Obese Women Earn 30 Percent Less
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 03/04/04 - 17:50 Post subject:
But I still hear the idea that being home with the kids is a skill-less task, and it isn't. It doesn't count on a resume, but I think it should. I think some of the best managers are people who have kids b/c they don't get rattled easily and they can multitask in their sleep. It's just a different kind of job.
Is that what you meant, Noley?
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/04/04 - 17:59 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | But I still hear the idea that being home with the kids is a skill-less task, and it isn't. It doesn't count on a resume, but I think it should. I think some of the best managers are people who have kids b/c they don't get rattled easily and they can multitask in their sleep. It's just a different kind of job.
Is that what you meant, Noley? |
I agree 100%, but many companies pay by years with the company. Teaching does. Someone who took the time off to raise a family may definitely be more qualified than I, but will earn less simply because I've been there longer.
|
|
|
|
|
omega lambda
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 4691
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/04/04 - 18:31 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | nolefan85 wrote: | Should it matter if a woman took the time off to help raise her children?
What does that have to do with the salary you get?
Women work hard and deserve to be paid for their hard work.
Whether they took time off or not to raise their children should not matter when it comes to their salary. 
It's unfortunate the they are discriminated against and paid less than men are.
It's even more unfortunate that are discriminated even more so because of their weight.
So...let's take them down a few more notches because they stayed home with their kids?????
I would hope that your stance on this issue here is not to pay women less because they took some time to raise their children. |
My point is that most gender/pay studies fall to account for less experienced women. Many women take time away from work to start/raise a family (when compared with men who typically don't leave the work force when kids arrive) and thus do not acrue experience on the job in the same rate.
There isn't anything wrong with taking time away from work for this "noble cause." However, don't expect to keep with someone in the work force (salary wise) who didn't take a significant chunk of time away from the workplace. It has zero to do with discrimination and everything to do with experience. |
And they often fail to account for the career choices women make as well. A lot of these studies take all the men and all the women and pump out numbers. They don't take experience, part-time jobs or purposefully taking lower paying jobs (for whatever reason) into account.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/04/04 - 19:01 Post subject:
| kattzoo wrote: | | I agree 100%, but many companies pay by years with the company. Teaching does. Someone who took the time off to raise a family may definitely be more qualified than I, but will earn less simply because I've been there longer. |
With all due respect Kattzoo... an employer pays you a salary for actual work you perform on the job. Not what happens at your homestead.
Honestly, it ain't rocket science folks. Life is all about choices and free will. If you choose to start and raise a family (a significant undertaking not to be taken lightly), you may not be able to advance your career (or salary) as much as you would like.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/04/04 - 19:04 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | But I still hear the idea that being home with the kids is a skill-less task, and it isn't. It doesn't count on a resume, but I think it should. I think some of the best managers are people who have kids b/c they don't get rattled easily and they can multitask in their sleep. It's just a different kind of job. |
Dang twice in one day I agree with GGG, 
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 00:25 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | kattzoo wrote: | | I agree 100%, but many companies pay by years with the company. Teaching does. Someone who took the time off to raise a family may definitely be more qualified than I, but will earn less simply because I've been there longer. |
With all due respect Kattzoo... an employer pays you a salary for actual work you perform on the job. Not what happens at your homestead. |
Actually, I think what Kattzoo said is that she is paid a salary for actual work performed at a rate based on tenure (which implied in that is experience gained in that time). Her point (if I understood it correctly) was that exerience in the home raising children is invaluable in the classroom, thus, should be considered in the salary rate....Interesting thought, especially for education. I don't know how I feel about that only because at least in my company (not education) I work with some not so pleasant women who unfortunately would abuse that.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 00:35 Post subject:
what about the fat dudes vs. skinny dudes
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 09:23 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: | | Actually, I think what Kattzoo said is that she is paid a salary for actual work performed at a rate based on tenure (which implied in that is experience gained in that time). Her point (if I understood it correctly) was that exerience in the home raising children is invaluable in the classroom, thus, should be considered in the salary rate....Interesting thought, especially for education. I don't know how I feel about that only because at least in my company (not education) I work with some not so pleasant women who unfortunately would abuse that. |
Which is all the more reason why the current education system is so screwed up. Teachers are compensated by pure tenure & the teachers union is resistant to any change to this status quo. Quite frankly, the only thing that should matter when it comes to analyzing your productivity is your performance on the job. Not what happens at home, not that you have been there for 30 years. Sorry if I hijacked this thread.
I still think free will is the key here.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 10:29 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | There isn't anything wrong with taking time away from work for this "noble cause." However, don't expect to keep with someone in the work force (salary wise) who didn't take a significant chunk of time away from the workplace. It has zero to do with discrimination and everything to do with experience. |
The only thing scarier than Cappy agreeing with the Lady Go? Me agreeing with sonny on this point.
But don't forget that SAHM are eligible for social security benefits (as they should), despite never paying/not paying proportionally into the system.
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 10:43 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | But don't forget that SAHM are eligible for social security benefits (as they should), despite never paying/not paying proportionally into the system. |
Eligible for S.S.? I did not know that. Does the same hold true for SAHD's? And if you'd be so kind, what kind of qualifications/certification/registration/verification would a person need to apply for benefits?
