Obamacare
Quote: boymimbo
But employers have pressure to save money, of course. It's capitalism at work: nothing wrong with that. Employers have been whittling away at health care coverage for its employees for a long time. When I worked at EXPE in 2003-5, they rolled back coverage to dependents making us pay for dependent coverage and the same thing was happening throughout the tech industry. Now, with ACA in place, employers have been using it as an excuse to terminate coverage. It seems like rather than blame the employers for cutting back coverage and saving money and delivering record growth to its shareholders (when the corporate overlords continue to make astronomical amounts of money and continue to increase the rich/poor gap) you'd rather blame ACA instead.
The dependent thing was not limited to the tech industry but it was not just to "cut coverage." I was in management when it started at my company. The issue was that the idea of a "family" had been changing for years and it was getting more and more difficult to determine coverage. Step-children? Children of your live-in boyfriend or girlfriend? At the same time, single people had a legitimate beef that the person next to them with a spouse and kids on the same policy was making nearly the same co-pay out of their check at the end of the week.
So what was said they no longer cared about a familial relationship, you could add whoever you wanted to. But you had to pay for who you added. A different price for employee or +1, +2, +=>3. This made it more fair for everyone.
But yes, I blame the ACA. Pre-ACA the employer had flexibility on what they offered, now coverages they may not have wanted or been able to provide are mandated. Suppose there is a lower-paid, low skill employee. Instead of offering some basic hospitalization to give the guy some security you have to add maternity coverage, drug abuse coverage, and other items.
So yes, the ACA is very much to blame.
Quote:The story of course is much more richer than that, and yeah, there are some bad things about ObamaCare, absolutely. But rather than look at ACA to blame, look at corporate America too... it's not like Corporate America has been defenders of the American worker in the last 30 years -- they've been whittling away at that, with all of the offshoring, union-busting, and dropping wages and benefits where possible in the name of globalization, executive greed, and shareholder results.
I hate to break this to you but union-greed has destroyed entire industries. And management is paid to deliver shareholder results, not provide jobs and benefits. The greed of the American Consumer who refuses to pay more for the same item next year than this is why WMT sources in China.
Quote:Blame ObamaCare for a few things, but cry me a river when you buy the excuse that corporations are rolling back coverage to its workers due to ACA. It's bullshit.
It is not BS, it is true. If it was BS then they would have dropped coverage years before. There is a clear cause and effect relationship.
Quote: AZDuffman
So yes, the ACA is very much to blame.
I hate to break this to you but union-greed has destroyed entire industries. And management is paid to deliver shareholder results, not provide jobs and benefits. The greed of the American Consumer who refuses to pay more for the same item next year than this is why WMT sources in China.
It is not BS, it is true. If it was BS then they would have dropped coverage years before. There is a clear cause and effect relationship.
Really? REALLY? What friggin' world do you live in?
When I entered the workforce 38 years ago, my employer provided health insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, and all at a cost of ZERO to me. No deductibles. No co-pays. All of my prescriptions were at a cost of ZERO. Now I get just health insurance, with a $4,000 deductible, a bunch of co-pays, and prescriptions that cost me anywhere from $15 to $50 or more. All of these various additional costs and I get the pleasure of paying 35% of the monthly premium.
So all of these additional costs arose since ACA.....right AZ? Really? REALLY?????
Quote: steeldcoReally? REALLY? What friggin' world do you live in?
When I entered the workforce 38 years ago, my employer provided health insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, and all at a cost of ZERO to me. No deductibles. No co-pays. All of my prescriptions were at a cost of ZERO. Now I get just health insurance, with a $4,000 deductible, a bunch of co-pays, and prescriptions that cost me anywhere from $15 to $50 or more. All of these various additional costs and I get the pleasure of paying 35% of the monthly premium.
So all of these additional costs arose since ACA.....right AZ? Really? REALLY?????
