Kat Banyard, campaigns officer at the Fawcett Society and overtly active feminist said...

"The claim that sex discrimination is not a cause of the pay gap is unsubstantiated and sends a misleading message. Government research proves that up to 40 per cent is based on discrimination and prejudice against the value of women's work," she said. "Women caring for children are often forced to take on low-paying or part-time jobs. That's not a free choice."

I hope Kat chooses to reply to my email. I'm very keen to explore this "government research". It fascinates me to think that somebody actually came up with a way of precisely measuring "discrimination" and "prejudice". Astonishing.

Also interesting is the Fawcett Society staff team in which Kat is a member of an eleven "man" team with one token male. Thus they demonstrate their commitment to fairness and equality.

So are women with kids "forced" to take part time work?
Or aree they choosing it to have more time with their kids?

I really hate to say it but many women are idiots - they get sold this femminist lie that 'they' too can have it all: the kids, the career, the ever supportive spouse.

One question ladies, if men with the help of the almighty patriachy cant have it all the how can you?

Seriously when was the last time you ever saw a guy who had a job he loved which pays him oodles of money but still gives him all the time he wants to spend with his kids and wife - who nver ever denies a single requset or says a disparaging word?

Seriously?

I'd have to disagree with the women-in-nursing as a reason women make less. Unless women are choosing nuring over med school, and I doubt that. Nurses make really good money. A friend of mine just graduated nursing school last year and is making nearly $30 an hour. That's more than my DH in his medical engineering feild, which is almost exclusively male.

I have an aunt who was a welder, until she ripped her shoulder out during a serious fall off a smokestack. She made good money, worked when she wanted, and didn't work when she wanted. I gave serious consideration to becoming an electrician.

Bottom line is no, people who work less should not make the same. Wouldn't be an issue is everyone was paid hourly, but that won't happen.

Yeah but when was the last time you heard a male executive complain about having to "juggle it all - work, the house, the kids, etc."? o_O

Momof3, I was an electrician's apprentice for 2 and 1/2 years. The math killed me. I can wire in series and in parallel, but I can't do square roots to save my life. I made good coin, though. But the company I was working for folded. Then I got a job at the post office; they don't call them "disgruntled" postal workers for nothing! I if had been more willing to be brow-beaten by the bastard supervisors, I'd have been retired by now.

A few observations from the late 70's when the movement was starting to take off seriously:

The first in-your-face feminist I knew was a rather attractive young woman in our office. She had that "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" poster in her cubicle along with others of similar ilk. She would wear these very sheer blouses with no brassiere and then complain to our management whenever she caught a man looking at her chest. Our guy-reaction was, "Well, duh!"

That was also a time when many women were claiming the right to work and have a career just like men. None of the guys I worked with had any problem with that. On the contrary, our universal reaction was, "You don't know what you're asking for. Who in their right mind would want this!" And there were a few of us who said, "Take my career ... please!"

But the thing that really got under our skins and made us angry were the feminists who referred to our wives as "only housewives". We saw blood whenever we heard some brainless bra-burning nincompoop mouth that phrase.

My God! Home-making -- that is the work of creating and maintaining a healthy, disciplined, nurturing home for a family -- is the most difficult, demanding and important job there is on the surface of the planet. It's grossly underpaid, yet it demands far more character, ingenuity, determination and just sheer guts than any of our "guy jobs" required of us -- and we knew it.

So whenever we heard someone say, "only a housewife", we wanted to punch them in the nose, then go out and buy our wives another dozen roses.

Does any of this ring a bell with the rest of you guys out there?

>>Seriously when was the last time you ever saw a guy who had a job he loved which pays him oodles of money but still gives him all the time he wants to spend with his kids and wife... -

Seriously, lujlp - see Russell Crowe's role in the new Ridley Scott action flick Body of Lies!

God alone knows why the film has Crowe as a hands-on dad directing explosive covert ops in distant Jordan via a Blue Tooth headset while at the same time taking his kids to school/making 'em breakfast/attending school sports events in suburban USA...but this casual multi tasking seems to be the point of his role.

It's not the main reason the plot totally stinks, but it doesn't help...

Work less, get paid less, I get it. Where discrimination against working women really raises its ugly head is the all too frequent occurrence of women doing the SAME job with the SAME responsibilities and the SAME hours and getting LESS for it than the guy sitting in the next cubicle. That's a very real fact of working life in this country still. Been there, seen it, done it. The fact is that women in the same job as men need to be BETTER than the men who get paid more than them just to keep the job.

Got to love the only example given was ficticioius

Acctually Maggie women do not need to be better - they need to be more assertive.

If a man and women workin the same job and both have simmilar work experiance and seniority odds are the only reason the guy gets more money is because he asked for a raise.

In my exerince many women would rather sulk and complian and use such a senario to "prove" discrimination than walk into the managers office and ask for a raise as well.

