Asymmetrical Information

I'll send you a bottle of Bushmills if she calls you a Nazi or a fascist. Oh, all right, I'm just kidding, and for all I know it's enjoyable and interesting to be in her company when she isn't talking politics.

I'm curious why you would vote for Al Gore. What were the qualities you saw in Al Gore that would have tipped the scales in his favor, vs. the G.W. Bush option? I don't understand the connection you felt toward Gore. Please explain.

Poor Megan, getting ganged up on. Oh well, you're doing a good time, even if they are talking past you and throwing out bad data.

Well, that's what happens when you listen to talk radio and post at the same time.
"Doing a good JOB" -- "even though they're not giving you equal TIME"

Wow -- that reminded me of Politically Incorrect when it was on ABC. Talk about being ganged up on.

"... but they don't because they're bastards." Heh!

Does Deutsch even know what he's talking about?-- Every hospital is run by the Knights Templar too I'd bet.

Good show, Megan. I want to point out that the male-female wage disparity has a lot to do with single parenting and with divorce. The single parenting issue should be obvious -- in an economy that devalues child care, it's the rare single parent who can work a 40-hour week, let alone the 60 hours expected of a top executive.
The divorce rate is 50% -- 66% in my high-demo community. If I earn $6000/month and my ex-earns $4000, and the ex- has the kids, and I pay $1000 in child support, each household makes $5000/month, but the $1000 transfer is invisible to the IRS and may not be counted as income.
Re: the nursing shortage. Someone in this discussion should have mentioned HMOs, which largely dictate the economics of health care delivery today. I think you'll find that male and female doctors earn comparable salaries, as do male and female nurses.

Seth Masia
Boulder CO

Was anyone surprised at the assertion of nurses not making a lot of money? I've found that nurses seem to make an incredible amount of money, especially compared to the amount of schooling. I'd argue that their pay rivals that of engineers, in terms of jobs that only require four years of school.

It also appears odd in the sense that the assertion was coupled with the assertion that there weren't enough nurses. Doesn't low supply, high demand typically correlate to high wages?

But I think it's naive to think that there is no culture of sexual discrimination in the wage issue. There are many businesses that I personally know of who pay different wages for men and women in the same capacity. And yes, those companies face a risk of lawsuits for this practice, but there are soft ways to practice the discrimination, which fall below the radar screen. Much of the cause of this is the fact that we tend to guard our income levels with a high level of secrecy and women are unlikely to know just how poorly paid they are in comparison. In fact, I worked as a designer who received not only a higher level of respect from my employer, but a higher wage as well than two women designers (who, in my opinion had a better sense of design than I did). We need to accept the fact that that culture exists.

Also, I believe this culture wants to reinforce that women are better off abandoning dreams of professional life for one of subservient child care. By building an unbalanced work environment we send the message that it's not worth it for women to hold a career.

I hope you're not supposed to represent conservative or Republican viewpoints. From the things that you've written which I've read, you could at best be described as a moderate-moderate Republican, possibly a conservative Democrat. That's probably why they're having you...you're "safe" content.

Janeane would dare mess with a real conservative.

You know...a conservative like me.

}:-)

SDAI-Tech1

Jane:

The comments make it sound like an interesting time was had by all. But we weren't all able to get to a computer or radio. Post an mp3. You must have had someone copy at least your portion of it.

There is a teaching shortage and a nursing shortage. Because kids are brats and poo smells bad.

I think that teaching is very influenced by the government monopoly and teacher union monopoly issue, but in Montgomery County, Maryland, I know someone who the state paid to go to grad school and started teaching then at $40K/yr. She was a "B" student political science major as an undergrad. And if you stick around a few years, the salary goes up, up, up.

But I do believe that a lot of the gender pay gap has to do with the trouble many women have negotiating to win. There are plenty of great women negotiators, of course, but I have heard many women say to me "Oh, I'll ask for $50k, I really am not worth more than that." Studies show that women on average pay more for cars, for example.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, it just is, and I hope more women can learn to properly negotiate for what they are really worth.

