The Instigator
darkkermit
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
malcolmxy
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Women Workplace Discrimination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
darkkermit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,745 times Debate No: 29966
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (66)
Votes (5)

 

darkkermit

Con

Resolved: A significant portion of the wage gap in America is due to employers' unfair discriminating based of gender. An insignificant would be defined as three cents difference for every dollar.

I am CON.

Debate rules:

1. No semantics.
2. First Round for acceptance, and rule and definition clearification only.
3. No new arguments in the last round.
4. Text-only debate.
5. All source material must be easily accessable
malcolmxy

Pro

Thanks to my little Kermie for manning up and initiating the debate as promised. I accept, and though I would like to use graphs, I can live with links, so LET'S GET READY TO GRUMBLE!!!
Debate Round No. 1
darkkermit

Con

Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate.

1. Underpriced labor is unlikely to occur in a relatively free market

In a capitalist economy, firms seek to increase their profits. Thus we can expect them to try to take advantage of underpriced goods or services that can increase their profits. Thus, since the US is relatively free market, it would be perplexing that profit-seeking businesses would not try to take advantage of this since it is a well known “fact”. This can be best summarized s the efficient market hypothesis, that prices reflect information and it is difficult for businesses to find undervalued prices they can profit from. Studies have confirmed the efficient market hypothesis. In a contest between monkeys throwing darts at stocks and investment experts, the experts were only able to win 61 of the 100 contests [1], a small gain considering these are people professionally look for gains.

So then what’s going on than if female labor is underpriced, it’s a well established “fact”, and businesses are not taking advantage of this potential profit? The answer is that this established “fact” is false. Women labor is not underpriced.

2. Gender gap can be explained based on non-discriminatory factors.

So, if the gender gap is not due to discriminatory factors what can best explain it? Well, men and women have on net aggregate differences between one another both physically, mentally and emotionally. On average, men and women value different things which causes them to choose different jobs. For example, when comparing the wages of men and women who worked as entrepreneurs, male entrepreneurs make twice more money than females This cannot be due to discrimination since they are not working under a boss for their own pay. It was identified that for the entrepreneurs, money was the primary motivator for only 29% of women, versus 76% of men. Women prioritized flexibility, fulfillment, autonomy and safety. [2]. This translates for female employees as well. These are tradeoffs to receiving higher salaries that men take and women do not.

Warren Farrell in his book “Why Men Earn More” demonstrates 25 lifestyle choices difference that men and women make that explains the pay gap.

Warren Farrell used to be a champion for the women’s right movement and was board member of National Organization for Women. He championed the motto of how unfair it was that women earned less than men. However, one day he asked the question “If men earn more than women, then why not start a firm and hire all females”. He thought this was a great idea to start this firm, but then came to realize he was unlikely to first person to think of the idea. Therefore, it likely had to be something else[4]. He found the following results:

-Men more likely to work in field in hard science and technology

-Men more likely to work in a hazardous work environment

-Men are more likely to be exposed to wind, rain, and snow

-Men are more likely to work in a field where you cannot psychologically checkout (ex: corporate attorney)

-Men are less likely to work a fulfilling career then a field of choice if they won the lottery

-Men are more likely to work in a field that requires significant financial and emotional risks (ex: Venture capitalist and salesperson)

-Men are more likely to work worst shift in worst hours (ex: midnight)

-Men are more likely to work in field that requires constant updating on skills.

-Men are more likely to work a subfield which increases risks exposed (ex: If a physician, work as a cardiologist as opposed to psychiatrists)

-Men are more likely to work more hours

-Men are more likely to have more than 20 years experience in current occupation

-Men are more likely to have more than 10 years of uninterrupted experience with current employer

-Men are more likely to work without vacation time.

-Men are more likely to be absent less than 2 days in a year

-Men are more likely to commute more than 25 miles round trip

-Men are more likely to live in city not wish to live in because needed by employer

-Men are more likely to travel more than 5 days per month in job

-Men are more likely to work as a VP or above working at bottom line position contributing directly to companies profits or losses.

-Men are more likely to work with a company or organization with 1000+ and responsibility is national.

-Men are more likely to be paid on commission

-Men are more likely to work in a private sector over a non-profit sector[5]

Data shows that men are nearly twice as likely to have a non-fatal injury and over-3-day injury, and 119 times more likely to have a fatal injury.

