Collegiate Times

You're missing the point. The problem is with the "value" that is ascribed to certain jobs in our society, including child rearing. Why are professions like teaching and nursing so low paying? Because they are considered women's jobs. This idea has been proven is areas like veterinary medicine, where salaries dropped considerably when large numbers of women began graduating from veterinary schools. The other issue is with women's abilty to move up into higher positions. Only 2.4% of Fortune 500 companies are run by women: please hold your retort that the other 97.6% have decided to stay home and have babies.

I work in engineering and I can attest that I do not see these earnings discrepancies between men and women, at least in the company I work for. Women are paid the same as men are for the same levels, positions, education, and experience, which is nice to see. As for why certain fields are lower paying than others, I'm not sure. Teachers are low paid, at least in my opinion, because the quality of the education provided is generall weak in public schools, where unions run the show and prevent innovation and creativity (along with excess government regulation). The result is that good teachers are stifled and move on to private schools or other career fields, leaving the bad teachers behind. The net result is pay is dragged down across the board, and the quality of education drops significantly, further keeping wages from rising. Get the unions out of the mix, and I would bet that things would get better quickly by removing the bad teachers and replacing them with capable ones, and wages would likly rise.

"This idea has been proven is areas like veterinary medicine, where salaries dropped considerably when large numbers of women began graduating from veterinary schools." You mean the average salary for a particular occupation dropped after the labor pool to fill those jobs increased? No kidding?

To A Woman: You are the one clearly missing the point. The reason that teaching and nursing are so low paying is that 10 years from now I will be able to quit my job as a nuclear engineer and go teach and nurse with minimal training. A teacher and a nurse will take years of training to be able to do what I do. Not to mention, K-12 teachers only work 10 months out of the year. My mother is a public school teacher and fully understands why she is "underpaid" by teacher union standards. She chose the job because it is what she loves and she would be able to spend more time raising a family. Not because of the salary. And you strengthened my point with your statistic about only 2.4% of Fortune 500 companies being run by women. Women choose not to work jobs where they have to work i.e. 60 or more hours a week. Many studies have proven this, one imparticular was a long term study at a large law firm. After 5 years, the female lawyers of this particular law firm worked on average 40 hours a week, while the male lawyers worked on average 60 hours per week. The reason this is a telling statistic is that all of the people in this study started out in the same positions. I am glad that you took time to read and think about the letter. You are obviously a part of my target audience.

Thank you Joseph for your insightful article. As president of the oldest men's rights organization in America, the National Coalition for (Free) Men (NCFM) I am always heartened to see articles such as yours. In your article you wrote, "And when comparing single men to single women, neither with children, the wage gap absolutely disappears." While true it should be noted that single women college graduates in many fields receive career offers with considerably more remuneration than their male counterparts, a fact seldom discussed. The best resource regarding fallacies associated with the supposed "wage gap" is Warren Farrell's "Why do men earn more and what can women do about it". Don't be fooled by the title. The book clearly reveals that such is not generally the case for a number of reasons. Again, thank you for writing the article. Take care.

"The reason that teaching and nursing are so low paying is that 10 years from now I will be able to quit my job as a nuclear engineer and go teach and nurse with minimal training." that is not really accurate. It depends on what level you are talking about. For instance you could not just walk in and become an R.N. you would need extensive training. There are other examples but that's the gist. The real problem i see is that you are comparing apples to oranges. There are numerous studies that show women and men who work in the exact same careers and with the same job performance still have a pay gap. It is disingenuous to compare school teachers pay to that of a CEO to explain your point.

About your next comment with your mother, I'm glad she thinks she is underpaid and chooses to only work 40 hours. I, on the other hand, want to work with children because I care and I work over 60 hours a week to be the best I can be. Oh, just remember, your professors are teachers and I also teach people like you. People who grow up and spit on the foundation of where you learned your education: in a public classroom. I am offended that you think you can do what I do. I am also offended you think you can do what my mother does in nursing. I would love to pay you a years salary to watch you teach and practice nursing for a day. have you looked to see how much your engineers make a year when broken down racially? Is there a difference?