Why shouldI as an employer pay you more, even if you are worth it, if I dont have to and you never make an issue of it?

Interesting thread. I'm going to throw in an observation. I work in an engineering job; I'm a senior person at the company, and I have a hand in hiring, mentoring, and evaluating the performance of other engineers. Here's what I have observed about women in engineering: The bulk of the good female engineers are women who were, in some fashion or another, misfits in elementary and high school. They may be black or white, tall or short, pretty or plain; appearance-wise and background-wise they're all over the map. But they have this one thing in common. They didn't belong to any girl cliques in high school, and the tend to have more guy friends then girl friends.

Make of this what you will; I'm not sure what to think of it myself. But perhaps the fact that they weren't as exposed to "girl culture" in their formative years makes them more comfortable with interfacing with men and with doing "men's work". They are every bit as logical and rational as their male peers. And I hardly ever see from them the slightest trace of the misandry that otherwise seems to be common among American women.

Cousin Dave:
It could be that they weren't ever "girls' girls" in the first place. I wouldn't say that I'm one of those women who just doesn't like other women, but I find it easier to get along with men (especially in groups).

On Banyard's quote: "Women caring for children are often forced to take on low-paying or part-time jobs. That's not a free choice." That's crap. You choose to have a family, you have to figure out childcare if you need to work. The rest of the world doesn't revolve around your kids. Business has to be done whether or not you can be there; employers are going to hire people who are available.

>>On Banyard's quote: "Women caring for children are often forced to take on low-paying or part-time jobs. That's not a free choice." That's crap. You choose to have a family, you have to figure out childcare if you need to work. The rest of the world doesn't revolve around your kids.

ahw,
You want a little gentle advice about getting on with women as fabulously as you do with men?

Hold the "that's crap" dismissal of complaints about balancing work/childcare!

Some of us thought we could manage the juggling better than our (in my case) all-or-nothing sixties-era feminist working mothers.

Some of us thought, naively - as new mothers often are - that the workplace would adjust more quickly to working parents and that we could muddle through the intensive infant-rearing bit while maintaining our careers without damaging both.

And, some of us, looking back, now wish we'd been less dazzled by the "having it all" ethos.

We weren't ignorant about the need to figure out childcare. We were, however, overly optimistic about the reality.

"That's a very real fact of working life in this country still."

*I love how people will just assert "its a fact" in the face of an entire thread disputing that notion. Sorry, Maggie, we prefer actual arguments backed by evidence here - you know, like the cited article.

By the way, Amy, the headline would have been even better if preceded by a "Damnit, Jim!"

Don't need an article, snakeman99. Lived it from both sides, as an employee and as an employer. Cousin Dave is right. Assertiveness is key. I had to go in and fight for that raise (that my fellow male co-workers got automatically). And as an employer later, I understood the temptation to pay someone less than deserved because my budget was shot and my employee didn't realize what she could be earning. But I had a long memory of being where she was and they got the raise when they deserved it even if I had to skimp somewhere else because I wanted to keep good workers and not take advantage of them. My reward was grateful employees who stuck by me during down times in the business because they knew I'd repay that loyalty with a bigger paycheck when things got good again. And I did.

Cousin Dave: excellent point about the engineers. I suspect you'd find in a lot of cases that upbringing came into play. These women probably had mothers that worked and fathers that encouraged them to do whatever they wanted, as opposed to the whole "women can't be engineers ... " rap.

Cats, actually: Admittedly the sample size is small, but for the female engineers who have allowed me that glimpse into their upbringing, most of them came from broken homes or dysfunctional families.

"You want a little gentle advice about getting on with women as fabulously as you do with men?"
No. Actually, if I wanted advice, wouldn't I been asking Amy? But I see that you're going to give it to me anyway.
"Complaints about balancing work/childcare" are part of the reason I don't enjoy "girls night out"-type activities.

>>"Complaints about balancing work/childcare" are part of the reason I don't enjoy "girls night out"-type activities.

I can't stand conversation nazis either, ahw.
But I don't generally see them confined to one gender.

Jody - "Hold the "that's crap" dismissal of complaints about balancing work/childcare!

...

And, some of us, looking back, now wish we'd been less dazzled by the "having it all" ethos.

We weren't ignorant about the need to figure out childcare. We were, however, overly optimistic about the reality."

In other words, she was exactly right to say "that's crap", but you would prefer it to be said more diplomatically.

Can't remember where I read this, but, hasn't there been evidence that fields that used to be male-dominated and are now female-dominated experienced a dip of pay? I'm thinking in particular of some of the medical fields, such as pediatricians, or other biological fields. The implication being that the fields lost social status as women entered them.

>>In other words, she was exactly right to say "that's crap", but you would prefer it to be said more diplomatically.