I smell beer money.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 10:44 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | cherylpf wrote: | | Actually, I think what Kattzoo said is that she is paid a salary for actual work performed at a rate based on tenure (which implied in that is experience gained in that time). Her point (if I understood it correctly) was that exerience in the home raising children is invaluable in the classroom, thus, should be considered in the salary rate....Interesting thought, especially for education. I don't know how I feel about that only because at least in my company (not education) I work with some not so pleasant women who unfortunately would abuse that. |
Which is all the more reason why the current education system is so screwed up. Teachers are compensated by pure tenure & the teachers union is resistant to any change to this status quo. Quite frankly, the only thing that should matter when it comes to analyzing your productivity is your performance on the job. Not what happens at home, not that you have been there for 30 years. Sorry if I hijacked this thread.
I still think free will is the key here. |
I also agree here. Who didn't have a crappy prof in undergrad who not only knew they were crappy but didn't care strictly because they knew their job was solid?
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 11:05 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | | elkid wrote: | | But don't forget that SAHM are eligible for social security benefits (as they should), despite never paying/not paying proportionally into the system. |
Eligible for S.S.? I did not know that. Does the same hold true for SAHD's? And if you'd be so kind, what kind of qualifications/certification/registration/verification would a person need to apply for benefits?
I smell beer money. |
Yes, SAHD, too. SS is based off of credits - for every year you work, you get a credit for every $780 you earn (up to a maximum of 4 credits per year). Once you hit 40 credits, you're eligible. There are some weird military rules, though, with special credits applied for active duty or active training. Most people today begin working in their teens, so if they take off time later to raise kids (even if they choose not to go back to work) they usually have already satisfied their quota. That's why the SSA sends statements to people starting with their 25th birthday. If you never work, you are eligible to receive half of your retired spouse’s full benefit, or widow/widower benefits at 60 (50 if disabled). This is to prevent people who haven't worked enough or at all from being penniless in their old age. You know, people your age. 
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 11:17 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | Yes, SAHD, too. SS is based off of credits - for every year you work, you get a credit for every $780 you earn (up to a maximum of 4 credits per year). Once you hit 40 credits, you're eligible. There are some weird military rules, though, with special credits applied for active duty or active training. Most people today begin working in their teens, so if they take off time later to raise kids (even if they choose not to go back to work) they usually have already satisfied their quota. That's why the SSA sends statements to people starting with their 25th birthday. If you never work, you are eligible to receive half of your retired spouse’s full benefit, or widow/widower benefits at 60 (50 if disabled). This is to prevent people who haven't worked enough or at all from being penniless in their old age. You know, people your age. |
I paid into SS while I was in the Navy. I get a statement every year listing my credits (and I can't recall how many I have.)
My question was about proof. How is anyone supposed to be able to prove that they were, indeed, a stay-at-home-parent? I mean, gee, I worked a 24on/48off schedule. On those two days that I was off, I was here, raising my son. And I'm considered a stay-at-home-dad?
Sorry, seems like a scam to me. You don't pay into it but you can get something out of it? And we keep hearing about all the trouble with the SSA?
Still, beer money?!?
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 11:21 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | My question was about proof. How is anyone supposed to be able to prove that they were, indeed, a stay-at-home-parent? I mean, gee, I worked a 24on/48off schedule. On those two days that I was off, I was here, raising my son. And I'm considered a stay-at-home-dad?
Sorry, seems like a scam to me. You don't pay into it but you can get something out of it? And we keep hearing about all the trouble with the SSA?
Still, beer money?!? |
Actually, it's the other way around. You have to prove that you DID pay into it. That's what those little things called W-2s do. In either situation, filing taxes proves or disproves.
I disagree that it's a scam. My grandmother's only source of income when my grandfather died (pretty early, 66) outside of their savings was SS. But she grew up in a very different era, where most women did not work. I would hope that would be adjusted, because women do work. Remember that SS benefits are on a sliding scale, too, so the more you put into the system the more you're allowed to take out.
So beer money? Yes. While it's still available. People my age will never see a dime. That will prompt the next Civil War, methinks.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/05/04 - 12:38 Post subject:
I think it balances out, with the SS money. Yes, I am a sahm. I am a military wife. I work my a$$ off. No one will ever be able to tally my hours or prove that I did a lick of work.
Just this week I have taken dinner to a family who had their son lifeflighted to a ped hospital. Yesterday and tomorrow and Tuesday I did/will sit with the same handicapped child because the parents need to run errands without exposing their child to the elements. (And this is a slow week) It is sahm who pick up the slack for other wives when their husbands can't. Believe it or not, it is still a community that tries to help each other and without it, a lot would fall through the cracks. It does serve a purpose. Yes, it is a choice, but it is a good one.
I have looked for a job. It is next to impossible to find a decent job when they know you are moving in a couple of year. Legally, they can't hire/not hire based on that, but they do.
Before you want to strip benefits from moms who stay at home, realize that they do contribute to society. Even if intangibly.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