I didn't say "all of the costs." I said (and meant to imply) that the current wholesale cancellations are the result of the ACA. You paid more because the cost of all those plans went up faster than worker productivity. But there were still plans there. It is, however, clear that the mandates of the ACA are resulting in coverage being dropped since it was signed.
Quote: steeldcoCoverages being dropped? Yep. Crappy coverage
I want the market to decide what coverage is "crappy", not you or Obama.
Quote: steeldcoAZ, that's not what you had said. What's wrong just saying that you were wrong? The health insurance in this country has been a broken "system" for a very, very long time. ACA has had nothing to do with the huge increase in costs that have been incurred to date. Coverages being dropped? Yep. Crappy coverage, but coverage. Too friggin' bad. Adapt.
Here is what I said:
Quote:It is not BS, it is true. If it was BS then they would have dropped coverage years before. There is a clear cause and effect relationship.
And I maintain this. The reason the system was as you say, "broken" is because after the mid 1970s people stopped thinking of it as "health INSURANCE" and wanted everything under the sun covered. The government helped this by mandating more and more be covered. As more gets covered costs go up. Now the ACA has mandated more coverages than ever. So employers are saying, "screw this" and dropping coverage altogether.
It will continue. And I smile every time an Obama voter loses coverage. It is a "see we told you so" moment.
The bigger surprise will come if "single payer" ever comes to pass. People will think "it is free and everything is covered." Hopefully I do not live to see that wake-up call.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd I maintain this. The reason the system was as you say, "broken" is because after the mid 1970s people stopped thinking of it as "health INSURANCE" and wanted everything under the sun covered. The government helped this by mandating more and more be covered. As more gets covered costs go up. Now the ACA has mandated more coverages than ever. So employers are saying, "screw this" and dropping coverage altogether.
It will continue. And I smile every time an Obama voter loses coverage. It is a "see we told you so" moment.
Yep. People wanted everything under the sun covered. It's a free market and the market gave the people what they wanted. Pretty simple.
It is about time that someone at least attempted to find a better way. Until I see that it isn't a better way, I will applaud it. I will support it.
....and by the way, I smile whenever I think of the fact that I have a company full of people who now will have better coverage and pay less for it. One awfully large smile since it also saved the company money. Get it?
"Free market"??????? *facepalm*Quote: steeldcoIt's a free market and the market gave the people what they wanted.
For whatever reason, you don't seem to understand that it's a zero-sum game. Sorry, but good health care plans don't grow on trees.Quote: steeldco....and by the way, I smile whenever I think of the fact that I have a company full of people who now will have better coverage and pay less for it. One awfully large smile since it also saved the company money.
Quote: steeldcoYep. People wanted everything under the sun covered. It's a free market and the market gave the people what they wanted. Pretty simple.
Partially people choosing more coverage, but more of states mandating plans cover nonsense like treatment for drug addiction. If I do not want that then I should not have to buy it. Now I have to buy maternity coverage as a single male. Where in a free market would I do that.
Quote:It is about time that someone at least attempted to find a better way. Until I see that it isn't a better way, I will applaud it. I will support it.
The better way is fewer mandates, not more. We have had more and more for 30-40 years now, the same timeframe where costs have risen most. Seems to be a correlation.
Quote:....and by the way, I smile whenever I think of the fact that I have a company full of people who now will have better coverage and pay less for it. One awfully large smile since it also saved the company money. Get it?
When you find such a company please post the name. I am sure there are many people who want to save money. I'd save by dropping coverage I do not need, alas I do not get that choice.
Quote: AZDuffmanPartially people choosing more coverage, but more of states mandating plans cover nonsense like treatment for drug addiction.
Now it's "partially" people?? ZA, it seems to me that you've done a lot of back pedaling lately. Try proof reading before you post or something......
Quote: AZDuffmanIf I do not want that then I should not have to buy it. Now I have to buy maternity coverage as a single male. Where in a free market would I do that.