You have a point, JustSomeDude.

I was nudged into defensive mode by the old "I find it easier to get along with men" blah-blah bit of ahw's comment on top of the crap thing.

(I adore the company of good men; I just adore the company of good women too!)

Cousin Dave: Now, that's interesting. And colour me surprised! Maybe there's a desire there, conscious or sub-, never to be dependent? Or maybe the idea of building and improving appeals?

NicoleK: I don't recall a specific study but I think you're right about the status. Around the end of the 19th century clerical and secretarial positions were all held by men. As more and more women took over those positions they became somehow less desirable and lower status. I can't speak to the pay issue but I don't doubt that was also the case, possibly because men were perceived as the breadwinners for families.

"Also interesting is the Fawcett Society staff team in which Kat is a member of an eleven "man" team with one token male. Thus they demonstrate their commitment to fairness and equality."

Now, now gwallan, they looked high and low, far and wide for suitable male candidates to meet their quotas but they just weren't around. Clearly we need more programs in schools/universities pushing men into social work/feminist theory.

Jody, while I sympathize with you about being sold a bill of goods, I've personally long tired of having to be diplomatic instead of saying the truth aka "to bad so sad, get over it". Perhaps its because I've heard too much of the "cowboy up", "stop whining", "be a man" type claptrap from women.

> We weren't ignorant about the need
> to figure out childcare. We were,
> however, overly optimistic
> about the reality.

Sitting quietly now in a darkened room, I'm summoning the inner resources to resist harshing you for this comment.

But the Dark Side of the Force nourishes me... Ripples of hateful energy animate my whole body and cheapen my resolve. Crackling bolts of anger flash from the spirit to CNS.

Maybe if we change the topic soon enough, the battle won't be engaged...

...Struggling...

... Nope! Too late!

> Some of us thought, naively - as
> new mothers often are - that the
> workplace would adjust more
> quickly

I'm sincerely grateful for the sensible tone of humility in your comment. It's obviously hard-won, and the learning those lessons was no doubt a source of friction for you, your loved ones, and your employer.

But I hate the presumption that the workplace must adjust to whatever burdens motherhood wants to bring to it. The bosses hired you --whether you're an Oxford-educated African-American PhD in a wheelchair or a part-time working mother of five from Tuscaloosa-- because they thought paying you would add value to their own bottom line. Employers don't hire workers because they're eager to send value into the worker's lives.

If you're a capitalist, you ought to be OK with that, and confident that you can nonetheless survive, and maybe even thrive.

See the nearby thread about the failure of modern women to even acknowledge that feminine nature exists.

This is one of those posts that make me yearn for an Amy Alkon clone, maybe with a slight Texas accent and liking for Rugby.

Sigh.

I've been all three:

Full time, working in male dominated industry. Hard. Paid really well, traveled, worked hideous hours. Loved my job, hated most of the rest of it.

SAHM. Sssh--don't tell anyone, but staying home is a great gig.

Part-time, self-employed, work at home. The Best.

Unfortunately, my kids were babies during the first phase, and they don't recall this time fondly, despite the world's greatest nanny/babysitter/other mother.

You can have it all, but not all at the same time. I'm plenty ambitious, but with a really low tolerance for BS, and a complete inability to suck up to those I needed to.

Sigh.

NicoleK, catspajamas, could it be that such jobs lost status and payscale beacuse women werent as assertive about pay and employers didnt feel the need to employ a man at a higher salary when a women would accept a lower one?

What was it Warren Farrell asked? 'Why would a company pay men more if they could hire a women at a lower salary?' - just paraphrasing there

But it seems to me that exactly what happend. Supply and demand - a finite number of jobs being fought over by an increasing supply of labor who were willing to accept less money

Here's my two cents from Bulgaria and the way we deal with motherhood and career. We have a very long leave of absence- now increased to 13 months. During that time, I can receive 80 percent of my daily salary.

Of course, you could have a kid straight out of college, but you would be much better off if you had a career for several years, paid your taxes and have the kid and some more cash. You'd also have to fight for a higher salary and better insurance.

We have a socialist government, so I'll wait and see how this works out in the longer term.

> now increased to 13 months. During
> that time, I can receive 80 percent
> of my daily salary.

From who? Who earns that money while you're not working???? How is the value created while you change diapers?

> I'll wait and see how this works
> out in the longer term.

Yes, please; Be in touch!

>>Employers don't hire workers because they're eager to send value into the worker's lives.If you're a capitalist, you ought to be OK with that, and confident that you can nonetheless survive, and maybe even thrive.

There is now a privately run workplace creche where I used to to be employed, Crid.

Had it existed 20 years ago, it might well have bridged the gap between merely surviving as a working mother - which became untenable in my case when our kids were very young - and thriving.

It's not that my own naive expectations were from Planet-Of-Dumb-Broads-With-Outrageous-Entitlement-Issues; they were simply horribly premature.

