James Green Argues Against Equal Pay

[vel]

So women working less hours and wanting to get pregnant is discrimination. Ok.

Most women do want to have children and do work less hours.

woman who have maternity leave are likely to return to work after the child's birth, which benefits the company as they don't need to find a replacement for the woman. secondly, there's nothing to lose for giving a woman their deserved maternity leave, most companies report a positive effect in the environment or with the woman's work, or no difference at all. nothing bad about getting paid and being with your family.

being a mother also aids in the continuation of society, as it's vital to have children to continue the generations and to carry your last name. you do also realize when you view motherhood as a choice and refuse paid maternity leave as a result, you're directly disenfranchising single mothers or lower income parents who can't afford to take unpaid time off from work in order to have children, which means some women are forced to choose between having children, working full time, or leaving work and putting a financial strain on their family. many women can't afford to do so, which effectively robs them of their choice. how would you feel if you had to choose between having a job or having a family?

first off, the 12 to 18 weeks that a woman is gone does not affect her performance and worth. the wage gap effectively says that a woman is not valued as highly as a man is in the workplace because she is not equally compensated for the same work. pitting a woman's choice to have children against her workplace value isn't right.

took a lot of that from online sources so i can improve my argument, as some of my words may not compute the point well enough.

 

[seliph]

So the same people who want to force people to have babies they don't want also want to force women to work during pregnancy which can put unneeded stress on her and cause complications with the pregnancy as well as miscarriage. Wild.

 

[amanda1983]

Most women do want to have children and do work less hours. I wasn't being inconsiderate... I was being truthful. I'm sorry if you perceived me as being inconsiderate.

Oh really? Most women want to have children? Not anymore. Please cite a source or two showing that most women *today* want to have children. I'm not aware of any credible data supporting that assertion.

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976."

- http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/childless-more-women-are-not-having-kids-says-census_n_7032258

---

Whilst statistics vary on how many women work full time hours vs less than that, there are certainly more women working part time hours than there are men. This is due to many factors which have more to do with family commitments and employment opportunities than anything else. Women in a society that expects them to be the primary caregivers for children have a much tougher time finding + keeping full time employment than women in a society that shares caregiving responsibilities more equitably.

Truth and consideration are not mutually exclusive, but in any case you made a comment about *women* as a collective group.

 

[Haskell]

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976."

According to your source, I'm still correct. 47.6 percent of women (between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey) state that they're not Mothers. It doesn't state whether they want to be.

Also even if it did state "wanting children" instead of "having children" I would still be correct as I said, "most."

You cited a Huffington Post article... if you're going to try to convince a republican right-leaning individual (for future reference) don't cite aHuffington Post article.

 

[amanda1983]

According to your source, I'm still correct. 47.6 percent of women (between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey) state that they're not Mothers. It doesn't state whether they want to be.

Also even if it did state "wanting children" instead of "having children" I would still be correct as I said, "most."

You cited a Huffington Post article... if you're going to try to convince a republican right-leaning individual (for future reference) don't cite aHuffington Post article.

Are you suggesting that there are more women in the US who want to have children but are unable to than there are women who have had unplanned children? Of course "unplanned" doesn't mean "mother did not want children" - I'll look into what data there is on that when I get home. Interesting.

Most = a synonym of "almost all". Half is not most, even 3 quarters would be pushing it. I don't see how your premise is supported by the statistic at all.

I cited a Huffington Post article, yes. You don't seem to be questioning the validity of the quote however so I'm confused as to how that is relevant. Just for future reference, people outside of the US are often much less focussed on partisan lines (HuffPost =/= for american republicans, apparently) than we are accuracy in reporting. If the facts are correct, I don't care if the publication is Buzzfeed or Breitbart.

 

[seliph]

According to your source, I'm still correct. 47.6 percent of women (between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey) state that they're not Mothers. It doesn't state whether they want to be.

Also even if it did state "wanting children" instead of "having children" I would still be correct as I said, "most."

You cited a Huffington Post article... if you're going to try to convince a republican right-leaning individual (for future reference) don't cite aHuffington Post article.

Hold on, even if Amanda didn't prove you wrong, that doesn't mean you're correct. You aren't automatically right until someone comes along and disproves you.