I thought it was a reasonably good show as well, but you made one point at the beginning nobody followed up on. You went through your argument that the wage gap has many simultaneous causes (a comment subsequently misrepresented by your three studio companions) but said that the real issue was 'what to do about it'.

The fact that discrimination (or, for that matter, biological differences) exist does not automatically infer an optimal course of action.

I thought your 'opponent' did well. This was particularly surprising because he described himself as a "socialist". Perhaps, much like the Bush pre-debate spin, that's just his way of setting low expectations for critical thought.

So what do we do about it? What is the solution to end this discrimination? Or to overcome biological differences, if they exist?

Now why is it that you give us all one and a half hours notice. You didn't know about it at 4pm? 3pm?

Bummer ;-(

I thought your 'opponent' did well. This was particularly surprising because he described himself as a "socialist". Perhaps, much like the Bush pre-debate spin, that's just his way of setting low expectations for critical thought.

Thanks!

I didn't intentionally describe myself as a socialist; I described myself as a "socialist feminist," to distinguish myself from other schools of feminism (such as "liberal feminism" and "radical feminism." However, that was a bit of jargon that no one outside of a women's studies department is likely to understand, so it was stupid of me to use it.

Economically, I favor a mixed-market approach, rather than pure socialism.

I agree that the format was unfair; from a debate standpoint, I would rather have debated Megan without so much help from Janeane and Sam (although doubtless the listening audience would have preferred more Janeane and Sam and less of me!). Still, in my own defense, I would certainly agree to appear on a show where the hosting bias was against me, if someone made the offer.

Megan, as I expected, was smart, charming and funny. (So were Janeane and Sam). I hope we succeeded in having a reasonably intelligent and respectful debate.

Her acting work? You were joking, right?

Secret salaries does more than hurt women, it hurts all employees. By dictating that salaries are secret (with many companies threatening termination for discussing them), companies stack the information gap in their favor. Having tried to do salary research, it's not easy to find good numbers.

By the way, most engineers only have a four-year degree. Of course the standard engineering curriculum is more properly a five-year curriculum, but they are nominally four-year and give an undergraduate degree.

One problem with teaching is that salaries are set by a government entity, typically, so are not necessarily going to be as responsive to the market as a private company would be.

Will there be a transcript up somewhere?

Bolie IV

Jane:

It's been 12 whole hours, and you still haven't posted the mp3? WTF? Pretend you are a hard-working Dem, dedicated to making the little man (me, others who missed the show) happy, not a shiftless, bone-idle Republican with nary a thought for anyone but yourself and your fat-cat corporate friends. (I didn't hear the show and I'm feeling left out).

Kate, back me up here. Where's the mp3?

Look, Jane, think of it this way, two of your most liberal readers don't seem to be listening to Janeane Garafolo on any kind of a regular basis. Please throw us a bone. Give us at least part of an MP3 (if Air America will let you have it, which they may not, so only if you obtain it legally.)

Kate

http://airamericaplace.com/ has audio archives.
http://airamericaplace.com/archive.php?mode=display&id=401

Nurses are indeed in high demand right now, and my sister has a job directly out of nursing school for a wage+benefits value that is at least the equal, if not more, as what I am making as a contract consultant with an engineering degree (I would prefer a normal full-time job, but after five months' unemployment a person doesn't get choosy). Subtract taxes+FICA and she will actually be making quite a bit more in take-home value.