"We were, however, overly optimistic about the reality."

Perhaps so Jody, but the fact is that when you go to work,
you are joining the company, the company is not joining you.
It should not fall to them to adapt to the various individual
lifestyles of every employee, or compensate any employee for
the poor choices of their private life.

Work less...make less
work more...make more

ask for raise...get paid more
bitch about not getting raise you didn't ask for...get paid less

"The implication being that the fields lost social status as women entered them."

Nobody NicoleK...gets paid based on the social status of their job. Its purely
market forces and supply & demand for skills.

When women entered those job markets, you had a glut of new skilled employees who
were competing for the same positions men were. When you have MORE workers rather than LESS, to fill a certain number of positions, you WILL see the pay scale for those jobs become depressed. This isn't because it is women who enter them, but because you suddenly have more people who must be
willing to work for less pay. As previously mentioned, the lack of aggressive pay negotiation by the fairer sex will mean that the pay will remain lower than it was previously rather than reverting
to its previous pay when it switched from male to female dominated.

Three things:

1) Yes, nursing is predominantly a female field, BUT it pays quite well.

2) The issue with income disparity between men and women isn't ALWAYS the result of the different professions we tend to go into. Yes, secretaries (generally women) get paid less than engineers (generally men) but these two fields require different educations, etc.

3) The issue is that often when a man and a woman do the same job (whether engineer, doctor, or CEO), the woman still tends to be paid less. And that when stereotypically non-skilled "male" jobs (say, truck driver) are compared to stereotypically non-skilled "female" jobs (say, waitress), men still earn more.

Jody, let me ask you:

WHERE DOES THE GODDAMN VALUE COME FROM?

Let's say a guy working in your company didn't have kids. (I know guys like that.) How would he experience this providence?

Where does the value come from? Where does the value come from? Where does the value come from?

(Maybe it's the same people who guarantee Brian's access to health care, for which he taunts us.)

Where does the value come from?

>>Let's say a guy working in your company didn't have kids. (I know guys like that.) How would he experience this providence?

His entire workday is brightened by the glossy hair, generous tits and glowing skin of his talented female colleagues -the happily working new mothers with their in-house creche brats - and he gets an extra special inner bonus knowing these wonderful creatures are actually parting with a huge chunk of their salaries every week for the above-market-rate charged by the handy, privately-run in-house creche because of its value-added proximity to the workplace!

Everybody wins, Crid.

Horseshit offered without even sincerity. Gay marriage arguments go that way, too.

The value is just out there... Why can't you trust us? There's free candy available under every rock... You just gotta believe!

Y'know....

>>Horseshit offered without even sincerity..

But from the same stable you muck out from too, Crid.

I've lost count of the times you've offered a rapturous word salad in somewhat mystical praise of lay-dees in the workplace.

And when companies offer in-house childcare at an above-market rate, I figure they sincerely calculate it adds value to their own bottom line.

Why?

Why...what?

What d'you mean "why?", Crid?

Why do you figure they sincerely calculate it into the bottom line? I see employers do thinks they don't much want to all the time. Besides, you didn't answer the point. Some employees, women specifically, receive value that others don't. This money would presumably be available for other things, like salaries.

And so I'm all like, where does it come from?

>>And so I'm all like, where does it come from?

Think you'll have to discuss this among yourself, Crid!

To start you off...maybe it's spun as a family friendly policy - of benefit to all employees with young families? Maybe the participating creche provider assumes the capital-start-up in return for a guarantee of exclusivity? Maybe the above-market fees charge offsets pointless dog-in-the-mangerism from those with no need for childcare? Maybe the feminazis took over Human Resources in the dead of night?

[quote]From who? Who earns that money while you're not working???? How is the value created while you change diapers?[/quote]

In the years leading up to that higher salary, the mom should have paid enough taxes. If she made little money, she gets a little back.

Who may also earn some part of the money? Other people, who will use my kid's tax money one day.

And part of the value will be there soiling that diaper. While I'm back at work, paying taxes for another sister in the family way.

So far it has worked.

@ lujip You could be right. It wasn't until the last 50 years or so that women even thought they were entitled to equal pay. Prior to that women who pushed for anything in the work force were more likely to get fired for it.

As for "How is the value created while you change diapers?" I'm working in a field that is already beginning to suffer because the boomers are retiring in droves and there aren't enough younguns coming along to take their places. My organization and others like it are scrapping over the small pool of available suitable applicants, and if we don't get our quota we're going to have to start cutting services. One of the reasons? People aren't having kids the way they used to. If someone is having kids, and raising them to be productive contributing members of society that benefits us all in the long run. When I'm old and decrepit (perhaps as early as next year) I want there to be younger folks being doctors, and EMTs and cops to take care of me when I call.