Aren't the rates quoted based, in part, upon gender? If so, do you then think that the insurance underwriters factor something in for a male becoming pregnant?
Quote: AZDuffmanThe better way is fewer mandates, not more. We have had more and more for 30-40 years now, the same timeframe where costs have risen most. Seems to be a correlation.
I think that I have agreed with you on this before. However, I'll take the current changes with ACA and believe that it may evolve into something worthwhile.
Certainly much better than living with what we had since you and the other politicians can't seem to get anything done.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen you find such a company please post the name. I am sure there are many people who want to save money. I'd save by dropping coverage I do not need, alas I do not get that choice.
I can assure you that it's a very real company.
Quote: steeldcoThe health insurance in this country has been a broken "system" for a very, very long time.
NO IT HASN'T! You just keep parroting the Obama
line, it's broken it's broken. Health insurance was
working just FINE as a private industry. Having it
was a privilege, not a right, that's the Left's problem
with it. It's a hedge against getting sick for healthy
people who can afford it. That's what the word
INSURANCE means.
'An arrangement by which a company provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.'
They don't insure people who are already sick,
just like they don't insure your car after it's been
in a wreck or your house after it's been vandalized.
That would be stupid. Yet you don't call those types
of insurance 'broken'.
What you want is welfare, not insurance. Quit confusing
the two.
Quote: steeldco
Aren't the rates quoted based, in part, upon gender? If so, do you then think that the insurance underwriters factor something in for a male becoming pregnant?
The Obamacare Act requires me, a male, to buy maternity coverage. Straight form healthcare.gov:
"Five factors can affect Marketplace plan prices: location, age, family size, tobacco use, and plan category. Health status and gender don’t affect pricing."
So NO, insurance UWs cannot take that into account and every single male in the land is getting an effective tax on this coverage.
Quote:I can assure you that it's a very real company.
Name it then.
Quote: EvenBobNO IT HASN'T!
Um, yes it has! Damn broken!
Quote: EvenBobHealth insurance was
working just FINE as a private industry.
ROFL.....I would be willing to guess that 85%+ of the people who write the checks for the cost of health insurance would disagree with you.
The published stats regarding how our country rates in terms of health care in this world would belie your rantings.
BTW, you need to tell your buddy beet that he should stop whacking himself in the head so often.....it shows in his writings.
You have a strange definition of "broken", especially when people were happier about health care BEFORE Obamacare.Quote: steeldcoUm, yes it has! Damn broken!
Mount St. Helens? lolQuote: steeldcoBTW, you need to tell your buddy beet that he should stop whacking himself in the head so often.....it shows in his writings.
Quote: steeldco
The published stats regarding how our country rates in terms of health care in this world would belie your rantings.
You mean the usual stats that say we pay more than countries that ration care and have long wait times for the most basic care?
America pays more for health care because we use more. With 5% of the world's population we use almost 50% of prescription meds. That is just one example.
Liberals think if they had single payer nothing would be denied for coverage because there would be no "profit" involved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Quote: steeldcoUm, yes it has! Damn broken!.I would be willing to guess .
No facts, just opinion and guesses? Obama
told you it was 'broken', so you just keep repeating
it.
By your definition the car insurance industry is
broken too because I can total my Camero and
I can't get insurance from Geico to cover it. Right?
You don't even know what insurance is or means,
you constantly write like you think it's an
entitlement. It's not.
Quote: EvenBobNo facts, just opinion and guesses? Obama
told you it was 'broken', so you just keep repeating
it.
I'll make you a deal, I'll stop writing my opinions and guesses if you stop writing yours.
Quote: EvenBobBy your definition the car insurance industry is
broken too because I can total my Camero and
I can't get insurance from Geico to cover it. Right?
Talk about parroting......this line of argument by you really is getting old.
Quote: EvenBobYou don't even know what insurance is or means,
you constantly write like you think it's an
entitlement. It's not.
