloney, which examined the glass ceiling for female and male managers. This year's study used data from a more comprehensive, longitudinal study - the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. The study also accounted for a slew of external factors for the first time, chief among which were the differences in men's and women's work patterns, including more leave from work to care for family."

In like of some of the posters on this thread I was intrigued by this finding:

"...Men with children earn about 2% more on average than men without children, according to the GAO findings, whereas women with children earn about 2.5% less than women without children."

I wonder how much bile will be thrown over the finding that men earn more when they have children?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Elizabeth25


Posts: 212
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #31
19-12-2007 02:58 PM

Then there is this study which came out this year.

"Women graduates are paid less from the very beginning of their careers, with men earning ?1,000 more than their college classmates within three years of leaving university, according to a major study published today.

Previous research by the Equal Opportunities Commission has shown a national pay gap fuelled by the tendency of women to slip into part-time roles after having children and work in areas such as childcare and cleaning which are paid less.

But these findings suggest that women are paid badly even in fulltime graduate jobs and even before they start to have children, take time out and fall behind in their careers."

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #32
19-12-2007 02:59 PM

Elizabeth25 Wrote:
I wonder how much bile will be thrown over the finding that men earn more when they have children?


What a bilious remark.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Elizabeth25


Posts: 212
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #33
19-12-2007 03:03 PM

From the first post: "Southwark's independent equality and diversity panel brings together representatives of different faiths, sexual orientation, cultures and ages to try to ensure that no one is excluded or misunderstood. While this helps to reduce discrimination, there is still room to improve."

I am surprised that no one has seen the inherent humour is the above. Just how many people are in the committee? It reads like some bad comedy..."..do we have someone in a wheelchair--check, old person?-check--should be include the toddlers just because they can't form complete sentences?--I mean we wouldn't want them 'misunderstood' "

It's funny. This thread needs a laugh. Laugh

Find all posts by this user Reply
Elizabeth25


Posts: 212
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #34
19-12-2007 03:05 PM

Baboonery Wrote:

Elizabeth25 Wrote:
I wonder how much bile will be thrown over the finding that men earn more when they have children?


What a bilious remark.



Bingo!:I feel the love Love

Find all posts by this user Reply
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #35
19-12-2007 03:06 PM

The first of Elizabeth's posts simply says that women earn less because they're in work less - exactly what Ooperlooper said in his first post.

Find all posts by this user Reply
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #36
19-12-2007 03:15 PM

There's also the question of women moving into careers traditionally of lower pay (through choice) than their male counterparts. anyway, no-one's saying there's no discrimination, just that the statistics pay no attention to these factors in painting such a bleak picture of it all.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Elizabeth25


Posts: 212
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #37
19-12-2007 03:24 PM

nevermodern Wrote:
The first of Elizabeth's posts simply says that women earn less because they're in work less - exactly what Ooperlooper said in his first post.


Not trying to be controversial here, just interested in the answer without accusations being levelled of misogyny and sexism.

Yes, I just posted those articles because of the above request. No bias or bile.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #38
19-12-2007 03:24 PM

Elizabeth25 Wrote:
Then there is this study which came out this year.

"Women graduates are paid less from the very beginning of their careers, with men earning ?1,000 more than their college classmates within three years of leaving university, according to a major study published today.

Previous research by the Equal Opportunities Commission has shown a national pay gap fuelled by the tendency of women to slip into part-time roles after having children and work in areas such as childcare and cleaning which are paid less.

But these findings suggest that women are paid badly even in fulltime graduate jobs and even before they start to have children, take time out and fall behind in their careers."


I'll cut to the chase: does it say anywhere that women are paid less than men for doing the same job?

Find all posts by this user Reply
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #39
19-12-2007 03:33 PM

Point taken Elizabeth Smile

Find all posts by this user Reply
Jane


Posts: 52
Joined: Jan 2007
Post: #40
19-12-2007 06:09 PM

I think one of the differences is that women are not so inclined to ask for more money. I spent years not asking for a pay rise in one job I had because I was too embarrassed (STUPID). See this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4195852.stm) which states that Female British workers earn on average 27% less than their male counterparts. It states that 66% of women were too scared to ask for more money, compared to 24% of men. Thank heavens for proper transparent pay scales.
As to whether women are paid less than men for doing the same job, there have certainly been some high profile employment tribunal sex discrimination cases in the City where women have fought and won settlements because they received lower pay or bonuses.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields