Last night Pastor Rick Warren of Sattleback Church in Lake Forest, California, hosted a forum with the Republican and Democrat presidential nominees. If you missed it go to Foxnews.com and watch it. I would say that it was the best forum that I have ever watched in my short history of following presidential politics. I'm not the only one, Charles Krauthammer, columnist and foxnews employee, said it was the best in history. Look for this forum to be used in the future as presidential nominees will be happy to participate in it. During the forum and this Sunday morning as I study World History before leaving for church, I have watched morning coverage of the forum and one thing sticks out to me.
Some believe that the questions were centered around John McCain's strengths. The people that I have seen say this have emphasized that they do not think Pastor Warren did this on purpose but that the questions that he cares about centers around conservative principles. In other words it was not a conspiracy but that McCain was in a comfortable environment talking about points that are more comfortable to him than Barack Obama. Some would defend Warren and say that it was fair and balanced and that it was a great forum I do not know what you are talking about. Conservatives will say that for the first time Obama looks weaker than McCain and your just upset so your making that up!
Not me. I agree with the skeptics. The forum was set up in McCain's favor. I believe that it was a conspiracy. But not a conspiracy against Barack Obama or in favor of John McCain. The conspiracy was that the questions centered around WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE! The questions were tough and centered around leadership, experience, wisdom, seeking more wisdom, belief system, world view, whether evil exist and how do you deal with it, philosophies of life. The questions were tough and to the point. And the questions centered around what is most important about an individual to see if he or she are qualified to be President.
If you are upset that the questions centered around McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses, then maybe you democrats should think twice before nominating a postmodern, pragmatist, young, inexperienced, far leftist, communist and Marxist sympathizer like Barack Obama. It is that simple. And I am not being a partisan anti-Obama guy. The man has admitted that he hung out with Marxist professors for guidance. A pastor of a church like Saddleback was perfect for asking questions like that because a Pastor is an occupation that requires the same qualities that a president must have. In one word- Leadership. This and the other topics are Barack's weaknesses because Barack Obama is a weak presidential candidate.
P.S. But he looks good and is a great speaker when he delivers a planned speech!
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Just moved!
Sorry I have been away so long. I got a phone call from the principal at Sequoyah High, close to Sweetwater, Tn, to come in for an interview just three Mondays ago. I interviewed on Tuesday and found out that I had the job just two Mondays ago and had to move by Tuesday and start getting my class set up and attend a lot of meetings. Finally last week was my first week of teaching but I have had to work extra hard to be prepared for that. So I have been away for a time.
I hope you are following the price of gas fall. I predicted it a couple months ago when President Bush lifted the executive band on drilling. This was a step in the right direction and made speculators bid lower prices for oil due to the possibility that Congress will finally get their act together and lift their ban on drilling. If that happens Oil prices will fall another 25 dollars quickly just as it has 25 dollars just recently. Gas will dip another $.25 over the next couple or three weeks unless the markets change again. But as of now it should be close to an average of 3$3.30 which means around where most of you live it will be closer to $3.15. This will still take a few weeks and it also depends on nothing changing between now and then. Lets hope that happens.
It is my opinion that John McCain is polling this close to Obama because of the drilling thing. With the War in Iraq going well the attention has shifted to the economy. The economy is being hampered dramatically by gas prices amongst other things. Republicans have an advantage on oil prices and thus unless Obama switches his position on it as other economic positions, the polls should remain close. Something that no one could have predicted a few months ago with the hype of Obama stirring around the liberal leaning media.
I will soon hopefully have my work here caught up and start blogging again soon. I will soon start a series on our founding documents and the impact of God in our country early on in our history. I will discuss the originality of the phrase : Separation of Church and State. It should be interesting. I hope you tune in.
I hope you are following the price of gas fall. I predicted it a couple months ago when President Bush lifted the executive band on drilling. This was a step in the right direction and made speculators bid lower prices for oil due to the possibility that Congress will finally get their act together and lift their ban on drilling. If that happens Oil prices will fall another 25 dollars quickly just as it has 25 dollars just recently. Gas will dip another $.25 over the next couple or three weeks unless the markets change again. But as of now it should be close to an average of 3$3.30 which means around where most of you live it will be closer to $3.15. This will still take a few weeks and it also depends on nothing changing between now and then. Lets hope that happens.