I don't believe that I've ever written that it is an entitlement. Show me where I have.
Quote: steeldco
I don't believe that I've ever written that it is an entitlement. Show me where I have.
You write like you think it's an entitlement.
Every time you say it was 'broken', what
you mean is there were lot's of people who
can't afford it, or had pre-existing conditions
that were denied insurance. That's not being
'broken', that's how the insurance business
model works.
And my using the car insurance industry is
not getting 'old', it's spot on. By your definition,
the luxury auto industry is also broken because
everybody can't afford a Lexus or an Escalade.
Aren't we all entitled to one, shouldn't Obama
'fix' that for us too?
Quote: EvenBobYou write like you think it's an entitlement.
Every time you say it was 'broken', what
you mean is there were lot's of people who
can't afford it, or had pre-existing conditions
that were denied insurance. That's not being
'broken', that's how the insurance business
model works.
And my using the car insurance industry is
not getting 'old', it's spot on. By your definition,
the luxury auto industry is also broken because
everybody can't afford a Lexus or an Escalade.
Aren't we all entitled to one, shouldn't Obama
'fix' that for us too?
That's what I thought, as usual, it's one of your "guesses".
When I wrote that I thought 85%+ of the people who write the checks to pay for health insurance coverage would disagree with you that the system is just fine, I would have thought that it might have been a clue for you as to why I know it's broken. I'll try to keep it simpler for you in the future.
Quote: steeldco
When I wrote that I thought 85%+ of the people who write the checks to pay for health insurance coverage would disagree with you that the system is just fine, .
What are you talking about. Poll after poll showed
that the majority of people were HAPPY with their
insurance when Obamacare was passed. You don't
remember that? Where do you get your news from,
MSNBC?
Quote: EvenBobWhat are you talking about. Poll after poll showed
that the majority of people were HAPPY with their
insurance when Obamacare was passed. You don't
remember that? Where do you get your news from,
MSNBC?
Well, as usual, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Did I say all people, or did I say the ones who write the checks?
Quote: steeldcoyou have a problem with reading comprehension.
You need to be more creative with your insults. Statler and Waldorf would cringe at these feeble attempts. lol
But to get back on topic, the system was not "broken", and most people were perfectly happy with their health care BEFORE Obamacare. You don't seem to understand this.
Quote: steeldcoWell, as usual, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Did I say all people, or did I say the ones who write the checks?
I give up. You're just talking nonsense to hear
yourself talk. Come back when you know what's
going on. Try watching something else besides
MSNBC and CNN for a change. Talk about 'broken'.
Quote: EvenBobI give up.
Thank you. I can now claim to have contributed one thing to this site.
Quote: steeldcoReally? REALLY? What friggin' world do you live in?
When I entered the workforce 38 years ago, my employer provided health insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, and all at a cost of ZERO to me. No deductibles. No co-pays. All of my prescriptions were at a cost of ZERO. Now I get just health insurance, with a $4,000 deductible, a bunch of co-pays, and prescriptions that cost me anywhere from $15 to $50 or more. All of these various additional costs and I get the pleasure of paying 35% of the monthly premium.
So all of these additional costs arose since ACA.....right AZ? Really? REALLY?????
You worked for the same company that 38 years?
Quote: Beethoven9thI want the market to decide what coverage is "crappy", not you or Obama.
What market? There is no market in many places. Insurance companies then decide to raise prices by tens of percent each year where they have monopolies, and other insurance companies don't compete because they don't want to reduce their margins via competition. The only places where there is competition is where competition is mandated.
Hospitals and doctors are the same. There are many places in the United States where you have one choice for coverage and you are stuck with that company and the price they dictate down your throat.
And the situation is getting worse. Hospitals and insurance companies are amalgamating which reduces competition and raises prices. They buy out doctors and it's a win-win for them as they can charge more (and get paid ALOT more) by providing the services within the hospital system rather than via their private billing) and of course the increased prices get passed on to you.
