Because, as the "mommy track" argument directly implies (if not outright states), a man can be counted on (supposedly) to be more "reliable" than a woman who needs time off to do the "mommy track." And to some, that's apparently worth the alleged premium.

So the men and non-mommy track women are picking up the slack? remember, the work still has to be done and in a timely fashion.

Also, I immedidately noticed:

90 percent of women were employed full-time and year-round immediately following graduation
80 percent five years out
70 percent nine years out
62 percent ten or more years out
about half of women with children were working full-time ten years after graduation

I suspect, in aggregate, that looks an awful lot like 75 cents on the dollar.

"If hiring a woman can be a huge cost savings over hiring a man, why would anyone ever hire a man?"

Because, if he's a white man, you can decide whether or not to keep him based on how good a job he is doing. Fire anyone else and there is the potential that they can sue you for discrimination.

I don't think that anyone actually believes the 75% claim any longer. But it's not PC to acknowledge that it's false, so people just let it go.

What's funny is that if it were true, it would be due to women themselves. Women tend to work in female dominated environments, like public ed, health care, etc.. So if there is wage discrimination it's being enforced by other women.

Amy - so, here's my question for you - I'm in the prime demographic age for when women start taking off work and popping out the babies. But I'm not married and have no intention of having a kid, now or ever. Is it ever appropriate to mention that in the job interview? The law is written so that employers can't ask about what your plans vis a vis your family are, and I'm pretty sure I've been turned down for a few jobs because they can't ask, so they have to assume.

Not only that, Darth Aggie, but think on this too... whether the businesses can articulate it or not, there's such a thing as "Institutional Knowledge" which in historically western armies was the province of the long-serving NCO.

This also means that time invested teaching women to do their job is far less likely to be rewarded by an experienced and seasoned decision maker ten years down the road to push into upper management.

I frequent a blog devoted to professional women (I'm a lawyer, as are the majority of the commenters on that blog) which mainly deals in fashion but often addresses "lifestyle" issues and questions in the comments.

Whenever this issue comes up, it makes me want to pull my hair out. These professional women, who certainly must be quite capable, want so much handled to them it is outrageous. On one hand, they're demanding things like four to six months of paid time off for maternity, and on the other, they're complaining that they're mommytracked, and lecturing me that the same will happen to me if/when I have children.

I've never seen a woman who did everything that men did (worked extra, didn't miss work, finished on time, etc.) who got treated badly for it. I have, however, seen a number of women complain like crazy about men getting ahead while straight-out refusing to take the actions that they have been told would get them ahead.

I always hired cute girls if i thought there was a chance I could get in their pants. I paid good wages under the right circumstances.

You're daring and transgressive, Botu! You're a shocking truth-teller! Outrageous & brusque! Dozens wonder what you'll say next!

they're complaining that they're mommytracked, and lecturing me that the same will happen to me if/when I have children.

What they may not understand it that without the mommytrack, they wouldn't have a job any longer.

Bungholio, I thought you agreed to off yourself you miserable wretch. Please quit wasting good environmental resources on your worthless existence

*****Amy - so, here's my question for you - I'm in the prime demographic age for when women start taking off work and popping out the babies. But I'm not married and have no intention of having a kid, now or ever. Is it ever appropriate to mention that in the job interview? The law is written so that employers can't ask about what your plans vis a vis your family are, and I'm pretty sure I've been turned down for a few jobs because they can't ask, so they have to assume.*****

Oh, there's subtle ways to sneak it into the conversation yourself. :D

*****I frequent a blog devoted to professional women (I'm a lawyer, as are the majority of the commenters on that blog) which mainly deals in fashion but often addresses "lifestyle" issues and questions in the comments.

Whenever this issue comes up, it makes me want to pull my hair out. These professional women, who certainly must be quite capable, want so much handled to them it is outrageous. On one hand, they're demanding things like four to six months of paid time off for maternity, and on the other, they're complaining that they're mommytracked, and lecturing me that the same will happen to me if/when I have children.

I've never seen a woman who did everything that men did (worked extra, didn't miss work, finished on time, etc.) who got treated badly for it. I have, however, seen a number of women complain like crazy about men getting ahead while straight-out refusing to take the actions that they have been told would get them ahead.*****

THIS. EXACTLY.

Choika - my Federal contractor CANNOT ask anything about your family or your plans.

It's one of the reasons we suck. Protecting a demographic literally means you cannot select for intelligence, and you must pay for a fulltime employee, yet not get one, because quotas must be met.

I burned an interviewer evaluating me one fine day. In an exercise where three of us were assigned mock supervisory positions considering an employee for advancement, I was marked down for mentioning that the applicant had three kids. I looked at the evaluator and said, "This lady has a family to feed, and you think that's bad?"