It is my opinion that John McCain is polling this close to Obama because of the drilling thing. With the War in Iraq going well the attention has shifted to the economy. The economy is being hampered dramatically by gas prices amongst other things. Republicans have an advantage on oil prices and thus unless Obama switches his position on it as other economic positions, the polls should remain close. Something that no one could have predicted a few months ago with the hype of Obama stirring around the liberal leaning media.
I will soon hopefully have my work here caught up and start blogging again soon. I will soon start a series on our founding documents and the impact of God in our country early on in our history. I will discuss the originality of the phrase : Separation of Church and State. It should be interesting. I hope you tune in.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
How To Win The Black Vote
Due to writing blogs that have to be divided into two, three, and even four part series', I have to put off writing about other issues that are relevant at a particular time. This is one of those cases. It was not too long ago that John McCain spoke to the NAACP. The NAACP and other civil rights organizations are anti-Republican to say the least. George Bush did not speak to them until years after his presidency because of the disrespect that group shows him. John McCain was shown the same respect as some protested by reading the newspaper much like I did in my high school days when the opposing basketball teams starting lineup was being announced in the Oliver Springs gymnasium. So how should a conservative (which McCain is not) really go after the Black vote?
First, do not try to suck up to them, apologize to them, bring up history of racism to them, etc. That has been done and no one is better at the liberal approach then Democrats are. So even if McCain is the most popular Republican to the NAACP and the Black population, he will still not get their vote over Obama. I would go after that small percentage of black voters who have not been convinced of their "Victimization" standing in America. Conservatives must take a different approach, an approach that might only win 20-25% of the vote this year but is still more the 10-15% they usually receive. So how do we do this?
Go after Democrats on their support for teacher unions and their hatred of school choice. There is no group in America that is hurt more by our communist style education system we have in this country then the inner city black kid. NO ONE! Look into the camera and tell every inner-city poor black family that I will work to get school vouchers to you so that you can take your child to any school of your choice. That voucher will be worth the current amount spent per child to a typical public school in that area. That amount will now follow that child to any school of your choice including private schools. If you can not afford to send your children to the area private school well take this $8,000 dollar voucher and all you have to do is pay the rest. Currently you pay large sums of taxes and then watch that money wasted on a failing government school. I want to empower you not the teacher unions.
Then tell those same black families that you will clean up their community. Are we going to do that by sending money and more resources to rebuild broken homes and businesses that have moved out of the area? No we are not. I as President will appoint judges that will prosecute criminals to the fullest extent. Lawyers will no longer be able to free their clients from prison sentences that punish violent behavior. I will appoint judges that will not allow child predators out of prison after only a few years. Your communities will be cleaned up because the criminals that tear your city down will now be thrown in jail for maximum years! Your children will be safe from drug dealers and rapist for now on! Vote for me and I promise to take the resources currently spent on long drawn out court cases and appeals and instead spend it on more prisons and guards to keep criminals off your streets.
Finally I will explain how liberal policies that are suppose to be well intentioned have destroyed the black community. These policies include the minimum wage law that keeps your young kid from being able to get a job because companies tend not to hire them if it cost so much to do so. I will promote less regulation on building and housing costs that liberal cities such as San Fransisco have passed that have resulted in rising housing costs due to lower supple and a departure of over half the black community from those cities. I will lower taxes on corporations and small businesses so that they will invest more money into more jobs and more opportunities that will benefit all low wage workers in every part of the country.
I'm tired of seeing liberal Republicans worry about trying to make all Black people happy like Democrats have. I want them to go after the 25% of the black vote that have been waiting on a politician that will pass laws and enforce laws that will make them smarter and safer. Eventually that 25% will grow. The good news is that 25% will win the election this year and continue winning those elections in years to come.
First, do not try to suck up to them, apologize to them, bring up history of racism to them, etc. That has been done and no one is better at the liberal approach then Democrats are. So even if McCain is the most popular Republican to the NAACP and the Black population, he will still not get their vote over Obama. I would go after that small percentage of black voters who have not been convinced of their "Victimization" standing in America. Conservatives must take a different approach, an approach that might only win 20-25% of the vote this year but is still more the 10-15% they usually receive. So how do we do this?