Joseph, you may be mistaken about the "minimal training" part. Aspiring teachers have a whole host of bureaucracy awaiting, and a 4-year degree is a requirement. Nurses, on the other hand, can get their foot in the door with an Associates degree, though many choose to complete a Bachelors instead. Also, there are many intangible aspects to these jobs aside from book learning. To do them is one thing; to excel is quite another. We do need to be careful here to compare apples to apples. If a woman and a man doing the same job make different salaries, there MAY be a problem. Of course, many companies have salary ranges that they are willing to pay for a certain position. I believe I have seen studies showing that men are more likely to ask for higher wages, thus more likely to get them. If that's the case, there may not be a sinister problem, but rather a difference in how women exert dominance in the workplace. As for the Fortune 500 information, I would imagine that many of the men on that list are consumed by their careers, something which, as others have mentioned, women may be less willing to do in general (not saying this is a bad thing; I personally view a career as a necessary and potentially rewarding aspect of life, but I like a balance).

While I do find your article beneficial, I take issue with some of the points it addresses. "Women primarily are the ones who stay at home", thanks for the refresher, it has been that way since our great country was founded. You are missing the larger issue at hand. Obama wants the woman of 2008 who is, in many cases, underappreciated, to know that her voice can be heard in the highest seat of our government through voting for him. Sure, a qiuck stat is an easy way to fill a thirty second window in primetime just don't forget that the statistic is actually delivering a larger message. Your argument treads dangerously close to the elitist Republican views that neglect a womans value in our society. These are the views that Obama wants to change. Statistics can be argued all do long but isn't the point really to focus on the major issues at hand instead of the trivial details. In response to your stats on hrs. worked men vs. women: Maybe if Palin had put in her extra twenty hours every week she would be a bit more well versed in the Bush Doctorine and general foreign policy, just a thought.

Mr. Dillon, Could you please provide a citation to the studies to which you refer by the Employment Policy Foundation, as well as a means of accessing them, as the organization is now defunct.

To Anonymous: I agree with you on the RN argument that I made. I should have not even used it as an example. RN's make very good money and are in high demand. And I was replying to "A Woman" with the CEO comment. Not comparing CEOs to teachers.

To Jason T: Again, I was replying to "A Woman" with the examples of teachers and nurses. It was probably not the best idea to go ahead with the nurse example. I agree with the rest of your statement as a continuation of my article. Remember, I was only allowed 250 words or so to get this in, and the editing staff changed parts of my letter.

To Dem-O-Crat: Women have not always been staying at home in the numbers they have in the late 20th Century. In the early 20th Century, women received more college degrees and more got PhDs than they do even today. Women, in fact, received more degrees between 1910 and 1930 than they have since. And are you talking about the same Republican "elitism" that fought for a woman's right to vote in the early 20th century, as opposed to the Democratic party that fought against that right? And don't be so quick to assume that I am a Republican. I didn't tell anyone to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. I just told them to think. And it appears that you need to take heed to that suggestion.

It's worth keeping in mind that, the way our economy runs, you and your employer have to reach an agreement regarding the value of your work. It's convenient to say that employers are responsible for paying women less, but the truth of the matter is that women (at least some of the time) are at fault for their unequal pay because they lower their standards to what is offered them. I mean, the same applies for anyone, really - it's a question of ability to negotiate, and a belief that the quality of one's work carries some level of gravitas. The other thing to consider is that employment is an investment in the future, on the part of both the employee and the employer. For the employer, however, the duration of the employee's tenure needs to be taken into account. If I show up at an office and tell them that I want a job for the next two months, they won't hire me. The stigma attached to women (and, in many cases, appropriately) is that women will, at some point, leave the work force to birth and care for children. This limits the return on the employer's investment, and makes employing a woman less desirable than employing a man.

Now, we can argue the ethicality of that all we want - but at the end of the day, it's good business practice to encourage stability and competence in one's workforce, and the potential for women to leave on account of a desire to rear children has proven itself to be a statistical likelihood. At the end of the day, though, nobody is forcing you to work anywhere - and you aren't obligated to accept the salary which you are offered.

To ET: Anita U Hattiangadi and Amy M Habib wrote "A Closer Look at Comparable Worth" in 2000 for the Employment Policy Foundation. The information that I cited is on page 43. I hope that is enough to satisfy you. If you would like to read more about this issue, Thomas Sowell's book "Economic Facts and Fallacies" is a wonderful resource for issues just like this one that have yet to be explored very deeply.