That's how ridiculous the blanket policy is. Even the interviewers assume that kids = lesser employee. As they forbid anyone to speak of it.

If only there were a way to "continuously monitor performance of the paying agent"!

"Is it ever appropriate to mention that in the job interview? "

Choika, I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but I don't think it's a good idea. First, there's the general principle that it's seldom a good idea to volunteer unsolicited information during a job interview. Second, I'm afraid it may come across badly to the interviewer. I could see where some interviewers might think of it as a sort of attempt at entrapment, something that labels you as a potential troublemaker. Others may just view it as TMI.

So just fabricate something, Crid. Like you've been doing.

Well now, a bungled link is hardly a fabrication...

We love it when you come down from the mountain –the one we're paying for– to tell us how the talent markets oughta work— The markets you're not part of.

Choika, Long time ago I was on the hiring side of the table, a young lady unasked mentioned she was not into the whole family thing. This immediately put us on the defensive. Why? because she could always try to complain/sue because we didn't hire her because of what she said. We did not hire her, but made sure we had documentation as to why not her.
I ran into her several months after the interview, she was I'd say 7 months pregnant. Remember the old saying it's a womans perogative to change her mind.
So goes how much stock interviewers should put into what family promises you make in an interview.

"We love it..."

Free the mouse in your pocket. You're obsessed, and it's not healthy. Homeopathy seems to work for Check(les), you should try that.

I explained how my job will continue even if I am not the one doing it, and you immediately started bleating about how I was above it all. You've fabricated things about my work despite my having linked to its Web site...

...and you're simply being stupid. You still haven't realized that "continuously monitor performance of the paying agent" was selected to point out that:
a) Stockholders need to see that benefit costs don't kill the profitability of the company in which they have invested;
b) Taxpayers need to see that public-employee benefits are funded other than by taxpayer dollars to the maximum extent possible;
c) Prospective employees have to be sure of the arrangement made between employer and investment agencies to see what vulnerabilities exist to affect the deferred wages represented in the pension and health-care plans offered.

As you would have seen had your rage not blinded you, the "paying agent" is different for these points. These are all reasonable and logical things to do.

And you advocate...?

Forget I asked. It should be obvious - you've no idea. That's why you've dodged earlier questions.

But don't miss the bottom line, Crid: you don't know about my job. You're just making noises, as the brief explanation above should reveal.

My job, basically, is to find errors and fix them. Oh, yeah, that's something that should never be done at a radioactive waste facility, right?

Don't like the job being done? Well, then, since you'd be so much better at it, come on over. It's apparently so much better than your job that you have to whine in different ways about how unfair it is.

You're precious! You are accountable to the consumer! You are noble and necessary to the operation of America!

Okay. Want to save us from the waste generated in making atom bombs?

Whining about it does nothing. You can apply here. If accepted, you will be drug-tested (your background will be checked to varying degree based on process access), and placed in the training program. You should expect to be pulled from the program whenever somebody needs a worker to handle contaminated process equipment, which will put you in a plastic air-fed suit or two pair of anti-contamination coveralls and a full-face respirator. That's because such work is not trivial. We're working on a tank now which contents set off radiation alarms a hundred yards away when a 200mL sample bottle was pulled out of it three years ago, and it had been sitting for 20 or so. That's about as bad as it gets. Well, other than when an Evaporator vessel has to be replaced. Lots of airborne contamination then, and it can't be helped - you'll be inside the secondary containment structure when the waste lines are disconnected.
Yes, that's an entry-level job.

I know, you're not impressed. You already know about my job, huh.

But hey, you can do it. I bet you don't want to.

-----

Remember: I am not authorized to speak on matters of employment or the conduct of the projects controlled by the DOE. The above is my personal observation.

Just saw this, gotta get to work, will pick it up later.

Glad to see you still have a job. The way you've been ranting, I thought you'd lost one.

On a Saturday, too. Hope you're getting overtime!

Didn't you promise not to read my comments last week?

Well, full response later tonight, but for now, please understand that I think you deserve all the patience, respect and intellectual engagement befitting five-dollar whore. You've earned it, kitten!

> I explained how my job will continue
> even if I am not the one doing it

Which was weird, because nobody ever said we didn’t want your job done. The job ain’t the problem. It’s the rate you charge that’s the issue. We have no reason to believe it’s appropriate... Unless you’ve faced some market competition that we don’t know about.

> a) Stockholders need to see that benefit costs...

This is all just ducky, and very sophistimicated and intellec-shuall of you, but it’s not the kind of thing we wanna hear from someone who’s sucking socialist teat through sharpened fangs.