Go after Democrats on their support for teacher unions and their hatred of school choice. There is no group in America that is hurt more by our communist style education system we have in this country then the inner city black kid. NO ONE! Look into the camera and tell every inner-city poor black family that I will work to get school vouchers to you so that you can take your child to any school of your choice. That voucher will be worth the current amount spent per child to a typical public school in that area. That amount will now follow that child to any school of your choice including private schools. If you can not afford to send your children to the area private school well take this $8,000 dollar voucher and all you have to do is pay the rest. Currently you pay large sums of taxes and then watch that money wasted on a failing government school. I want to empower you not the teacher unions.
Then tell those same black families that you will clean up their community. Are we going to do that by sending money and more resources to rebuild broken homes and businesses that have moved out of the area? No we are not. I as President will appoint judges that will prosecute criminals to the fullest extent. Lawyers will no longer be able to free their clients from prison sentences that punish violent behavior. I will appoint judges that will not allow child predators out of prison after only a few years. Your communities will be cleaned up because the criminals that tear your city down will now be thrown in jail for maximum years! Your children will be safe from drug dealers and rapist for now on! Vote for me and I promise to take the resources currently spent on long drawn out court cases and appeals and instead spend it on more prisons and guards to keep criminals off your streets.
Finally I will explain how liberal policies that are suppose to be well intentioned have destroyed the black community. These policies include the minimum wage law that keeps your young kid from being able to get a job because companies tend not to hire them if it cost so much to do so. I will promote less regulation on building and housing costs that liberal cities such as San Fransisco have passed that have resulted in rising housing costs due to lower supple and a departure of over half the black community from those cities. I will lower taxes on corporations and small businesses so that they will invest more money into more jobs and more opportunities that will benefit all low wage workers in every part of the country.
I'm tired of seeing liberal Republicans worry about trying to make all Black people happy like Democrats have. I want them to go after the 25% of the black vote that have been waiting on a politician that will pass laws and enforce laws that will make them smarter and safer. Eventually that 25% will grow. The good news is that 25% will win the election this year and continue winning those elections in years to come.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Political Solutions for Political Problems Part II
Thomas Sowell starts his latest article with: "We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating. " I can get frustrated when I hear family members, friends, or strangers talk about which candidate for president will do the best in solving the problems our county has. They wish they would fix the housing crisis, the financial institutions mess, our airlines, gas prices, and I could go on and on. Most of us who study history and economics and have principles which foundations are built around the ideas freedom, private property rights, and federalism, would rather have a politician stand up and say "When elected I promise to take government out of the business of regulation and interference in the free market. I promise that when a slow down in our economy comes about that I will do NOTHING other than look for other ways to keep us in Washington from screwing everything up!"
In addition to government passing laws that incentivize and in fact force banks to make loans to people and in places they otherwise would not, local governments pass other laws that artificially raise the cost of housing. When a local government puts price ceilings on apartment rentals the amount of housing built in those areas goes down with landlords moving into other areas around the country where they can actually make money. In addition to that, current apartments are no longer maintained and thus are abandoned. All this lowers the supply of housing and thus what happens to the price? If you said it goes up then go to the front of the class. This is why housing is so much more expensive in cities like San Fransisco and New York. When citizens want to buy a house they must get a loan that is larger than they would if such regulations and restrictions were not around which would lead to more building and a lowering of prices. This adds to the housing bubble which bursts as interest rates go back up.
The Federal Reserve kept interest rates so long for so long that many people got loans at very low rates that adjust as the Fed raises their rates. This effects poor people who have to get adjustable-rate mortgages. When the rates go back up on those people who have gotten loans only due to the fact that government forces financial institutions to loan to them, payments increase. This is the "sub-prime" loans we hear about in the news. In areas around the country like in California where a half-million dollar house is the norm, a 4% interest being raised to 6% would mean a rise in about $7,000 a year in mortgage payments.
