formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Aug 8, 2019 16:42:56 GMT -5
But how much of that is due to career choices and different preferences for working conditions? And the bigger question is why do women flock towards careers the pay diddly squat knowing full well that there’s a better than average chance that they’re going to end up on their own with kids to support? That choice baffles me. Yes, you can get married to be eligible for more financial aid. If you or your partner is in the military, you can get more income if you get married. Both of these could result in financial repercussions down the road. Military people often get married young, have children young, and then the relationship falls apart and they you are left with poor job skills and no education to get a good job. Yes, there are education benefits but that requires time, ability, and determination. If you have kids, it will also require someone to watch the kids while you got to school/work/study. I advised my DD not to go down that road.
Getting married to circumvent the current financial aid rules has similar issues to getting married to get more military pay, but I think this issue of have a family member assume responsibility for your nearly adult kid "on paper only", is just wrong, and the loophole should be closed.
I do agree that the current system is broken/wrong. Personally I think we should go back to subsidizing the cost of college attendance more heavily to make it more affordable, but it should not be "free".
I’d be all for it, but only if colleges started having standards again. It doesn’t do society any good to spend vast amounts of money so that some slacker kid can spend three years learning the stuff they were supposed to learn in high school and a year learning something else, so that the country is awash in ignorant people with useless degrees and companies can require a degrees for jobs that an 8th grader could do. Mind you I’m all for second chances too. Let the smart kid who blew off high school flip burgers for a while and prove himself and community college. But we don’t need the taxpayers to be paying for an apartment with a rock climbing wall for a kid who hasn’t shown any academic ability.
|
|
adela76
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 29, 2011 19:15:12 GMT -5
Posts: 125
|
Post by adela76 on Aug 10, 2019 21:26:02 GMT -5
"It's like saying "the 10 of you are paralyzed in the legs and need wheelchairs. We're going to take the 10 wheelchairs we have, and we'll give 5 of you 2 chairs each. The other 5 don't need them, because your relatives have big strong arms, they could just carry you. The 5 in need have scrawny-armed relatives." While I agree with you that the financial aid system is a flawed, this analogy is bad. There aren't 10 wheelchairs, there are 5.* Not everybody gets a wheelchair and someone tried to come up with a fair way to decide who gets a wheelchair and who doesn't. So, yeah, a person with parents who can buy them a wheelchair (or who own a wheelchair factory) doesn't get one provided by the government at taxpayer expense, even if her parents can't or won't give her a wheelchair. It sucks for her and it's not fair, but life is not fair. *Yes, maybe the government could just build more wheelchairs (i.e. offer more grants and subsidized loans). Do we raise taxes to pay for that? Is that fair to the childless people who have no interest in subsidizing everyone else's kids' college educations? Oh wait, life is not fair! Ok, think of it a different way if you like. We can give out 5 power wheelchairs, or 10 manual wheelchairs. 5 power wheelchairs would certainly be very nice for the 5 who get them. But that leaves 5 people SOL. Or we could recognize they all have the same needs and give them 10 manual wheelchairs which will help everyone but not be quite as nice for the 5 we were going to selectively target to get even more while some had none. Everyone gets the same free handout from the government . . . how very unexpectedly socialist of you. You still haven't indicated who's paying for the unlimited supply of wheelchairs. I'm going to guess you have kids in college or near college age (if I'm wrong, I'd love to know). Because aside from this particular topic you seem more like a libertarian to me. And the libertarian response to that analogy would be "your hands still work, don't they? Build your own wheelchair!" Or, to be fair, "get a job and then buy your own wheelchair" or "find a private charity willing to give you a wheelchair" would also be valid libertarian options.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Aug 11, 2019 14:47:38 GMT -5
As one of the feminists in the 70's who fought for equal pay and I'm now retired, I agree. Let's worry about pay equality. Yes, some of it is due to having children. But how much of that is due to career choices and different preferences for working conditions? And the bigger question is why do women flock towards careers the pay diddly squat knowing full well that there’s a better than average chance that they’re going to end up on their own with kids to support? That choice baffles me. All factors that have been statistically controlled for in any decent study. I know that I personally have brought this to your attention on a number of occasions. You're supposedly stem? Fucking google this up and stop embarrassing yourself.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 11, 2019 18:54:32 GMT -5
