Your latest GOP Nutcase: Missouri Senate candidate (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

To the extent that women are paid less than men for the same jobs, it's probably either (a) not caused by sex, but by something that happens to correlate with sex, like experience; or (b) caused by the fact that men take less time off from work than women (since they get pregnant less often, on average). In other words, it's probably because women are less productive, on average.

That's a really interesting position. Do you have non-anecdotal evidence that women are less productive, on average, in the workplace?

I'm fairly confident that working women miss more workdays, on average, than working men do (including pregnancy-related absences).I'm not going to Google the statistics, but if anyone else feels like it, maybe they'll post them here.

What about when you don't hold pregnancy based absentees against them?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have no idea the origins of pay discrepancy, but Maurile's rather cold portrayal doesn't seem to be even mostly accurate to me. I think he has a optimistic view of the lack of sex discrimination in this country. I'm quite certain it's alive and well. In fact, if this allows the most heinous cases to be challenged, that's a good start.

We may disagree on the prevalence of sex discrimination in the labor market, but that doesn't affect my argument about the possible unintended consequences of an equal-pay law.Suppose there are two bins of potatoes in the grocery store. Maybe they're the same type of potatoes, or maybe they're different. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the bin on the left sell for $1.49/lb while the bin on the right sell for $1.59/lb.Whenever two goods that are good substitutes for each other are priced differently, the default explanation should not be that the seller of the cheaper good, against his own self-interest, is asking a price below the profit-maximizing price. The default explanation should generally be that the cheaper good has a demand curve that, for whatever reason, is to the left of the demand curve of the more expensive good.If a politician comes along and requires the potatoes on the left to be sold for $1.59/lb, same as the potatoes on the right, it will probably not help sales of the potatoes on the left. It will probably hurt sales.That's true whether the reason for the different demand curves is rational (based on superior flavor on the right) or irrational (based on arbitrary prejudice against the left). Whenever the government messes with prices, one of the consequences is likely to be a substitution away from consumption of the newly higher-priced good. If there's an exception for labor, I don't think it's been established.I'm not saying that equal-pay laws are necessarily a bad idea. Maybe the benefits will outweigh the negative consequences. (And there are obvious benefits.) I'm just saying that (a) there are likely to be some negative consequences, and (b) given that a full accounting of the likely benefits and likely costs is probably going to be pretty complicated and difficult, Akin's position on this matter is pretty low on the list of things he should be justly ridiculed for.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To the extent that women are paid less than men for the same jobs, it's probably either (a) not caused by sex, but by something that happens to correlate with sex, like experience; or (b) caused by the fact that men take less time off from work than women (since they get pregnant less often, on average). In other words, it's probably because women are less productive, on average.

That's a really interesting position. Do you have non-anecdotal evidence that women are less productive, on average, in the workplace?

I'm fairly confident that working women miss more workdays, on average, than working men do (including pregnancy-related absences).I'm not going to Google the statistics, but if anyone else feels like it, maybe they'll post them here.

What about when you don't hold pregnancy based absentees against them?

I don't know. Wrighteous Ray mentioned that women may stay at home with sick children more often.

 

[NCCommish]

To the extent that women are paid less than men for the same jobs, it's probably either (a) not caused by sex, but by something that happens to correlate with sex, like experience; or (b) caused by the fact that men take less time off from work than women (since they get pregnant less often, on average). In other words, it's probably because women are less productive, on average.

That's a really interesting position. Do you have non-anecdotal evidence that women are less productive, on average, in the workplace?

I'm fairly confident that working women miss more workdays, on average, than working men do (including pregnancy-related absences).I'm not going to Google the statistics, but if anyone else feels like it, maybe they'll post them here.

What about when you don't hold pregnancy based absentees against them?

I don't know. Wrighteous Ray mentioned that women may stay at home with sick children more often.

According to a study by the Public Services Association men take an average of 6.8 sick days/leave while women take 8.4 a year. That seems like an awful small difference to cost women an awful lot of money over their lifetimes. Also I have read various productivity studies that suggest women are somewhere between 1-3% less productive than men in manufacturing jobs. Again not much of a difference. And there is really no way to tell the difference in executive positions but I feel like it wouldn't exceed those levels.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

According to a study by the Public Services Association men take an average of 6.8 sick days/leave while women take 8.4 a year.

Thanks. Is that just sick days, or is that sick days plus personal days plus family leave? (I have no idea what the actual numbers are.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

According to a study by the Public Services Association men take an average of 6.8 sick days/leave while women take 8.4 a year. That seems like an awful small difference to cost women an awful lot of money over their lifetimes.

I also have no idea what this number is, and it's probably hard to find an objective source.How much less do women generally make than men for the same job, after controlling for experience and other relevant factors?

(Is the difference bigger for salaried jobs than for commission-based jobs? Has the gap been narrowing or widening?)

 

[NCCommish]

According to a study by the Public Services Association men take an average of 6.8 sick days/leave while women take 8.4 a year.

Thanks. Is that just sick days, or is that sick days plus personal days plus family leave? (I have no idea what the actual numbers are.)

It seems to be just personal/sick days. I didn't see family leave mentioned.

 

[NCCommish]

According to a study by the Public Services Association men take an average of 6.8 sick days/leave while women take 8.4 a year. That seems like an awful small difference to cost women an awful lot of money over their lifetimes.

I also have no idea what this number is, and it's probably hard to find an objective source.How much less do women generally make than men for the same job, after controlling for experience and other relevant factors?

(Is the difference bigger for salaried jobs than for commission-based jobs? Has the gap been narrowing or widening?)

US Census says women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes in the same job. And it is pervasive. My guess is it is less so in commissioned and piece meal jobs than salaried jobs but I don't have those numbers handy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

US Census says women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes in the same job.

This is a meaningless statistic because it doesn't control for education, experience, or other factors that are known to be correlated with both wages and gender. It's been a long time since I read anything on this, but the last time I did the consensus seemed to be that single women earned about the same as men after controlling for other factors, while married women did worse. And the pay gap for married women isn't evidence of discrimination as much as it's evidence for the well-known fact that in most two-earner households, the husband's career is usually prioritized over the wife's (not saying that's right of course, but it is a sociological fact of life, at least for now).

Edit: Just doing a quick search I see that there is still a tremendous literature on this topic, which is usually a sign that result will be all over the place so I retract my earlier statement.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

What a giant dildo.

 

[Henry Ford]

What a giant dildo.

No takesies backsies Akin.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

What a giant dildo.

I take it back, unlike this dolt, at least a giant dildo can be useful to some people.

 

[Todd Andrews]

He will probably be the GOP Presidential nominee in 2016.

 

[Rove!]

I like the GOP's shtick of nominating idiots and throwing away Senate seats that they should win easily.

Yeah, it's pretty much the only thing keeping the Dems in the majority. Last cycle the Republicans blew very winnable races in Delaware, Nevada and Colorado. Looks like they might do the same this cycle with Missouri. At least the Republican minority will be RINO-free.

The Dems contributed to get Akin nominated in Missouri and Angle in Nevada. I believe the practice is called "ratf**king" (not making that up)

This may explain Trump...