In a true free market people on the bubble of affording housing would choose to save more while living in a rental apartment that does not cost as much now due to a rise in supply with no regulations on price and zoning laws being greatly reduced. Furthermore without political pressure in Washington the interest rates would not be kept so artificially low for so long. Interest rates being too low incentivizes people to get loans many of whom should not. Interest rates being low also causes the value of the dollar to fall. This eventually leads to an increase in inflation which the Fed must get under control by raising the interest rates back up. This would eliminate most of the huge ups and downs in the economy. More and more economist now blame the New Deal policies for making the Great Depression worse and last longer. In 1987 the stock market crash was just as bad if not worse according to economist Sowell. This time Reagan did nothing. This was not well received by the mainsteam media and many other politicians. All that happened was 20 straight years of huge economic growth, low inflation and very low unemployment rates.
I hope these last two blogs will help you readers realize the beauty of the free market and how politicians cause the problems that they now promise to fix. When I vote I have to vote for the candidate that promises to interfere less than the other. I would love to have a candidate that would never interfere but I know I live in the real world where these facts mean little to politicians trying to get votes.
In addition to government passing laws that incentivize and in fact force banks to make loans to people and in places they otherwise would not, local governments pass other laws that artificially raise the cost of housing. When a local government puts price ceilings on apartment rentals the amount of housing built in those areas goes down with landlords moving into other areas around the country where they can actually make money. In addition to that, current apartments are no longer maintained and thus are abandoned. All this lowers the supply of housing and thus what happens to the price? If you said it goes up then go to the front of the class. This is why housing is so much more expensive in cities like San Fransisco and New York. When citizens want to buy a house they must get a loan that is larger than they would if such regulations and restrictions were not around which would lead to more building and a lowering of prices. This adds to the housing bubble which bursts as interest rates go back up.
The Federal Reserve kept interest rates so long for so long that many people got loans at very low rates that adjust as the Fed raises their rates. This effects poor people who have to get adjustable-rate mortgages. When the rates go back up on those people who have gotten loans only due to the fact that government forces financial institutions to loan to them, payments increase. This is the "sub-prime" loans we hear about in the news. In areas around the country like in California where a half-million dollar house is the norm, a 4% interest being raised to 6% would mean a rise in about $7,000 a year in mortgage payments.
In a true free market people on the bubble of affording housing would choose to save more while living in a rental apartment that does not cost as much now due to a rise in supply with no regulations on price and zoning laws being greatly reduced. Furthermore without political pressure in Washington the interest rates would not be kept so artificially low for so long. Interest rates being too low incentivizes people to get loans many of whom should not. Interest rates being low also causes the value of the dollar to fall. This eventually leads to an increase in inflation which the Fed must get under control by raising the interest rates back up. This would eliminate most of the huge ups and downs in the economy. More and more economist now blame the New Deal policies for making the Great Depression worse and last longer. In 1987 the stock market crash was just as bad if not worse according to economist Sowell. This time Reagan did nothing. This was not well received by the mainsteam media and many other politicians. All that happened was 20 straight years of huge economic growth, low inflation and very low unemployment rates.
I hope these last two blogs will help you readers realize the beauty of the free market and how politicians cause the problems that they now promise to fix. When I vote I have to vote for the candidate that promises to interfere less than the other. I would love to have a candidate that would never interfere but I know I live in the real world where these facts mean little to politicians trying to get votes.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Political Solutions for Political Problems
There is very little if anything that angers me more than to see an American citizen get excited to see a politician make a speech about how they are going to fix the problems of our nation. Problems that those knuckle headed politicians caused or was a big part of in the first place! In the next couple posts I will talk to you about the current financial crisis that politicians blame non-regulated predatory lenders for causing. In addition we will look at a couple other examples of politicians wanting to fix problems they caused to begin with.
Politicians love to take advantage of the weak brain of so many American Citizens. Politicians tell us that lending companies who participated in "lucrative" lending practices are some how villains for taking advantage of everyday Americans. Today these "lucrative" companies are now losing millions and some billions of dollars while others are going out of business! Pray tell me how it makes sense to say that a company is going to take advantage of individuals in the loaning business when they know that if those individuals can not make their payments that those lenders too will be hurt just as bad or worse and go out of business? Only a liberal moron would think that is possible.