AZ and Beethoven cannot deny that reducing competition there mergers and acquisitions don't reduce prices: the increased prices and increased efficiencies go to the CEO and its shareholders but it isn't good for the consumers or its employer-sponsored health plans.
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the current cost of treating uninsured immigrants who entered this country illegally at all levels of government to be $4.3 billion a year, primarily at emergency rooms and free clinics. This doesn't take into account the billions being absorbed by in-patient care delivered by hospitals.
Who is picking up these costs? Every American taxpayer — not to mention medical facilities and insurance companies who turn around and raise their rates for everyone else.
For instance, it may surprise you to learn that immigrants who entered this country illegally, who have not paid one dime into Medicaid, are receiving Medicaid benefits. Kaiser Healthcare News reports that "federal law generally bars immigrants who enter this country illegally from being covered by Medicaid. But a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance program for the poor has long paid about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals, mostly comprise this class of immigrants."
http://www.moneynews.com/NealAsbury/Immigration-healthcare-illegal-emergency/2013/05/09/id/503579
Quote: boymimboWhat market? There is no market in many places.
You missed my point. I was responding to steeldco, who was talking about the government getting rid of "crappy" coverage. My point was simply that the government should not be the one to decide what's "crappy" and what's not.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou missed my point. I was responding to steeldco, who was talking about the government getting rid of "crappy" coverage..
And they never give an example of what 'crappy
coverage' means. Their always saying it on TV
and have yet to hear even the smallest example.
That's because it isn't crappy. What's crappy is
a high premium and an out of sigh deductible
like Obamacare has.
And pre-natal coverage takes two to tango, no? It's not like the baby just magically appeared in the uterus without someone being the sperm donor, usually someone who was ecstatic at the time three-to-four days before conception and 95% of the time would then be on the hook for tens of thousands of child support payments (or happy marriage) through the first 18-26 years of his/her life. I can see the argument: "Why should I pay the child support??? SHE HAD THE BABY!!!"
Typical right-winged attitude: Why should I buy insurance for prenatal care? She's the one having the baby? Combine that with "abortion is murder" that right-wingers typically have. Next, ask them to recognize the irony.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel these days. Come on, guys.
Quote: boymimboThey include men in the insurance pool for both sexes as it is inheritedly more expensive to cover women while they are in their child bearing years.
If you don't know the difference between inheritedly, which isn't a word, and inherently, which is a word, it's hard to take your posts seriously. Then again, your content has the same effect.
Quote: anonimussobama made the United States look stupid soon after he was elected the first time. He and his clown posse touted "Arab Spring" without a clue what was really happening as the Middle East went up in flames, al Qaeda multiplied exponentially, and muslims started slaughtering Christians at will.
Ohh, you didn't capitalize "Obama", "al" or "muslim". Therefore, I find it hard to take your content seriously, as you clearly don't have a sense of when to use capitals or not.
SERIOUSLY.
Intentional ignorance is far worse.Quote: anonimussI did that intentionally. You didn't.
Quote: boymimbo
Hospitals and doctors are the same. There are many places in the United States where you have one choice for coverage and you are stuck with that company and the price they dictate down your throat.
So you are saying there are many places in the USA where we have already adopted this part of the Canadian system, eh?
Quote: boymimboThey include men in the insurance pool for both sexes as it is inheritedly more expensive to cover women while they are in their child bearing years. You don't see women complaining about paying an unfair amount of health insurance for men who live shorter lives and have riskier lifestyles.
The "shorter life" of men makes them lower cost to cover. Men use less health care than women throughout their lives. Yet we pay the same rates.
Quote:And pre-natal coverage takes two to tango, no? It's not like the baby just magically appeared in the uterus without someone being the sperm donor, usually someone who was ecstatic at the time three-to-four days before conception and 95% of the time would then be on the hook for tens of thousands of child support payments (or happy marriage) through the first 18-26 years of his/her life. I can see the argument: "Why should I pay the child support??? SHE HAD THE BABY!!!"