We see how you live your life. These very nuanced and preciously-worded theories of yours are shy whispers against the thunderclap of your example. We know how you REALLY think economics oughta work.

> And you advocate...?

The cleansing sunshine of market competition.

> you don't know about my job.

You think that matters... But I don’t CARE about your job. (Though I’m thinking I know what I need to know.)

> My job, basically, is to find errors and fix them

Thanks once again, but none of us are that curious about your life. How vainglorious a narrative are you going to write for yourself here?

I guess the storyline would go like this; As a thirteen-year old quaking in his own afterglow in the darkest night, you’d set aside your Playboy magazines and wash your hands before dropping to your pillow, where you’d DREAM of being a technocrat who handles nuclear waste (which is, so far as I can tell, an unresolved hazard to the environment of America’s future.) And then you got an undergrad degree someplace –maybe a two-year– and as you walked down the isle at the graduation ceremony, you pretended to be Hans Bethe. And now you’re a completely unremarkable government worker, a middling performer's middling performer, desperate for admiration to match the bulletproof security of your employment... Even in anonymous fora like this one.

> Well, then, since you'd be so much better at it...

Rilly? Rilly, Uncle Raddy? Can ANYONE aspire to excellence of your magnitude?

> You can apply here

Gosh! That’s great! Because I gotta confess something.... I don’t remember you posting a link in an earlier comment. Deciphering your meaning can be a lot of work, and sometimes I black out. Or get bored. Or fall into a devastating emotional depression.

But tonight I found another link of interest: The DOE is presently hiring for
thirty positions paying six figures... And of course, that’s only for the listed offices. Christ knows how much candy’s being passed out to unpublished hires.

Get the picture? That's how they roll down at the good ol' DOE. That’s how it works for the Federal Government while the rest of the economy –the people who create wealth, rather than just burn it– is facing a downturn unseen for nearly a century.

The sad part of this exchange is that we’ve seen it all before. You don’t face a competitive market for your talent, and we’re paying your wage. So you pretend to be very smart, or very special, or very ferocious.

And I’m kinda cool like that.

Because people need to understand that in the years ahead, every teatsucking government employee is going to be making exactly these same arguments. ALL OF YOU are going to be saying there are perfectly good reasons for you, individually, to be excused from the excellence demanded by competition...

...But none of you will be able to say what those reasons are. You will nonetheless mock those truly at risk in difficult times.

But that’s enough bitterness for now. Here’s to the winners, OK?

Happy Birthday, Little Fella. Go out there and make it a great autumn.

"It’s the rate you charge that’s the issue."

Which you don't know.

And that pretty much sums you up.
Nice job, Straw Man.

> Which you don't know.

Does it matter? You can't be fired.

Or are you asking us to imagine that you're making a terrible sacrifice for us by withholding your skillset from the private sector?

I mean, if you want to chuck it all away and walk out into the real world and be judged like a normal guy, that would be cool... With us, who pay your (entitlement teatsuckling) salary.

Be in touch, Raddy! Let us know if you find honest work!

(PS- No dental out here, babe.)

I read somewhere (on the internet, so it must be true) that married men get paid the most, then single women, then single men, then married women. Which makes a lot of sense.

My husband is a federal employee here in Switzerland, and the way they do it is they state his total salary... say 100k since that's a nice round number. Then they take out all the benefits from that, including a chunk of money that will eventually be his pension. What he's left with, let's say 80k, is his taxable income.

Maybe it would work better if they did it like that in the US. Rather than stating, "Teachers make 40k a year plus benefits", state it as "Teachers make 60k a year of which 40k is taxable and paid to them immediately". It would be a bit more honest, taxpayers would see what they were paying.

"You can't be fired."

Made it up again. Shouldn't it hurt when you do that?

What I said was that my job would go on, be necessary, no matter what, because the nuclear waste isn't going away soon.

You've just evolved into a sputtering loon - and again, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd not have anything like this to say.

To be clear: you don't. I sure hope you'll learn, but I doubt you will because being mad is so much fun for you.

Less fun than being federally employed (on my dime) is for you, I promise.

"Less fun than being federally employed (on my dime) is for you, I promise."

Your "promise" is worth nothing, because your problem is with the existence of radioactive waste, not with me - as I have tried to explain to the bot posting with your handle for some time now.

So much of what you post is delightful. I really wish you'd learn something about this situation, because you're confused. Any third party should be able to see that.

Your being mad is less fun than my job, huh?

Then, you should quit. I'm not going to, and I do my job, which you still know nothing about, way better than you are at being mad. I actually solve problems and prevent new ones where I work, and I'm known across facilities and organizations for it. You?

So. Your opinion is uninformed. What is that worth?