> Think you'll have to
> discuss this among yourself

No, Jody, just answer the question. ONCE. OK? No> This is about the fourth ask, so I'm guessing you don't actually have an answer, except that "other people should take care of my responsibilities..."

Crid,
I'm not being suspiciously evasive.

You seem to be demanding I give you a slogan answer that explains why any company should ever offer employee packages attractive to workers with young families.

The obvious answer would seem to be because those are the employees the company wants.

Amy says: "If you can't afford children, really simple: don't have them."

I've always thought you need to be about 50 to really afford a child! Unassisted biology doesn't agree, however.

> demanding I give you a slogan
> answer that explains why any
> company should ever offer
> employee packages

No, I'm asking that you acknowledge that the extra value you'll demand for bringing your unremarkable talents to market is rudely taken from associates who have no investment in your personal interests and who will not be compensated in turn.

But your evasion of this plain truth --or your seemingly psychotic blindness to it-- is not novel. The identical pattern has been seen a lot this month (Hi, Dick!), and through the decade, for that matter (Hi, Lee!).

'Hey man, it's just a free-market thing....'

Seriously, Jody? Miss "abort as many kids as you want"? Miss "save the kids from the burning bus LAST"? YOU thought someone should help YOU have your career with kids? That's rich. Really. Why didn't you just not have them? Then you wouldn't have to worry that someone might grab them first instead of you, in a disaster.

I thought you were odd, with strange beliefs. Now I think you're dumb.

>>No, I'm asking that you acknowledge that the extra value you'll demand for bringing your unremarkable talents to market is rudely taken from associates who have no investment in your personal interests and who will not be compensated in turn.

Oh, I see Crid.

You've provided a script!

So once I've publicly and humbly acknowledged the soft bourgeois corruption in my thinking - for yes, yes, it's true! - had an employees' creche facility existed at my workplace 20 years ago, which of course it did not - I would have been tempted to pay for a place, thus theoretically rudely robbing my comrades etc etc - what then?

Will I be sent to a farm collective in the countryside to complete my ideological re-education?

>>"...Miss "save the kids from the burning bus LAST"? "

Momof3,

Sorry, I don't quite follow?

> I would have been tempted to
> pay for a place, thus
> theoretically rudely robbing
> my comrades

Allright, now, that's just freaky behavior, saying it precisely backwards. Saying it that way doesn't mean anything or illuminate any wrinkles. It only shows desperation to avoid taking the point.

> You've provided a script!

Nope. Use any words you want... You just won't be permitted to dodge & obfuscate.

This value you consume by having other people care for your kids... Y'know, that wealth, that collection of resources... Where does it come from? Why shouldn't those from whose efforts it's shaved be appalled at your presumptive claim to it?

It's an integrity thing. If you wanna take candy from babies, knock yourself out. But please, please don't tell us the little tyro was asking you to do it, that he sensed your special fondness for sweets and wanted to brighten your day.

..This value you consume by having other people care for your kids...

Really, Crid - what's going on!

Are you having a fit about any women paying for pre-school care? It's really awfully widespread you know.

And, yes, like millions of other working mothers without on site creches (because - and I'm simply attempting accuracy here; no such handy facility existed at the time I would have used it!), I paid the market rate for pre-school child care.

So?!!

Why shouldn't those from whose efforts it's shaved be appalled at your presumptive claim to it?

Now that is a great sentence.

Jody:

You don't seem to have fully attended to what Crid is getting at: such company creches cost more than the charge to the employees using them.

That means the balance comes out of the company's bottom line. Or, to put it in just as accurate, but more appropriate terms, everyone else's pockets.

By robbing them, no matter that individually the touch might be light, those such as you blind yourselves to the fact that a trade off very much exists, and the means of that blinding is through forcing others to participate in that trade.

> Are you having a fit about any
> women paying for pre-school care?

No. I can't imagine why you posed that question, and it's the second time, too. So you're trying to make some point.

My problem is with women who don't pay for pre-school care, but get it anyway.

Quick survey for anyone else who happens to still be reading this thread (I know you're out there, both of you! I can hear you breathing!): Remember Nathan Thurm?

>>By robbing them, no matter that individually the touch might be light, those such as you blind yourselves to the fact that a trade off very much exists, and the means of that blinding is through forcing others to participate in that trade.

Both of you, Hey Skipper and Crid - can you explain this word "robbery" you keep using?

I've just googled a company here in NY - which has on-site childcare.

Parents pay - thanks to a company "subsidy" - $715 a month per pre-school child.

This compares to $750 to $860 per child at a comparable local private facility for the same hours.

Such robbery!

[1] Your sample is a mystery
Representative? Not? Who knows? We know it's not the the company you mentioned earlier, the one that didn't cover the expense for you back in the day.