Most women today don't want children because the economy is tough on them alone as it is, school costs a fortune, and mental illnesses are at a peak. They don't want to bring children into the mixture.

 

[Haskell]

Are you suggesting that there are more women in the US who want to have children but are unable to than there are women who have had unplanned children? Of course "unplanned" doesn't mean "mother did not want children" - I'll look into what data there is on that when I get home. Interesting.

Most = a synonym of "almost all". Half is not most, even 3 quarters would be pushing it. I don't see how your premise is supported by the statistic at all.

I cited a Huffington Post article, yes. You don't seem to be questioning the validity of the quote however so I'm confused as to how that is relevant. Just for future reference, people outside of the US are often much less focussed on partisan lines (HuffPost =/= for american republicans, apparently) than we are accuracy in reporting. If the facts are correct, I don't care if the publication is Buzzfeed or Breitbart.

I'm suggesting there are more women in the United States that have children than those that don't.

50%, in my opinion, is most... but I can see how you think it's not. It's like... "most of the country voted for Hillary."

What determines if something's credible on Buzzfeed, CNN, or Breitbart though?

- - - Post Merge - - -

Hold on, even if Amanda didn't prove you wrong, that doesn't mean you're correct. You aren't automatically right until someone comes along and disproves you.

Most women today don't want children because the economy is tough on them alone as it is, school costs a fortune, and mental illnesses are at a peak. They don't want to bring children into the mixture.

It's "he says, she says" right now until statistics are brought up.

 

[seliph]

It's "he says, she says" right now until statistics are brought up.

Then don't say that you're correct and automatically dismiss the other person as wrong, especially when they've linked you a valid source.

Also 50% is not most, it's half. Half is not most. That's not how math works.

 

[vel]

If the facts are correct, I don't care if the publication is Buzzfeed or Breitbart.

YES, thank you Amanda for writing that. I agree. If the facts are correct, you can't use the credibility of the source as a proper argument.

And yes, literally no one cares if you're democratic or republican when they argue with you, does being a democrat make you look at the citations less or something? people who argue are here for a good argument because you can build a proper one, and being a democrat, republican, or neither doesn't help with your argumentation skills.

 

[Dogemon]

I'm registered Republican and cringing at the disregard of data. Huffington Post in this case IS a credible source. No one cares if you think otherwise, you asked for statistics and you got them. Secondly, as a REPUBLICAN woman, since you think your political affiliation matters at all in this case, most women I know DON'T want kids. I live in the hard, traditionalist south, and even women here aren't comfortable having kids because of how they can lose their jobs for it and lose out on a lot of money.

 

[vel]

I'm registered Republican and cringing at the disregard of data. Huffington Post in this case IS a credible source. No one cares if you think otherwise, you asked for statistics and you got them. Secondly, as a REPUBLICAN woman, since you think your political affiliation matters at all in this case, most women I know DON'T want kids. I live in the hard, traditionalist south, and even women here aren't comfortable having kids because of how they can lose their jobs for it and lose out on a lot of money.

are you dva bc you just "shut down" raskell

 

[Haskell]

View attachment 195696

are you dva bc you just "shut down" raskell

No... maybe I just regret making this thread.

- - - Post Merge - - -

I'm registered Republican and cringing at the disregard of data. Huffington Post in this case IS a credible source. No one cares if you think otherwise, you asked for statistics and you got them. Secondly, as a REPUBLICAN woman, since you think your political affiliation matters at all in this case, most women I know DON'T want kids. I live in the hard, traditionalist south, and even women here aren't comfortable having kids because of how they can lose their jobs for it and lose out on a lot of money.

One person's life experience isn't the overall. Most republicans, or at least the ones I know and what I've seen from GOP representatives, would agree with me that Huffington Post is not a news source of preference because of belief that they're not credible.

 

[seliph]

Most republicans, or at least the ones I know and what I've seen from GOP representatives

This isn't the overall either. Also if you had actually checked that HuffPost article out rather than automatically dismissing it for its name, you'd see that it has its own sources from several other sites as well.

 

[vel]

No... maybe I just regret making this thread.

what? what are you talking about, i was talking to doge?

 

[amanda1983]

No... maybe I just regret making this thread.