As one of the feminists in the 70's who fought for equal pay and I'm now retired, I agree. Let's worry about pay equality. Yes, some of it is due to having children. But how much of that is due to career choices and different preferences for working conditions? And the bigger question is why do women flock towards careers the pay diddly squat knowing full well that there’s a better than average chance that they’re going to end up on their own with kids to support? That choice baffles me. So much this! I can attest to the fact that having a child to take care of definitely impacts the main parent significantly. I've been fortunate to have my mom to help out when needed but now she is in poor health and has mild dementia. She can no longer watch my daughter when she is sick, when there is a snow cancellation, etc. I do my best to have back-ups in place but sometimes they fall through. I am less reliable now because I have sole custody of my daughter. If something happens and her sitter cancels or school is cancelled, it falls on me. Luckily I am in a profession where I can work from home if I need to, but that doesn't help when I have to cancel meetings or site visits. I would not make it at the company I left in January because I had to travel and work very long hours. It was not family friendly AT ALL! It does seem that childcare tends to fall on the women which does impact their careers. My children will always mean more to me than money so I am ok with that. I knew when I made the choice to have children that I would be the main parent. I wouldn't have it any other way so I am not complaining. I have a super close relationship with my kids that they do not have with their father. That means more to me than money.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Aug 12, 2019 4:08:34 GMT -5
But how much of that is due to career choices and different preferences for working conditions? And the bigger question is why do women flock towards careers the pay diddly squat knowing full well that there’s a better than average chance that they’re going to end up on their own with kids to support? That choice baffles me. All factors that have been statistically controlled for in any decent study. I know that I personally have brought this to your attention on a number of occasions. You're supposedly stem? Fucking google this up and stop embarrassing yourself. Considering the replication crisis going on in the social sciences, I have to wonder how many of the studies you think I should be googling are decent. For those of you who don’t now, there’s been a string of studies and social sciences the reconsidered gospel truth for years. But when people try to replicate the studies they didn’t get the same results. Pretty fucking embarrassing.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 12, 2019 8:00:15 GMT -5
Ok, think of it a different way if you like. We can give out 5 power wheelchairs, or 10 manual wheelchairs. 5 power wheelchairs would certainly be very nice for the 5 who get them. But that leaves 5 people SOL. Or we could recognize they all have the same needs and give them 10 manual wheelchairs which will help everyone but not be quite as nice for the 5 we were going to selectively target to get even more while some had none. Everyone gets the same free handout from the government . . . how very unexpectedly socialist of you. You still haven't indicated who's paying for the unlimited supply of wheelchairs. I'm going to guess you have kids in college or near college age (if I'm wrong, I'd love to know). Because aside from this particular topic you seem more like a libertarian to me. And the libertarian response to that analogy would be "your hands still work, don't they? Build your own wheelchair!" Or, to be fair, "get a job and then buy your own wheelchair" or "find a private charity willing to give you a wheelchair" would also be valid libertarian options. In terms of socialism, I would much prefer no handouts...but if we're going to give handouts that they be handed out equally (or if we're going to consider need that they consider ACTUAL need, not some invented need based on who an adult is related to). We don't need unlimited wheelchairs...we take the current money being handed out, and divide that among the existing population rather than a subset of that existing population. I have 2 kids, neither are even 3 yet...so barring a Doogie Howser situation, not college-aged yet. And by the time they are, they'll have too much money in their own names to qualify (or to qualify in the way I'm suggesting is better which is looking at individual assets rather than "presumed assistance"). And you're right that I'm not into government handouts in most cases (and I'm not into it in this particular case either). That said, even though the current system might be Process A, and in an ideal world I'd prefer Process Z...that doesn't mean I can't both recognize and advocate for Process G if I think it's better than the current. In this case, it seemed to be a more relevant discussion to point out "I think what they're doing is fine, since I think they're "cheating" the system but they're cheating a system which is completely screwed up and doing it in a way which is legally allowed" vs "get rid of this program altogether" given that would be my preferred resolution to a LOT of things.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Aug 12, 2019 9:33:17 GMT -5