As Thomas Sowell has recently written about in his recent column that is published in hundreds of magazines and newspapers nationwide, it was not too long ago that there was outrage in Washington and other political capitals over "redlining." This is the practice of banks and financial institutions not lending or approving mortgages in some neighborhoods. Black neighborhoods in particular were questioned. It is true that while 89% of white mortgages were being approved only 72% of black mortgages were being approved. Due to this there was a campaign to get lenders to lend to people that in a true free market, would not be given loans. It is common sense for individuals to only lend in some areas and not in other areas where it is dangerous or there is great risk in not getting that loan back. If politicians want to call that "redlining" then so be it. That does not negate the fact that it is common sense to behave that way.
As far as racial differences it might be good to step back and study whether black and white is the real reason for not receiving loans. Income, credit history, and net worth are three of the prime factors in determining whether a person gets a loan or not. If different groups of people or ethnicity of people are different in those prime categories, there could be great disparities in regards to loan approvals that have NOTHING to do with whether their skin is dark or white. In fact Whites must settle for sub prime loans more often than do Asians. Whites are in fact turned down for conventional mortgage loans more often than Asians. Is this due to racism you think? Funny how the news media never covers these differences but only those of White and Black differences. These prime factors mean a lot to business owners trying to make profits but matter very little to politicians trying to get VOTES.
These laws and regulations that politicians have put on lending institutions have caused the current problem we see today in our financial markets. The Community Reinvestment Act forced many of them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money. This is because the cost of doing business in neighborhoods where neither they nor the politicians wanted to WALK much less start a business would be so high that profits would vanish. Companies are also less likely to want to lend to people they feel will not have the resources to pay in full for the loan they give them. But government has a way of pressuring companies to do just that and this Community Reinvestment Act was only one of the laws that did this.
Other laws and pressures as well as incentives cause lending institutions to lend to people who they otherwise would choose not to lend to in a true free market. In part II of this blog I will explain the economics of this and how it has caused the current problems we have today. We will also examine a couple other political solutions that have caused these same types of problems in the past and continue even today.
Politicians love to take advantage of the weak brain of so many American Citizens. Politicians tell us that lending companies who participated in "lucrative" lending practices are some how villains for taking advantage of everyday Americans. Today these "lucrative" companies are now losing millions and some billions of dollars while others are going out of business! Pray tell me how it makes sense to say that a company is going to take advantage of individuals in the loaning business when they know that if those individuals can not make their payments that those lenders too will be hurt just as bad or worse and go out of business? Only a liberal moron would think that is possible.
As Thomas Sowell has recently written about in his recent column that is published in hundreds of magazines and newspapers nationwide, it was not too long ago that there was outrage in Washington and other political capitals over "redlining." This is the practice of banks and financial institutions not lending or approving mortgages in some neighborhoods. Black neighborhoods in particular were questioned. It is true that while 89% of white mortgages were being approved only 72% of black mortgages were being approved. Due to this there was a campaign to get lenders to lend to people that in a true free market, would not be given loans. It is common sense for individuals to only lend in some areas and not in other areas where it is dangerous or there is great risk in not getting that loan back. If politicians want to call that "redlining" then so be it. That does not negate the fact that it is common sense to behave that way.
As far as racial differences it might be good to step back and study whether black and white is the real reason for not receiving loans. Income, credit history, and net worth are three of the prime factors in determining whether a person gets a loan or not. If different groups of people or ethnicity of people are different in those prime categories, there could be great disparities in regards to loan approvals that have NOTHING to do with whether their skin is dark or white. In fact Whites must settle for sub prime loans more often than do Asians. Whites are in fact turned down for conventional mortgage loans more often than Asians. Is this due to racism you think? Funny how the news media never covers these differences but only those of White and Black differences. These prime factors mean a lot to business owners trying to make profits but matter very little to politicians trying to get VOTES.