3. Legislation already protections unfair discrimination in the workforce

According to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 it reads as follows:
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions”

It would be incredibly foolish for an employer to purposely depress wages on females and face a lawsuit.[6]

4. Studies have confirmed that unfair discrimination against women does not occur.

While taking into consideration educational choices, career paths, hours worked, and experience and compare salaries women make 98% of what men do[7][8].

Warren Farrell, through his research has also shown that there are occupations where women earn more than men. Female financial analysts make 118% more than their counterpart while female sales engineers make 143% more. He also shows that Speech language, Statisticians , Advertising and Promotions Managers, and Motion Picture projectionists make more than their male counterpart. In fact there are 90 fields where women make more than men[9].

When a male and a female civil engineer both stay with their respective companies for ten years, travel and relocate equally and take the same career risks, the woman ends up making more. And among workers who have never been married and never had children, women earn 117% of what men do. There are also cities that exist where the female-male pay ratio is higher for females[10].

Research has shown that the more hours one works, the more one gets paid per hours. The difference between working 45 hours vs. 35 hours is a 100% more wage difference. The average male works 3 hours more per week, which explains 75% of the pay gap.[5]

Controlling for never married or had children, education, age and hours worked earned men actually get paid only 85% of what women earn.[11]

Conclusion:

While there is indeed a wage-gap between males and females, this is not due to unfair discrimination. There are many others causes of this, and I have demonstrated 21 differences that cause this. Women make the tradeoff of higher salaries for greater flexibility, safety, time off and greater job satisfaction. Controlling for these variables show that women and men get paid roughly equally, and in some cases we can even find women earning more. It would simply not occur in a relatively free market for a well known pay gap to be due to discrimination because businesses would take advantage of it for profit. It is even more stupid for employers to discriminate based on gender, since there’s legislation against it.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

[5] http://tinyurl.com...

[6] http://tinyurl.com...

[7] http://tinyurl.com...

[8] http://tinyurl.com...

[9] http://tinyurl.com...

[10] http://tinyurl.com...

[11] http://tinyurl.com...

malcolmxy

Pro

No, thank you, DK.

1. DK’s Contradictory Arguments

If businesses act rationally, why do we need to have anti-discriminatory legislation in place? One assumes that if the US is a relatively free market today, it was a relatively market yesterday, as I know of no fundamental shifts in the US economy surrounding how markets operate. One also assumes that laws are not passed simply for the purpose of passing them, and that a reason exists to pass them, either real or perceived.

So, again, why pass these laws for things which, under DK’s first argument, necessarily can’t exist in this completely rational business model known as the US market economy?

Answer - People, of whom businesses are comprised, are not rational, and most will fall back on previous, poor decisions of their past rather than making new, risk based decisions which would be to their benefit, because this is how the human brain is hardwired to behave. This can be demonstrated in the fight/flight dichotomy, where more often than not, in the wild as well as in society, people choose flight.[1]

Additionally, assuming that businesses make rational decisions, one would assume that once a business is established, and is a good one, that business will endure well into the future, especially in the instance of publicly traded businesses (since private businesses will be dissolved more often as part of the private owner’s retirement). Examining the original S&P 500, established in 1957, and looking for those original businesses in today’s economy, one sees that only 74, or 14.8%, of this set of companies that comprised that index originally exist today. [2]

Now, certainly some of this can be explained through better competition entering the market, even though when facing superior competition, the rational, efficient decision would be to switch markets so that you can avoid the superior competitor and survive as a profit making entity. Yet more of it can be explained through unexpected natural disaster or market obsolescence, though again, in the latter case, market transition would be the rational decision to have a company survive.

The majority of it, however, is only explainable through irrational, poor business decisions and practices, because people are generally stupid and short sighted, and while this is sufficient, most of the time, when determining whether or not to take an umbrella with you when you leave your home based on the weather conditions at the moment that decision is made, it is wholly insufficient when making complex decisions that have a long-term temporal component to them.

In conclusion to this section, while DK may be correct in that businesses cannot take advantage of certain easy, often times sleazy, cost cutting measures for extended periods of time, this has no bearing on their decisions to attempt, constantly, to realize these measures, because the alternative is perfect efficiency, or something in the vicinity thereof, and that’s hard. People don’t like hard.