All factors that have been statistically controlled for in any decent study. I know that I personally have brought this to your attention on a number of occasions. You're supposedly stem? Fucking google this up and stop embarrassing yourself. Considering the replication crisis going on in the social sciences, I have to wonder how many of the studies you think I should be googling are decent. For those of you who don’t now, there’s been a string of studies and social sciences the reconsidered gospel truth for years. But when people try to replicate the studies they didn’t get the same results. Pretty fucking embarrassing. ok - let's think about this. The "embarrassing" studies that you are referring to have to do with experimental or quasi-experimental models that cannot be replicated. If they used a p of .05, a very common criteria, that means that there was a 1 in 20 chance that what they found to be significant was just a chance occurring. So 1 in 20. Which is why replication is of course an important precursor to something becoming more than a one-study result. So not embarrassing, but a part of the process. In some cases, there have been shenanigans, aka falsifications, and this is unethical, and those people lose their status, reputations, and *hopefully* lose their careers. And do you have any compromised or disproven finding that relate to the pay gap? I have not seen anything that relates to this issue, so please do share! The data on actual wages is not experimental. Most studies are descriptive, using large, national databases - where the data is equally accessible to all and anyone could come in and use that data in other models. There have been some smaller more experimental studies on wages such as ones that are based on resumes with male, female, or ethnic names attached on proposed starting salaries (robust replication here btw!)- but what has been discussed here are descriptive models that have already statistically controlled for the variables you suppose to be the root cause. But it is kinda funny that you dismiss actual data and analyses while relying on standard-issue, right-wing clap-trap as gospel?? Because assuming that the world mirrors your pre-supposed views of women-who-wear-makeup-and-major-in-maybelline-studies definitely trumps any attempt to analyse actual data is a lot more comfortable. So fine - live in your cotton-ball protected menagerie where attractive women are neither intelligent nor hard working. But if you post erroneous assumptions here, and I see them, I will call you out on it.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Aug 12, 2019 18:09:41 GMT -5
OK Ruka, you win. all the studies proving that there’s a 30% wage gap or valid and all the one saying It’s lower are bunk. But even if those things are corrected, and women start out earning the men in their fields, it isn’t going to make that big of a difference as long as women are attracted like flies to professions that pay diddley squat. Ever heard of Simpson’s paradox?
And since I can’t snap my fingers and make the world fair, or somehow guarantee that my husband is going to stick around, I looked at the things I can control. Getting a hard to find a skill set that many employers need meant I was able to get well paying jobs without having connections, and was treated well because employers knew I could walk.
And I’m getting sick and tired of you claiming that I think attractive women can’t be intelligent or work hard. I never said that and you know it. I doubt there’s ever been a time in your life we’ve spent 3 to 5 hours a day every day on hair and make up. You wouldn’t of gotten where are if you had. The fact that I dared to mention that such people exist, and their academics suffer as a result, does not in anyway mean that I think anyone who isn’t running around in plaid shirts with no make up is a vapid bimbo. Seriously, what’s wrong with you?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Aug 14, 2019 9:29:25 GMT -5
OK Ruka, you win. all the studies proving that there’s a 30% wage gap or valid and all the one saying It’s lower are bunk. But even if those things are corrected, and women start out earning the men in their fields, it isn’t going to make that big of a difference #1) as long as women are attracted like flies to professions that pay diddley squat. Ever heard of Simpson’s paradox? And since I can’t snap my fingers and make the world fair, or somehow guarantee that my husband is going to stick around, I looked at the things I can control. Getting a hard to find a skill set that many employers need meant I was able to get well paying jobs without having connections, and was treated well because employers knew I could walk. And I’m getting sick and tired of you claiming that I think attractive women can’t be intelligent or work hard. I never said that and you know it. I doubt there’s ever been a time in your life we’ve spent 3 to 5 hours a day every day on hair and make up. You wouldn’t of gotten where are if you had. #2) The fact that I dared to mention that such people exist, and their academics suffer as a result, does not in anyway mean that I think anyone who isn’t running around in plaid shirts with no make up is a vapid bimbo. Seriously, what’s wrong with you? What's wrong? #1) A. What the hell does that even mean? B. Evidence suggests that as a field becomes more heavily populated by women, the wages decrease. There is also a lot of harassment in fields dominated by men, and women have sometimes attempted, and left, those fields because of it. #2) It is not that you "dared to mention" it, it is that you continuously harp on and denigrate them. You also assume the academic side. How many shared their grades with you? How many's morning routine did you time? And what evidence did you have that their beauty routines caused the grades?
|
|