Typical right-winged attitude: Why should I buy insurance for prenatal care? She's the one having the baby? Combine that with "abortion is murder" that right-wingers typically have. Next, ask them to recognize the irony.
You are both distorting the position and making non-valid comparisons. In the first place, "right wingers" state that you should support your children, it is the left-wingers who are fine with women doing it "on their own" as long as the government sends a check monthly. The deadbeat-dad community is found most heavily among the most liberal and Democrat communities.
Now, back to the coverage choices. I am a single male with no intention of having kids. Why on earth should I have to pay for maternity coverage. It is nothing but a tax on me to subsidize someone else's coverage. And it is to subsidize a group more likely to vote Democrat.
(Poe's law alert)
Quote: azduffmanThe "shorter life" of men makes them lower cost to cover. Men use less health care than women throughout their lives. Yet we pay the same rates.
Before ACA, women paid higher rates. The difference in health care costs (women cost about 1/3rd higher than males), according to the National Institute of Health, is due to life expectancy (40%). Once you factor that out, another study states that the difference is just 13%, and is attributed to women using the services more often because they are more proactive (which might be a factor as to why they live longer).
Quote: AZYou are both distorting the position and making non-valid comparisons. In the first place, "right wingers" state that you should support your children, it is the left-wingers who are fine with women doing it "on their own" as long as the government sends a check monthly. The deadbeat-dad community is found most heavily among the most liberal and Democrat communities.
Proof?
Quote: AZNow, back to the coverage choices. I am a single male with no intention of having kids. Why on earth should I have to pay for maternity coverage. It is nothing but a tax on me to subsidize someone else's coverage. And it is to subsidize a group more likely to vote Democrat.
You also pay school taxes based on the property you own, not the number of kids you have?
You don't think you might get lucky one night? You also make about 20% more than women for the same job, yet you probably don't pay tax for the gender inequality in pay rates. Until now?
Quote: boymimbo
You also pay school taxes based on the property you own, not the number of kids you have?
You don't think you might get lucky one night? You also make about 20% more than women for the same job, yet you probably don't pay tax for the gender inequality in pay rates. Until now?
Also, women who choose not to have kids are in the same boat as AZ. It's not just about single male (or republicans) being singled out.
I'm for it, but then I'm for being in a larger pool, where I wasn't born with some pre-existing condition. So, I am subsidizing anyone in that group as well.
Quote: boymimboBefore ACA, women paid higher rates. The difference in health care costs (women cost about 1/3rd higher than males), according to the National Institute of Health, is due to life expectancy (40%). Once you factor that out, another study states that the difference is just 13%, and is attributed to women using the services more often because they are more proactive (which might be a factor as to why they live longer).
Women live longer than men naturally. Across the globe it is rare to find men outliving women. Though it is true women see the doctor far more often than men.
Quote: azduffmanYou are both distorting the position and making non-valid comparisons. In the first place, "right wingers" state that you should support your children, it is the left-wingers who are fine with women doing it "on their own" as long as the government sends a check monthly. The deadbeat-dad community is found most heavily amonr far more often g the most liberal and Democrat communities
Quote:Proof?
The demographic with the largest number of illegitimate births is the black community, which is also the highest support of Democrats. That is just a start, but 20% of the Democrat base right there.
Quote:You also make about 20% more than women for the same job, yet you probably don't pay tax for the gender inequality in pay rates. Until now?
Proof? Seriously this is nonsense. Women get paid the same as men when they do the same job. Women "make less than men" because they take jobs that pay less; take more time off; and are less likely to move for their career. Come on, if a company paid women less for the same job they would be sued out of existence. Please do not expect me to believe women are getting less pay for the same work, and please do not try to bring up "comparable worth" either.