[2] Evasion
The value, whatever the magnitude, comes from a compensation pool for all workers, whether they avail themselves of the service or not. No?

[3] Principle
If the differential is so tiny that we shouldn't mind the grab, why are you so horny for it?

Sorry for the delay replying, Crid.

1. You are right, I expect, about a non representative sample. Still, it's accurate, local and supports my own impression of company creche facilities NOT invariably being offered at much below the market rate. The price I quoted is for a NY company; the company I mentioned earlier was indeed in the UK (the creche it now runs is in line with the market rates.) FYI, the cost of childcare in France - which I did not mention due to concerns for your blood pressure - is fabulously subsidized. As "we" know however, the French can be funny.

2. Sure. And some firms offer free coffee for the executives. Makes one spit>/i>!

3. What gets working parents orgasmic is the notion of on-site location of childcare.It can knock an hour off the daily commute from your bedroom to the board room.
(And bitter child-free bachelors be blowed.)

>>He was complaining about that and then started going on about the wonders of free French health care. I pointed out that he doesn't have free health care, he has extraordinarily pricey health care.

Absolutely, Amy.

(I really threw the French thing in only to make Crid's eyeballs revolve.)

My parents live in France and invariably trumpet the "free" healthcare (then moan about the outrageous price of gas). Different priorities rule. When we were there last Xmas, my mother had lengthy, chatty, "free" daily visits for a week from a state nurse to change a bandage following a routine, totally uncomplicated foot op. Extraordinary.

Jody: You said, and I could go back and search and quote but don't really care enough to, that you are not only pro-abortion, but believe that adults should be prioritized over kids in an emergency. Hence, adults get helped off the burning bus before the kids. Evidently, even before your kids, which I find odd. That you wanted a company to pay to care for the kids you don't value, so that you can work, is idiotic at best and at odds with your other beliefs.

And saying you "were optimistic" about balancing raising kids (a full time job) and working a full time job being easier than you found it, calls into question your intellect.

That means the balance comes out of the company's bottom line. Or, to put it in just as accurate, but more appropriate terms, everyone else's pockets.

By robbing them, no matter that individually the touch might be light, those such as you blind yourselves to the fact that a trade off very much exists, and the means of that blinding is through forcing others to participate in that trade.

WTF?!? Robbing hell. Companies that offer onsite creches are doing so because someone with authority thinks its a good idea and enough others with authority supported the idea. Presumably the folks making that decision are the one's who's pockets are, as you put it, being robbed.

No one is being forced to do anything or lose anything here. Don't like the idea of company creches, don't go to work for companies that have them. Yeah, there is a trade-off going on. But it is no different than any of the trade-offs that happen with any other benefit a company offers it's employees.

Say one of my single friends goes to work for a company that pays one hundred percent of the insurance benies, even paying for covering employee families. Are you going to argue that my single, family free friend is getting screwed, because he doesn't have a family to provide coverage for? Is he getting robbed?

This isn't the government coming in and passing laws that require companies to provide these benefits. We're talking about business decisions. Companies that offer onsite creches are doing so because of some perceived benefit to them and their bottom line, as is the case with any other employee benefit. Don't like it, don't work for them or invest in their company.

Momof3,
I find the bus thing a bit head-scratching...is it possible, I wonder, that I meant it in the sense airlines do - when they say first make sure you put the oxygen mask on yourself, and only then see to your gasping little poppets? Or maybe I was just being provocative?

I think it's a little unfair to decide I don't value my kids. I think I do cherish them enormously. As for the question of intellect - maybe you're right. Looking back, I do genuinely think I was incredibly thick about the work-childcare balance.

I was so fucking, insanely confident. My mother had done it - seldom breaking career stride despite four children and losing her husband, our fabulous father, in a car accident (when I was 11) and moving between continents.

The four of us grew up surrounded by a sort of rigidly controlled chaos. So I felt a double failure when my own attempts became unglued! Especially since I only had two kids.

I think women have all sorts of blueprints for motherhood. Some a lot odder than others. (But I've also been fortunate in picking a husband who sees himself as a co-conspirator in life's muddles!)

Jody -

I think women have all sorts of blueprints for motherhood.

I think the same is very true of men who would be fathers. I know that I had my own going into it and while it has changed some with the reality (especially when momma and I were separated), it is still the foundation of my parenting.

Ultimately, I think it is very important that we have such diversity in our thinking as parents. For my own part, it has been an attempt to discern what my parents did right, so I can emulate it and what they did wrong so I can change it - mixed with what I've picked up from parents who lead the least dysfunctional families I know. Auto-pilot is not a good way to parent.

>>Ultimately, I think it is very important that we have such diversity in our thinking as parents...Auto-pilot is not a good way to parent.

Couldn't agree more...DuWayne.

Auto-pilot parenting is not something we've managed either! (Too many loop-the-loops and wobbly landings - though we haven't yet run out of fuel. And now I think I'd better ditch that metaphor!)