2. Lies, Damn Lies and DK’s Study

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest company, is, and has been, embroiled in anti-discriminatory litigation for over a decade now, and while they have had some recent victories in these cases, these victories have focussed on two arguments by Wal-Mart lawyers, neither of which were “we don’t discriminate based on gender” (though spokespeople for Wal-Mart are quick to make that statement when addressing the press), and those arguments were:

1. Wal-Mart is too big to fail[3]
2. Wal-Mart’s discrimination practices are diverse and varied when it comes to women, thus these 1.5 million women currently comprising the class of this class action suit can point to no one, single discriminatory practice that applies to all of them, and therefore the class should be dissolved.[3]

Women at Wal-Mart comprise 66% of the hourly workforce, but only 33% of the management staff. When examining the hourly workforce, men and women make roughly the same amount of wage, though men’s wages are higher.

It is not until women are promoted to the ranks of management, where compensation is salaried, that the true discrepancies arise. Average male salaries at Wal-Mart are $57,000 per year while average female salaries are $42,000 per year.

Now, here’s the kicker - Women have BOTH a longer average tenure, which makes them a lesser expensive employee because, as any business owner will tell you, turnover is their largest employee related expense, AND they work more hours on average than their male counterparts at Wal-Mart.[4]

According to DK, this means that they should be making 15% more than their male counterparts, when in fact, hourly female employees average 4% less and salaried female employees average 30% less income.

Also, let’s not forget about the discrepancy in management representation, where men see a nearly 300% jump in average salary and even women see a 225% bump. This must be explainable through education and child rearing since it is not explainable using DK’s hours worked predictor.

Women outpace men in college enrollment, 11 million to 8 million, and more importantly they outpace men 3 million to 2 million in private college enrollment, assuming private institutions are of a higher quality than public ones (I can’t wait for the argument against this one).[5]

Women did only get around 45,000 Business Administration degrees last year as compared to men and their 59,000, but that’s only a difference of ~20%, and men are promoted to management 200% more often at Wal-Mart.[6]

What could possibly account for the difference, then, since we have already eliminated DK’s sure-fire predictor of hours worked? Hmmm...that is a head scratcher. Let me get back to that next round.

The final dismissive argument here is that Wal-Mart is but one company among many. This is true, but they are THE LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD. They employ 2 million people.[7] That’s significant.

3. It’s All About Babies, Baby

Women have babies (unless you’re a seahorse). Babies take time to have, and that time keeps women out of the workforce, and this time out of the workforce means they will make less money, right?

I actually agree with this statement, but does it account for all the significant discrepancies
in the wage gap?

Well, as the chart below shows, white women make the least percentage of income as compared to their male, ethnic counterparts (since ethnic discrimination must be accounted for as well), and yet they have the lowest fertility rate among all these ethnic groups in the US.[8]



Well, geez, now I’m confused. Oh wait, no I’m not. Gender wage discrimination exists, it is significant, and it is staring everyone in the face everywhere they go, and a few outliers pulled out of a statistical study don’t account for the reality of all other points on deflated bell curve which represents female wage compensation in this country.

4. Conclusion

In the next round, I will do an industry by industry comparison as well as a comparison by age to show that Wal-Mart is typical of how all businesses operate in the US, since again in their gender discrimination practices as well as begin to quantify the wage gap after eliminating variables such that its significance is apparent, even to DK.



Sources:

[1]-http://chronicle.com...
[2]-http://www.analytics-magazine.org...
[3]-http://www.forbes.com...
[4]-http://thesocietypages.org...
[5]-http://www.forbes.com...
[6]-http://www.collegeatlas.org...
[7]-http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[8]-http://nces.ed.gov...




Debate Round No. 2
darkkermit

Con

Rebuttals:

1. Legislation and Markets

a) No contradiction made

A contradiction occurs when two statements result in a conclusion is both simultaneously true and false at the same time.

The two statements: “Legislation already protections unfair discrimination in the workforce” and “Underpriced labor is unlikely to occur in a relatively free market” do not contradict one another. Instead, the legislation argument creates further doubts that the wage-pay gap is due to discrimination. If readers are convinced that capitalism principles work, then the legislation argument does not change that capitalism principles does not work.