These laws and regulations that politicians have put on lending institutions have caused the current problem we see today in our financial markets. The Community Reinvestment Act forced many of them to lend in places where they did not want to send their money. This is because the cost of doing business in neighborhoods where neither they nor the politicians wanted to WALK much less start a business would be so high that profits would vanish. Companies are also less likely to want to lend to people they feel will not have the resources to pay in full for the loan they give them. But government has a way of pressuring companies to do just that and this Community Reinvestment Act was only one of the laws that did this.
Other laws and pressures as well as incentives cause lending institutions to lend to people who they otherwise would choose not to lend to in a true free market. In part II of this blog I will explain the economics of this and how it has caused the current problems we have today. We will also examine a couple other political solutions that have caused these same types of problems in the past and continue even today.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Why Women Make Less- Conclusion
As I continue the fallacy of income differences between males and females I want to reiterate the purpose of these recent blog entries. My goal is to explain that while humans are not perfect and discrimination is apparent in some cases, most of what politicians, mainstream media types, and those of the intelligentsia world call "discrimination" is not discrimination at all. It is easy for a third party(media, politician, college professor, etc..) to denounce American businesses of showing discrimination to women and minorities. But when the economics which is based on cost benefit analysis and not based on the ideology of a third party, different conclusions can be made.
When people get married, money becomes a bigger priority. One must buy clothing, shelter, food, and other necessities for a family not just themselves. Due to this, married men work more than single men. Thus marriage has had an effect on the income gap between men and women. After marriage, men make more than they did when they were single, and more than other still single men do because of the higher number of hours worked and more full-time employment. Furthermore, when getting married, women make less as they spend less time working a professional job and more time caring for the home. Women who have never been married have higher incomes than women who have, and women with no children have higher incomes than women with children according to economist Thomas Sowell.
Lets conclude this study by looking at male versus female statistics while taking into consideration the characteristics such as education, domestic responsibilities, job choice, job experience, and skill differences of the two people. A study in Britain found that women as a group earn 17 percent less per hour than men when both work full-time. However the same study found that women made different choices throughout life. Young women incomes were 91% of British men, but British mothers were just 67% of men who were fathers. The University of Michigan Law School found that the gap between men and women pay is relatively small at the start of their careers. But 15 years later, women only earned 60% of what men made. Another study found that the gender pay gap is 5 percent for part time workers 21-35, and under 3 percent for full time workers of the same age without children. There is NO GAP between those ages of people male or female who live alone. In 1969, academic women who had never been married, earned MORE than academic men who had never been married. Married women earned a little less, while married women with children earned even further less. In 1971 women working continuously since high school were earning slightly more than men under the same description. This was before affirmative action by the way.
Some statistics can be misleading. In 1990 young male physicians earned 41 percent more than young female physicians. However after adjusting for specialty, practice setting, and other characteristics, no earning difference was evident. More men went into higher specialty physician practices. In fact the study found that young male physicians also worked over 500 hours more than female physicians per year. In 1999 women's hourly earnings were 83.8 percent of women in the same year. But comparing women and men who were comparable in occupation, industry, and other variables, the per-hour difference is only 6.2 percent. Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that only 2.4 percent of top-level management positions were filled by women. The pay was 45% less than men as well. The reason for the compensation gap was that women were more likely to be executives in smaller corporations where pay was less. Women have less experience and therefore usually were managers in smaller corporations. Taking these differences and other male-female comparisons, the study only found a 5% gap between male and female pay when all observable differences are taken in account.
Statistics you get from third parties that have an agenda do not like to take all these concerns into consideration. Employers of corporations have to take those differences into account. Economics usually paints a different picture for us than does ideology of an agenda driven person. I hope in the future when you hear how Americans discriminate against foreigners, minorities, and women, there might be a reason. And if you have a problem with those differences you have to take that up with God who decided that women should be the ones that give birth not men.
When people get married, money becomes a bigger priority. One must buy clothing, shelter, food, and other necessities for a family not just themselves. Due to this, married men work more than single men. Thus marriage has had an effect on the income gap between men and women. After marriage, men make more than they did when they were single, and more than other still single men do because of the higher number of hours worked and more full-time employment. Furthermore, when getting married, women make less as they spend less time working a professional job and more time caring for the home. Women who have never been married have higher incomes than women who have, and women with no children have higher incomes than women with children according to economist Thomas Sowell.