Companies that offer onsite creches are doing so because someone with authority thinks its a good idea and enough others with authority supported the idea. Presumably the folks making that decision are the one's who's pockets are, as you put it, being robbed.

As a matter of practical economic fact, you are wrong. To the extent the cost of creches are not borne by the people using them, other people are paying, either through lower pay to employees or greater cost to consumers. Spread over the entire customer base, or all employees, the cost per transaction or paycheck may be small; however, as I said above, no matter how light the touch on the individual wallet, it is there nonetheless.

Perhaps I should use a more graphic example. Payroll taxes are shared equally by the employer and employee, at 7.5% each.

Question: who pays the 7.5% portion allocated to the employer?

(Amy, don't give away the game by mentioning how much the payroll tax is upon the self employed).

No one is being forced to do anything or lose anything here. Don't like the idea of company creches, don't go to work for companies that have them. Yeah, there is a trade-off going on. But it is no different than any of the trade-offs that happen with any other benefit a company offers it's employees.

Yes, it is, depending upon how intrusive communalist Democratic legislation becomes, possible to avoid company creches by working somewhere else. However, that is way beside the point, which is this: creches are, in fact, different from other benefits offered to employees because it applies only to those who made a personal decision about their private lives outside the workplace, and the consequence is to impose some of the attendant costs upon others who were not parties to that decision.

Say one of my single friends goes to work for a company that pays one hundred percent of the insurance benies, even paying for covering employee families. Are you going to argue that my single, family free friend is getting screwed, because he doesn't have a family to provide coverage for? Is he getting robbed?

By the logic of my argument, yes, provided coverage cost to the employee does not vary with the numbered covered. Where I work, it does.

Which is an outstanding reason to eliminate the tax code distortions discouraging private purchase of health care and the barriers to interstate insurance competition, while (based upon paternalistic libertarianism) forcing everyone to have health savings accounts.

That, however, is the subject of another thread entirely.

> Sorry for the delay
> replying

Well dammit, don't let it happen again, got it? Google is watching, Jody! Google never forgets!

> NOT invariably being
> offered at much below
> the market rate.

Again then, why are you so into it?

> France - which I did not
> mention due to concerns for
> your blood pressure - is
> fabulously subsidized

(124/82 & climbing)

As is often noted here, I regard most postwar socialist fulfillments in Europe as being provided by the American taxpayer and soldier, who kept those people out of war for the first consecutive generations in something like 500 years. (however many hundred, I don't actually know.) It's amazing how much you can spend on child care when someone else is paying to keep Brezhnev from pissing in the Seine. You bet it's "fabulous".

> As "we" know however, the
> French can be funny.

Name one. Name a funny Frenchman.

> some firms offer free coffee

Mine does! I drink it every day. When you can provide child care for the cost of the coffee service, I'm in.

> the notion of on-site
> location of childcare.

Can't really argue that point, presuming there are no other costs....

NO OTHER COSTS.

But if one of those little peckerheads wanders into my workstation in the middle of a session, swear to God I'll kick him with my foot. WITH MY FOOT!

> (And bitter child-free
> bachelors be blowed.)

Whaddya know... That's my fondest work-a-day hope as well!

> (I really threw the French
> thing in only to make Crid's
> eyeballs revolve.)

How dare you. How dare you.

Jody -

The point you're missing is that I do not want to bear one red cent of the costs of your reproductive decisions.

That means not only do I not want to see government-provided daycare, I don't want government-provided schools, or employer provided daycare either.

Because in any of those cases, I'm being forced to pay to raise a child and I get no input in the matter.

Now we're devolving into fantasy-land. If parents had to educate their kids wholly themselves, and that was a requirement for becoming a parent, the reproductive rate here would drop so far below replacement that the US would functionally cease to exist in a generation. Think that'd leave you no-kidders in a paradise? Think again. There are teeming millions in shitty countries who'd hop right on over and pretty much ruin your little yuppie lives.

Because there'd be no military to stop them, since poor people weren't having kids and you know rich kids don't enlist. But yeah, let's all stop having kids completely. Better yet the military's funded by taxes! Let's do away with it and expect every citizen to defend their own little feifdoms! Yeah!

Amy, your little friends up in DC with their new little addition planning on homeschooling? Rejecting the child-tax credit? Refusing to take advantage of pretax childcare accounts? If not, how can you be friends? They are taking your tax dollars!

I'm curious, how many here have actually served? The country, I mean, not your own search for cheap designer goods.

>>I'm curious, how many here have actually served? The country, I mean, not your own search for cheap designer goods.

Crid speaks for the countless silent fallen who gave their all for cheap babycare in France, momof3, so speak gently.

Jody, you're a pimp

>>Jody, you're a pimp

Pourquoi?