Quote: AZThe demographic with the largest number of illegitimate births is the black community, which is also the highest support of Democrats. That is just a start, but 20% of the Democrat base right there.
Then I guess you want your rates to be determined on your race too?
Quote: AzWomen get paid the same as men when they do the same job
That's the problem. Women don't get the same jobs as men and even among the same profession, they don't get paid the same. Lawyers are a great example of this, where the number of graduates out of law school are the same for men and women, yet only less than 20% of women reach partner status and the median pay for female lawyers are much lower. Or ask a female MBA graduate why they earn on average $4,600 than their male counterpart and this number is based on the first job offered after graduation. Pretty much ALL studies show a wage gap even when accounting for controls.
AZ, I kind of feel like you want your own demographic to suit you.
Quote: boymimboThat's the problem. Women don't get the same jobs as men and even among the same profession, they don't get paid the same.
So your point is that they don't get paid the same as men because they're not getting the same jobs as men? DUH
Quote: boymimboThen I guess you want your rates to be determined on your race too?
Now you are sounding like s2, making things up I did not say. You asked for "proof" that liberals were more likely to abandon kids with paying no child support. I gave you the example of the most liberal group where this is the biggest problem.
Quote:That's the problem. Women don't get the same jobs as men and even among the same profession, they don't get paid the same. Lawyers are a great example of this, where the number of graduates out of law school are the same for men and women, yet only less than 20% of women reach partner status and the median pay for female lawyers are much lower. Or ask a female MBA graduate why they earn on average $4,600 than their male counterpart and this number is based on the first job offered after graduation. Pretty much ALL studies show a wage gap even when accounting for controls.
The 20% figure is useless unless you know how many men make partner. And what kind of law are women vs men pursuing? Lawyers can be everyone from F. Lee Bailey making a fortune down to a person with a law degree on staff at a mortgage office who is on staff because they need a "lawyer" to sign things.
Screw the "studies." Show me where the EEOC has successfully sued a large number of employers for paying men "x" and women "x-y" for the same work. If there is such a gap it should be easy for them to do so. The fact that you rarely see it shows the "studies" to be untrustworthy.
I will repeat, men make more than women because men go after jobs that warrant a higher pay rate in greater numbers than women.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo your point is that they don't get paid the same as men because they're not getting the same jobs as men? DUH
Men get paid more in some positions because women
take far more time off from work than men do, and
rarely work the 70 hour weeks that are needed in
some jobs. On a job to job basis in a company, men
and women are paid the same for the same job.
It is obvious that two cashiers at WMT make the same. It's more in the managerial and executive areas where you see the obvious differences.
But we're off topic.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo your point is that they don't get paid the same as men because they're not getting the same jobs as men? DUH
They don't get the same jobs due to preferential treatment by their prospective employers (*footrub*)
Quote: boymimboAll studies have been normalized for these effects and they still find differences that cannot be explained. Your explanations have been accounted for in studies, and there is still pay equity issues between the sexes. Lawyers and MBAs graduates are classic examples.
IOW, the people who wrote the studies are guessing, just like they do for temperatures before records were kept in global warming studies. Out in the real world we can see women taking different jobs and more time off than men. Even the lawyers and MBAs will have women taking different paths.
Quote:It is obvious that two cashiers at WMT make the same. It's more in the managerial and executive areas where you see the obvious differences.
So you agree they get the same pay for the same work. Managerial and executive level employees have pay based highly on performance incentive, so maybe they are not performing the same? Whatever it is, it is not systematic discrimination.
Yes, I'm paraphrasing you.
Quote: boymimboIn shortform: screw the science, it's obviously wrong. Duh! That's your MO. I get it.
Yes, I'm paraphrasing you.
"Normalizing" based on unquantifiable things is not "science" it is "guessing." I will take what I see in the real world over a paper by someone who hangs out in the Faculty Lounge any day.