- - - Post Merge - - -



One person's life experience isn't the overall. Most republicans, or at least the ones I know and what I've seen from GOP representatives, would agree with me that Huffington Post is not a news source of preference because of belief that they're not credible.

Look mate, I'm sorry you have an issue with the credibility of HuffPost. I'm Australian and I read very very widely. I share a lot of article links to many different groups of people. In my experience, people who want to engage in a discussion like this are able to put aside their feelings in order to engage with the content shared, even if they don't like (or find credible) the specific source of the article.

I think it's a shame you're willing to waste time on that incidental detail than on the substance of both the article and of my comments.

The article is solid and the info all checks out. If you have read it, I'd like very much to hear what you think of the actual content. If you haven't, then I think we're probably done here since a discussion like this involves effort from both parties.

 

[visibleghost]

Most women do want to have children and do work less hours. I wasn't being inconsiderate... I was being truthful. I'm sorry if you perceived me as being inconsiderate.

most women dont work less hours lmao what

also what u said abt it being illegal ...,,.. http://m.imgur.com/gallery/swgtq

- - - Post Merge - - -

No... maybe I just regret making this thread.

- - - Post Merge - - -



One person's life experience isn't the overall. Most republicans, or at least the ones I know and what I've seen from GOP representatives, would agree with me that Huffington Post is not a news source of preference because of belief that they're not credible.

im cryign you always say that u regret makinga thread when u realize thst everyone disagrees w u and can make valid arguments against ur points Lmao this is Wild .

jskghkkdwofi you trust fox news and "alternative" media i dont think you have mch credibility qhen it comes to good sources

 

[Soda Fox]

Interesting points everyone is bringing up. I know toad and I had a nice back and forth earlier but I want to reiterate some points I had before.

I agree there is a wage/earning gap in general between the sexes. I do think two people doing the same job with the same level of efficiency should earn the same regardless of any other differences.

However I think a lot plays into the earning gap (bit of an older article but one I read recently on the topic and I think it has a lot of good points), the major things being that women typically spend less time at work than men (but more time in the home caring for household members).

Now, I don't believe that a woman should be paid $16/hour while her male counter-part is paid $17/hour, but if they're both making $16/hour and the man spends 30mins/day longer at work (while the woman goes home to care for the house), in a year the man is making $16,640(*redundant) $10,000 more than his female counter-part simply from being at work the extra 30mins/day.

(16/2=8)*(40, typical work week)*(52, weeks in a year) = 16,640
(*)I realized I did my math wrong.
I think the actual calculation would be this:
(16/2=8)*(5, typical days worked/week)*(250, business days[does not include Federal Holidays or weekends])= 10,000

Woman : 16*40*52 = 33,280
Man : 33,280 + 16,640 = 49,920
REVISED Man : 33,280 + 10,000 = 43,280

It's crazy how something that seems so insignificant as 30mins/day can add up to so much difference, but it does.
In the example I gave above, the woman would have to be earning $24/hour $21/hour to the man's $16/hour (+30mins/day) to close the gap. I would say a salaried system that pays no matter how many hours are worked would be great (as long as all assigned tasks are complete), but most jobs require people to be somewhere at specific times in the day, and/or require sales goals that earn additional compensation.

It's a tricky situation. I don't think women should get paid extra just because they typically do more in the home, because I don't think a woman with no kids/family obligations should be paid more just because they're a woman. (*)Mothers(parents) already get deductions on taxes and government subsidies, however I'd be willing to rework these. I say that as someone who is not a parent and done no research into it, so my opinion may change. I have work soon so that will be a project for another day.

 

[Ghost Soda]

The fact that in this day and age there are still people that sincerely argue that women should be paid less than men is horrifyingly amazing.

 

[N e s s]

According to your source, I'm still correct. 47.6 percent of women (between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey) state that they're not Mothers. It doesn't state whether they want to be.

Also even if it did state "wanting children" instead of "having children" I would still be correct as I said, "most."

You cited a Huffington Post article... if you're going to try to convince a republican right-leaning individual (for future reference) don't cite aHuffington Post article.

Dude, this is coming from you of all people when you've cited fake news websites in the past...

 

[Haskell]

Dude, this is coming from you of all people when you've cited fake news websites in the past...

Breitbart isn't fake news. I've cited Buzzfeed once and articles from low-profile journalists.