Hey Skipper -

As a matter of practical economic fact, you are wrong. To the extent the cost of creches are not borne by the people using them, other people are paying, either through lower pay to employees or greater cost to consumers. Spread over the entire customer base, or all employees, the cost per transaction or paycheck may be small; however, as I said above, no matter how light the touch on the individual wallet, it is there nonetheless.

Bullshit. No one is being robbed, because no one is being forced to participate. Vote with your dollars, your choices where to work and your choices where to invest, if you don't like it.

Perhaps I should use a more graphic example. Payroll taxes are shared equally by the employer and employee, at 7.5% each.

Question: who pays the 7.5% portion allocated to the employer?

Those who choose to engage in transactions from that end. In the case of an employee who is producing a product or service for a third party, the customers bare the burden. In the case of a employee who works directly for the consumer, the employer pays it out of pocket. WTF is your point exactly?

(Amy, don't give away the game by mentioning how much the payroll tax is upon the self employed).

I am already way too aware, having been self-employed most of my working life. Even when I was working full time on an actual payroll, I still had a lot of self-employed hours to factor into everything. I think I have a grand total of six months of no self employment, since I started working.

However, that is way beside the point, which is this: creches are, in fact, different from other benefits offered to employees because it applies only to those who made a personal decision about their private lives outside the workplace,...

No, it really isn't beside the point. And ultimately no, it's not any different than any other employment benefit. Like every other possible benefit a company may decide to offer, it is offered because of a perceived value by those with authority.

Take a company that is big on family and wants to create a workplace environment that supports that value. Not to the extent of discriminating against people without families, just to the extent that they will provide benefits that are targeted to those who have families, such as onsite creches.

This is no different than companies that want to employ young people who can pull in sales, offering a flashy company car to their reps as a benefit. Or a company that wants to employ college students and thus offers flexible work schedules or even offers to pay for a portion of the tuition.

...and the consequence is to impose some of the attendant costs upon others who were not parties to that decision.

No one is forcing anyone to participate. Don't like such benies, vote with your dollars and don't spend them on such companies products, don't work for such places and don't invest in them.

Which is an outstanding reason to eliminate the tax code distortions discouraging private purchase of health care and the barriers to interstate insurance competition, while (based upon paternalistic libertarianism) forcing everyone to have health savings accounts.

I agree actually. I became a home builders ass. member, just so I could afford to get insurance. The shit was, even with a fairly big pool, we were still paying a rate that was thirty percent higher than the industry average cost for employer provided insurance. I have spent more of my working life uninsured than I have with it, because it is prohibitively expensive and I can't even get a fucking deduction for the cost.

momof3:

A+

DuWayne:

Bullshit. No one is being robbed, because no one is being forced to participate.

This is where your intuitive understanding of economics is letting you down.

Assume an economy with two companies, one which offers creches, and one which doesn't.

The former will absorb those costs through lower salaries, lower investment, or higher costs.

The latter will be, in turn able to choose lower salaries, lower investment, or higher costs because of the options available to its competition.

It is a system. There are no uncaused effects. The consequences of offering something for "free" (scare quotes required) ripples throughout the system.

The only reason there is a political Left is economic illiteracy.

HS -

This is where your intuitive understanding of economics is letting you down.

No, it's really not.

Assume an economy with two companies, one which offers creches, and one which doesn't.

The former will absorb those costs through lower salaries, lower investment, or higher costs.

The latter will be, in turn able to choose lower salaries, lower investment, or higher costs because of the options available to its competition.

But no one is forcing the latter to do anything in response to the company that offers the creche. Say both companies are on an even keel, when one decides to offer the creche. Why does that suddenly mean the company that doesn't has to change a damn thing. If anything, the money they don't spend on the creche, can be used to make them more competitive in another way.

It is a system. There are no uncaused effects. The consequences of offering something for "free" (scare quotes required) ripples throughout the system.

I'm sorry, did I somewhere even imply that the creche services would be "free?" Oh, no I sure as fuck didn't and didn't for a reason. And I am well aware that it is a system and have a very clear understanding of cause and effect.

There are also consequences to offering any other bennie to your employees. Employers have every right and should have every right, to provide benefits to their employees, that they wish to. Compensation, both directly financial and otherwise, are how companies attract and keep the type of employees they want. Whether it is company creches, flashy cars or fully paid insurance - bennies help them stay competitive in the quest for the very best employees, however they define it.

The only reason there is a political Left is economic illiteracy.

Why the fuck to morons always assume that because I think they're wrong, I'm a lefty?

And why is it that the extreme right seems very keen on crying foul at government intrusions, unless those government intrusions produce results they like?

Oi, I should be more fair and proofread.

Why the fuck do morons always assume that because I think they're wrong, I am a lefty (or if debating a lefty, they assume I'm a righty)?