Proof of passing this legislation is not proof of its necessity; it just creates further safeguards and redundancy. The legislators are not omnipotent, but made up of fallible people. As economist Milton Friedman notes, the government spends money in one instant for anti-smoking propaganda and also spends money on tobacco subsidies, two contradictory causes [1].

b) Businesses acting irrational.

I did not state that businesses must act rational, only that it is unlikely that underpriced labor to occur in a relatively free market. In the case of stocks, individuals might believe a stock is overpriced or underpriced. However, the net result of these actors creates a situation in which it is unlikely for a stock to be undervalued. The result is that people cannot easily take advantage of undervalued prices for their own advantage. Even if some businesses do discriminate based on gender, other businesses can take advantage of their systematic errors and profit from it. So not only would businesses have to be acting irrational, the vast majority are acting irrational to such an extreme circumstance that nobody thought of the business model to hire all women to take advantage of the price difference. This is known as arbitrage and is practiced frequently in the market [2].

If PRO truly believes that women are undervalued in the marketplace, then he should start his own business, hire all women and recoup the profits. PRO is unlikely to do this, because he does not truly believe that the market undervalues women.

So why are only 14% companies that originally existed on the S&P 500? In reality, this fact does not prove or disprove whether companies act rationality or not. However, why is Blockbuster no longer around? It’s because there is no longer a demand for renting movies at the store. Instead Netflix and Redbox have made movie rental stores obsolete. Yet, there was a real demand for Blockbuster beforehand, so it existed. The goods demanded 50 years ago are not the same goods demanded today.

So why didn’t these companies come up with these new technologies? It is extraordinary difficult to find these “opportunities” for innovation, and just based on sheer probability, it’s more likely for an outsider to discover it, since there are more innovative people outside the company then in it. This indicates how difficult it is to find opportunities to increase efficiency. A simple idea is not easy to come by and the idea of simply taking advantage of underpriced labor of women would not work.

2) Wal-Mart Lawsuit

Pro’s sources do not back up many of his claims. It shows no indication that the reason the lawsuit didn’t go through was because it was “too big to fail”. Nor do Pro’s sources demonstrate that women at Walmart women work longer hours than men on average. All it shows is that women work there slightly longer.

I urge readers to take a look at Pro’s source themselves and read it. You won’t find anything to support these claim.

However, I do have a source, the Supreme Court decision itself. The “we don’t discriminate based on gender” was an argument that the Walmart lawyers used, and is found in the primary source of the court case itself. The court case states:

“On the facts of this case, the conceptual gap between an individual’s discrimination claimand “the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury,” id., at 157–158, must be bridged by “[s]significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination,” Such proof is absent here. Wal-Mart’s announced policy forbids sex discrimination, and the company has penalties for denials of equal opportunity. Respondents’ only evidence of a general discrimination policy was a sociologist’s analysis asserting that Wal-Mart’s corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias. But because he could not estimate what percent of Wal-Mart employment decisions might be determined by stereotypical thinking, his testimony was worlds away from “significant proof” that Wal-Mart “operated under a general policy of discrimination.”

In a company of Wal-Mart’s size and geographical scope, it is unlikely that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction. Respondents’ attempt to show such direction by means of statistical and anecdotal evidence falls well short.” [3]

Walmart hiring policy favors women over men. CON’s own source indicates that women make up a larger portion of their workforce, despite women making up less of the total workforce. Women make up nearly all the workers in both the men’s and female’s warehouse. Thus, since women make up a higher portion of unskilled workers, they obtain lower wages. As stated previously, women would rather have a more relaxing career and prefer those tradeoffs over higher pay, and men are pressured to obtain high-paying jobs that are undesirable. It is likely that most women would not want to work in these positions that are quite stressful and required long hours:

“[Vicky Rice's] husband [who died of a heart attack] was incredibly overworked, as many Wal-Mart managers are. I believe he was an assistant manager, and assistant mangers are forced to work 70-80 hours a week. In some sense, they are more exploited than hourly workers, because they are salaried, so they don’t get overtime.”[4]

It should also be noted that Walmart only consists of 1.4% of the entire labor force[5], not a significant amount of the labor force at all like PRO claims.