Lets conclude this study by looking at male versus female statistics while taking into consideration the characteristics such as education, domestic responsibilities, job choice, job experience, and skill differences of the two people. A study in Britain found that women as a group earn 17 percent less per hour than men when both work full-time. However the same study found that women made different choices throughout life. Young women incomes were 91% of British men, but British mothers were just 67% of men who were fathers. The University of Michigan Law School found that the gap between men and women pay is relatively small at the start of their careers. But 15 years later, women only earned 60% of what men made. Another study found that the gender pay gap is 5 percent for part time workers 21-35, and under 3 percent for full time workers of the same age without children. There is NO GAP between those ages of people male or female who live alone. In 1969, academic women who had never been married, earned MORE than academic men who had never been married. Married women earned a little less, while married women with children earned even further less. In 1971 women working continuously since high school were earning slightly more than men under the same description. This was before affirmative action by the way.
Some statistics can be misleading. In 1990 young male physicians earned 41 percent more than young female physicians. However after adjusting for specialty, practice setting, and other characteristics, no earning difference was evident. More men went into higher specialty physician practices. In fact the study found that young male physicians also worked over 500 hours more than female physicians per year. In 1999 women's hourly earnings were 83.8 percent of women in the same year. But comparing women and men who were comparable in occupation, industry, and other variables, the per-hour difference is only 6.2 percent. Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that only 2.4 percent of top-level management positions were filled by women. The pay was 45% less than men as well. The reason for the compensation gap was that women were more likely to be executives in smaller corporations where pay was less. Women have less experience and therefore usually were managers in smaller corporations. Taking these differences and other male-female comparisons, the study only found a 5% gap between male and female pay when all observable differences are taken in account.
Statistics you get from third parties that have an agenda do not like to take all these concerns into consideration. Employers of corporations have to take those differences into account. Economics usually paints a different picture for us than does ideology of an agenda driven person. I hope in the future when you hear how Americans discriminate against foreigners, minorities, and women, there might be a reason. And if you have a problem with those differences you have to take that up with God who decided that women should be the ones that give birth not men.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Why Women Make Less Part 3
I want to make it clear from the beginning, in no way shape form or fashion do I have the belief that no where are women discriminated against in the work place. With my years of studying history I know that women in our culture originally cooked, reared children and performed other domestic responsibilities. There is no doubt that there are radical men out there who every time they see a woman working beside them wish she was still home doing that. No doubt there are bosses and CEOs that are the same way. My point is simple. There is not NEAR the amount of discrimination that most people believe. And, much "discrimination" is not based on sexism but based on the idea that with women and men being different physically in more way than are possible to write about in this blog, men are preferred for some jobs over women. And men prefer some jobs more often than women as we will soon see.
3.) Working hours: Little doubt that women are busier than men in domestic chores. Women are responsible for birth, and in most households cook, clean, and most importantly raise the children. There are families where these roles are switched today but most by far are still men spending more time than women on their professional career and women spending more time on the domestic responsibilities than men. The fact is that many women today are studying law. I think this is a good thing. Lawyers make good money but some make more than others. Women who want to be attorneys tend to be a civil service attorney with regular hours. Whereas more men will work for the high-pressure law firm where week hours could average between 60-70 hours a week and at unpredictable times depending on the client's case. Some large firms are stationed in several cities. If you are a high price well qualified experienced lawyer, a client might choose to have you fly in to defend him. This flying off to some distant place could be asked on short notice with unknown lengths of stay. Men are more likely to do this work than women due to their domestic responsibilities. This could hurts women who are single in that men might look at those women and put them in the general category of women when in fact they are trying to make a career for themselves. We will show later where evidence shows this mindset does not effect women's pay in fact. With most women getting married and having children the Harvard Business Review survey might be of importance. A survey of the people in top 6 percent of earnings showed that 62 percent worked more than 50 hours a week and 35 percent worked more than 60 hours. Of those jobs that were considered "extreme" meaning high in hours and stress, less than 1/5 were women. Even more surprising was that of the people who held these extreme jobs, women were only half as likely to want to still be working this job 5 years down the road. This means that "The Economist" magazine is right in that "The main reason why women still get paid less on average than men is not that they are paid less for the same jobs but that they tend not to climb so far up the career ladder, or they choose lower-paid occupations, such as nursing and teaching. In fact these are the jobs in which women with college degrees earn as much as men: computer engineer, petroleum engineer, other engineering occupations, journalist, portfolio managers, and medical technologies. But in most of these jobs, there are far FEWER women than men. Thus women make less not due to being paid less to do the same thing, but because there are fewer women than men doing the high paying jobs.