By the way, to "A Woman," I'd like to point out that for every extremely competent teacher out there (and there are many), there are a handful of wholly incompetent teachers who ruin their pupils' chances of and desire for success later in life. Teachers Unions have done a tremendous disservice to this nation's young people by propping up teachers who routinely fail to meet standards, while consistently advocating against rewarding teachers whose students routinely exceed standards. Teaching is a job for which few people are qualified, but unfortunately it is also one for which many people 'settle' despite lacking the proper qualifications and demeanor. You are right that not everyone is cut out to teach, but I'd argue that teachers 'on the whole' earn about as much as they ought to. That's the problem with aggregating statistics, though - you lose focus on the fact that there are some teachers who ought to earn nothing, and there are some teachers who ought to earn a lot. The incompetent teachers skew the statistic towards the low end of the spectrum - and ruin a lot of peoples' lives in the process.

By the way, Dem-O-Crat, the "Bush Doctrine" is actually a media contrival, not an official policy. There are a lot of different opinions, believe it or not, as to what actually constitutes the 'Bush Doctrine,' so it isn't tremendously surprising that Ms. Palin wasn't able to come up with the precise definition when asked. Besides, I would argue that Bush defines his doctrine far differently than the media elites do. So whom do we believe? The history books will sort it out - just like they did with the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, etc.

To Another Woman: I never said that my mother acknowledges the fact that she was underpaid and was happy with it. She acknowledges the fact that she is underpaid by other people's "standards" and doesn't agree with them, i.e. She understands that her job isn't worth 100K a year. And I knew that I would have to set this straight. Teachers are not Professors. Professors have usually put much more capital into where they are among other things, but I'll leave it at that. And race has nothing to do with this. It seems as if you are trying to pick a fight with your comment. And I'm sorry to see a public school teacher with such a bitter taste in her mouth that will possibly teach my children one day.

One of the real difficulties of topics such as this is that they are presented in such a way that complexity gets lost in the effort to make an impact. That is without question the most glaring weakness of the Obama ad - it attempts to relate in a soundbite a situation that has been debated in both scholarly and policy circles for decades with salient arguments on both sides. I am heartened by the desire of many to look beyond the simplistic renderings found in politics and the media to recognize the complex issues that characterize real life. One note to Mr. Dillon: the statistic that Obama's ad cites is drawn from a Census Bureau fact sheet, which is based upon a comparison of men and women employed full-time; thus your assertion that it includes housewives and women working part-time is untrue. (continued in subsequent comment)The extent of the gap is linked to a number of factors. Some occupational fields have a much smaller gap than do others - usually those that require either more education or more uncommon skill sets. (continued in subsequent post)

However, this variation across occupational fields should give pause - if women's disadvantage is so readily explained by choices about family and child rearing, do women in those fields characterized by a smaller gap opt not to have families? Perhaps so, since they have a greater investment in training and thus may be less willing to make the sacrifice. In some instances, women in fields such as law and medicine delay child bearing in order to establish their careers and this may blunt the extent of the gap. But Mr. Dillon's point about the "trend" for more women to stay home than men is not something to be taken for granted. I am certainly as capable as my wife of caring for my daughter once she is born. Why is it that men don't shoulder a fair share of the burden? While this is certainly not a burden to be borne by employers, it is certainly not solely the product of absolutely free choices either. Norms and behavior condition choices, and much of the burden falls on women by default because men take for granted that their wives and partners will "take care of it." Given the prevalence of divorce in our society that has great implications for the life chances not only of women, but also of our children and has contributed to the trend known as the "feminization of poverty." (continued)

While many conservative critics have challenged the notion of discrimination as a source of the inequity, there seems to evidence that employers do pay women less for the same or comparable work. I don't subscribe to the notion that bias only exists on one side of the political spectrum - progressives and liberals are no more likely to overlook inconvenient facts than are conservatives. While Mr. Minor may indeed be right that employers pay female employees less because they can get away with it - "women don't demand higher wages" - that becomes only an explanation and not in and of itself justification. The question with which we must wrestle is not only what is advantageous to a particular interest within the market, but also what do we as a society think about the pursuit of that advantage. Is it just? Is it right? Does it harm not only the interest of the individuals on the wrong side of that interest, but also the well-being of our society? Here are links to a few pieces that discuss the issue from both sides: http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/gender.html http://archives.cnn.com/2000/CAREER/trends/12/12/womenpay/index.html

Read my last post from the bottom up - there are 3 parts.

With his three whole years of experience, I'm sure Obama is a shoe-in. You would have to be an idiot not to vote for him.

Correction to my last post: You would have to be an idiot TO VOTE FOR HIM. Sorry!

IF you don't like either of the lead clowns... er candidates, don't vote for them. You DO have other choices; don't let mainstream media make you believe you only have two choices.