I used to be an expert on this subject in my past life. I think there are a few interesting points people may find interesting.
1. The wage gap over time between men and women has fallen from 40% (from 1980) to 24% currently (Jane got this right).
2. The wage gap for black and hispanic women relative to white women has been eliminated by late 1980s.
3. The wage gap in the US is bigger than in other developed countries. This difference reflects the wider wage disparity in the US. If you look at the distribution of wages, women in the US are at a higher percentile relative to men then in European country (women's average wage is at the 35th percentile of men in the US), the female wage is actually at a lower percentile in Western Europe. The higher wage compression in Europe causes average wages of women to be relatively higher in Europe (this is data from the late 1980s).
4. The wage gap for never married men and women is much closer. I remember seeing a study of 1985 Stanford Business school graduates 10 years later which found that the married men earned an average of 150K a year, single men 130K, single women 125K and married women around 95K. This result is typical. Being married is good for men, bad for women (in terms of income). This is a large literature on why this is so. Also the wage gap for people coming out of schools is very small.
5. The wage gap is smaller the more measurable the skills are that a field needs. For example, entry level accounting wages are set by the applicants GPA. Since women have higher GPAs then men they actually get paid more. In jobs where there are no explicit skill requirements men do get the better paying jobs (for example sales), at least they did in the late 1980s.
6. As to nursing jobs. Are they really that low paying? The average nursing wage is 45K which does not seem that low given the educational requirements. With all the changes in health care it would be interesting to compare changes in physician wages to changes in nursing wages, my guess is that physicians incomes have actually declined in the last 10 years while nursing has not. I do not know this for sure though.

I want to make one correction to my comment above. The wage gap for Black and hispanic women has been eliminated if you control for education (i.e. black women college graduates earn the same as white female college graduates). Since minority women have less education on average their average wages will be lower than wages of white women.

Will Allen wrote:

"I'll send you a bottle of Bushmills"

Excellent taste, Will.

(Don't buy any Free State Whiskey, like Jameson's or Power's. Them Catholics can't distill properly.)

Wow, literally the first thing out of Garafolo's mouth is that Libertarians don't really exist, that they're just lying about not being Republican? And to think that I honestly respected Garafolo for her intelligence, if not her political judgment...

Are you sure you're old enough to have voted for Al Gore? ;-)

I thought you were about ten years older...I guess that's a compliment to your writing skills --either that or I haven't been paying attention too closely, which is entirely possible.

The production quality is really amateur hour on Air America. Their voice talent, recording production and everything else just really...well...it really su-ks. I almost laughed as the pre-recorded "the left just got a bit louder" line is delivered. It's like a lame high school 'humanities' project. Can't they apply for funding from George Soros for some better equipment/talent? They certainly could use it.

Is anyone sure that Janeane and her companion aren't really closet Republicans working towards Bush's re-election?

I kept thinking I heard the Scarecrow's tag line from the wizard of oz while listening to them.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1

"I almost laughed as the pre-recorded "the left just got a bit louder" line is delivered. It's like a lame high school 'humanities' project."

Indeed.
I've been considering seeking out some new avenues of time-wasting news-absorption perspective-giving things, but just one hour of Air America did a pretty good job of turning me off to them.
Granted, I've never listened to talk radio, besides unintentionally, so maybe Rush and other right-wing talk show hosts are that bad. I doubt it. I think the people running Air America just have a warped view of the other side of the aisle and they "pump up the volume" so to speak to match and end up looking juvenile.

Paul Snively wrote:

And to think that I honestly respected Garafolo for her intelligence, if not her political judgment...

Paul, isn’t that a little bit like Jane saying she admired Garafolo's acting work?
;)

I heard this a couple of weeks ago. There is really no wage difference between the sexes.

If there was, the evil money-grubbing corporations would only hire women because they are so much cheaper.

"If there was, the evil money-grubbing corporations would only hire women because they are so much cheaper."

That also implies that employers are rational actors with regard to hiring the cheapest labor but irrational when it comes to favoring men over women, or whatever the circumstances.
If you're sexist you probably don't want a load of women on your workforce, even if it means you have fewer workers, same as a white employer might trust a few white buddies to a lot of darkies.

Janeane Garofalo was especially good in "The Matchmaker." It was about a New England politician who was courting the Irish vote, claiming to be Irish himself, while it turns out he was actually from Romania...or something. The plot...the plot...no, it's just too ridiculous.

I prefer the lower priced Jameson's to White Bush, but vice-versa in the expensive versions (Black Bush to 1780). The Mickeys just make a better workingman's booze. These are widely available, but it reverses again in the hard-to-find category, where Jameson's Gold is my present favorite. And, as a matter of fact, some of the ingredients in the Jameson's blend are from the Bush distillery- both brand's are owned by Irish Distillers.