"Among college-educated, never married individuals with no children who work full-time and were from 40 to 64 years old- that is, beyond the child-bearing years- men average $40,000 a year in income while women average $47,000." This is according to Thomas Sowell and the University of Chicago. According to the New York Times, Of Yale alumni in their forties, only 56 percent of women still worked and 90 percent of men did. In a 2001 survey by Harvard Business School graduates, 31% of women from the classes of 1981, 85, and 91, worked only part time or on contract, and another 31% did not work at all.
Those who want to reach the highest echelons in their profession had better work not only long hours but continuously throughout their long career to reach those heights. Thomas Sowell writes "while those women are the best judges of what suits their own individual circumstances, priorities, and sense of well-being, third parties looking at statistical date see only the artifacts of disparities based on paychecks." The point is that statistics of paychecks can show disparities that when looking at life-style, choices, and other statistics, those disparities are understandable.
3.) Working hours: Little doubt that women are busier than men in domestic chores. Women are responsible for birth, and in most households cook, clean, and most importantly raise the children. There are families where these roles are switched today but most by far are still men spending more time than women on their professional career and women spending more time on the domestic responsibilities than men. The fact is that many women today are studying law. I think this is a good thing. Lawyers make good money but some make more than others. Women who want to be attorneys tend to be a civil service attorney with regular hours. Whereas more men will work for the high-pressure law firm where week hours could average between 60-70 hours a week and at unpredictable times depending on the client's case. Some large firms are stationed in several cities. If you are a high price well qualified experienced lawyer, a client might choose to have you fly in to defend him. This flying off to some distant place could be asked on short notice with unknown lengths of stay. Men are more likely to do this work than women due to their domestic responsibilities. This could hurts women who are single in that men might look at those women and put them in the general category of women when in fact they are trying to make a career for themselves. We will show later where evidence shows this mindset does not effect women's pay in fact. With most women getting married and having children the Harvard Business Review survey might be of importance. A survey of the people in top 6 percent of earnings showed that 62 percent worked more than 50 hours a week and 35 percent worked more than 60 hours. Of those jobs that were considered "extreme" meaning high in hours and stress, less than 1/5 were women. Even more surprising was that of the people who held these extreme jobs, women were only half as likely to want to still be working this job 5 years down the road. This means that "The Economist" magazine is right in that "The main reason why women still get paid less on average than men is not that they are paid less for the same jobs but that they tend not to climb so far up the career ladder, or they choose lower-paid occupations, such as nursing and teaching. In fact these are the jobs in which women with college degrees earn as much as men: computer engineer, petroleum engineer, other engineering occupations, journalist, portfolio managers, and medical technologies. But in most of these jobs, there are far FEWER women than men. Thus women make less not due to being paid less to do the same thing, but because there are fewer women than men doing the high paying jobs.
"Among college-educated, never married individuals with no children who work full-time and were from 40 to 64 years old- that is, beyond the child-bearing years- men average $40,000 a year in income while women average $47,000." This is according to Thomas Sowell and the University of Chicago. According to the New York Times, Of Yale alumni in their forties, only 56 percent of women still worked and 90 percent of men did. In a 2001 survey by Harvard Business School graduates, 31% of women from the classes of 1981, 85, and 91, worked only part time or on contract, and another 31% did not work at all.
Those who want to reach the highest echelons in their profession had better work not only long hours but continuously throughout their long career to reach those heights. Thomas Sowell writes "while those women are the best judges of what suits their own individual circumstances, priorities, and sense of well-being, third parties looking at statistical date see only the artifacts of disparities based on paychecks." The point is that statistics of paychecks can show disparities that when looking at life-style, choices, and other statistics, those disparities are understandable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