(Don't buy any Free State Whiskey, like Jameson's or Power's. Them Catholics can't distill properly.)

I don't claim to be an expert on the hard liquors by a long shot, since I don't taste them very often, but there is nothing wrong with Jameson's.

The discussion about comparative wage gaps between Europe and the US was interesting, but didn't mention that wages are generally lower in Europe so that the foreign women making 85% as much as men in their puny little counties are still making less than their American counterparts.

Your points about divorce law were way off the mark, however. The claim that women who get divorced at 50 have no stake in their husbands' earnings was just plain wrong, ignoring the huge transfers of wealth in the form of child support, alimony, and community property. You really should research this area before making such a wild claim again.

Aside from that, I think you did a good job, especially so considering that the format was a 3-on-1 gang bang.

I thought you did a nice job, Megan. As usual with these things, I thought the exchange had only just succeeded in defining the interesting issue when the time ran out. Actually, what's usual with these things is that they never even get to that point, so given the time constraints I think you guys did a good job. Despite the extent to which the room was stacked against you, the conversation between you and Barry at least remained respectful and intelligent. The only lapses in this regard came from the two hosts, who apparently felt compelled to make sure "their side won," first by insisting on labeling you ideologically (the better to preemptively dismiss anything you said), and then by caricaturing your position. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that one can have a principled worldview that doesn't fit neatly within the tribal affiliations of leftists and rightwingers?

I'd actually be interested in seeing some continuation of the conversation online. Here's where it looks to me like you two came out at the end of the exchange: While still maintaining that direct discrimination is a problem (and that to the extent it's not, it's only because of legislation), Barry I think acknowledged that the wage gap persisting today is primarily a function not of overt discrimination but of differing choices being made by men and women. He argues, however, that the reason women make the choices they do is that the "menu" they are offered is fundamentally unfair. I'd like to see some more digging into the question of what this "menu" consists of, what the forces are that determine the options available, and whether the efforts to change them that Barry has in mind would really be salutary or would just result in substituting one Procrustean prix fixe for another.

For starters, I'll throw out the following provocative assertion: The "menu" offered to men and women is exactly the same: You can prioritize economic reward (and whatever personal fulfillment you get from achieving it) or you can prioritize parenting (and whatever personal fulfillment you get from that). The notion that somehow women face this stark choice while men don't is BS. Once overt discrimination is removed from the picture, the only way the "wage gap" can be viewed as a problem is based on the premise that, in the absence of any injustice, women in the aggregate would choose to prioritize economic reward over parenting reward to exactly the same extent as men. What's the basis for this assumption?

Few things pain me more than the bane of libation bigotry. There are many fine distilled beverages from the Emerald Isle, to say nothing of the brewed treasures. Cannot we beneficiaries of the skilled distillers, brewers, and vinters of this tiny planet all get along? Cannot the scotch imbiber lie down with bourban sipper? Cannot the ale guzzler bond in hearty companionship with the champagne quaffer? Hmmm.... on second thought, let's not reply to these qustions in too much detail, but rather, let us all join in mutual contempt for those heretics who see fit to drink their hooch in combination with improper masking agents, that renders the Lord's nectar into something that resembles nothing more than kool-aid with a kick!

Tom, continue talking smack like that, and you could get yourself banned. Jameson's is a fine sippin' whiskey, and I won't stand for anyone promulgating such filthy and transparent lies on my site.

Thanks, Helper. I just listened to the d/l.

Where was Jane? They had this Megan McArdle woman instead, who was totally sane and did pretty well. Was she a last minute replacement? If she was, she wasn't a very good one - voted for Al Gore, admits discrimination exists - she was like a DLC spokesperson. I never believed in media bias, but if Megan was supposed to be a conservative....

Anywho, the "debate" was pretty good, but it was (a) too unstructured, and (b) too short. It was a sort of "point, counter-point, and move on" format. And the points of disagreement were too narrowly drawn for such short shrift.

Comments are Closed.