3) It’s all about the babies

Of course, neither PRO nor I agree that babies directly cause a male-female gap. Instead PRO believes it indirectly caused it. I have cited 21 reasons why men earn more than men. The reason PRO believes babies effect the male-female gap is that women will more likely to work uninterrupted, work in a field that does not requiring updating, and work less hours as a result of having a baby, effecting 3 out of the 21 reasons why men work more listed. However, these 3 effects are not guaranteed to occur as a result of having a baby. It is only assumed? But why. Well, working fewer hours and taking time off from work due to child rearing can be considered a luxury. If women need money, they will not do these acts.


As the graph shows, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be single-parents. This means that a black women with more children are less likely to work less hours, or take time off since she is the main source of income for her child. She has to work more and the baby will not affect this.

Whites and Asians also are more likely to be college educated[6], which allows males to have the potential to earn more money, thus creating the gap. On average, women are less likely to try to take advantage of this potential since they on average do not value money as much and there is already a male in the household that makes a significant portion of income.



[1]http://tinyurl.com...
[2]http://tinyurl.com...
[3]http://tinyurl.com...
[4]http://tinyurl.com...
[5]http://tinyurl.com...
[6]http://tinyurl.com...

malcolmxy

Pro

In response ti my opponent, the numbers are there, so I encourage people to more closely review my data as well, especially my opponent.

Also, yes, workplace discrimination is ridiculously difficult to prove in court. This has little bearing on its existence.

The rest of my opponent’s argument last round was either illogical or irrelevant.

As a quick follow-up on the Wal-Mart Story, women at Wal-Mart are rated better, across the board in every position, when comparing their performance to men, and yet they also make less money across the board and are only promoted 50% as often as men are.[1]

I’ll leave the remainder of my argument to these visuals.


This is the state of women’s wages in Washington State. Men earn more than Women in EVERY INDUSTRY, including industries dominated by women such as education and healthcare.[2]




This is every industry in the US. Women make less in every one.







My apologies to my oponent, but I’ve been busy and I slept in this morning and I wanted to present something as opposed to forfeit.

I will sum up next round.

Sources:

[1]http://www.walmartclass.com...
[2]http://stateofworkingwa.org...

Debate Round No. 3
darkkermit

Con

Introduction:

I thank PRO for this debate. It seems as If he has been perma-banned and will not be able to respond to the final round. Nonetheless, I will summarize my final statements and respond to his arguments he previously made in the last Round.

PRO has violated our terms of the debate. In the comments sections, we agreed on only using 2 charts per round, but has used 3 charts in this round.

Me: how many graphs do you want per debate round? I'm fine with graphs so long as a quantifiable number is used for graphs per round.

Malcomxy: “I'll limit myself to no more than 2, and try to keep it to 1 per round”.

Dropped Arguments:

He has dropped many of my arguments. He dropped the argument that there were 21 differences between men and women that explained the income gap. I also provided studies that after for controlling for career path, education, time spent off work, and number of hours worked the income gap vanished. PRO drops this. I have shown that there are fields in which women make more money than men, which PRO drops. I have shown that controlling for never married or had children, education, age and hours worked earned men actually get paid only 85% of what women earn. I have shown that there are are also cities that exist where the female-male pay ratio is higher for females. I have shown that men and women have different attitudes towards pay, in which men prioritize money on average and women prioritize flexibility, fulfillment, autonomy and safety. Since there are tradeoffs between the two, this accounts for part of the gap. I have shown that when comparing male and female self-employed workers, men make twice more money than females. This cannot be due to discrimination since they are not working under a boss for their own pay.

Extend my previous rebuttals against PRO.

Now to respond to his arguments in Round 3.

1. Walmart Case

Pro’s excuse for Walmart losing the case is that it is “ridiculous burden of proof” of proving discrimination. However, this is incorrect; Walmart lost the case because there was no discrimination at the national level. I have shown. Pro’s source does not take into consideration if the hours worked were at a desirable time, education or even the subfield that people worked. Pro’s source shows that for broad fields like department head, and sales associate, men and women make substantially different amount. However, comparing cashiers the difference is only 3 cents in wage. Pro’s source shows 46 different departments and does not take into consideration that some departments require higher skill levels than others. For example, more men worked in the automotive section, which requires more skill then working in the hosiery section.

Furthermore, looking at Pro’s own source, one sees that men work longer hours than women do, which explains the difference. While it does not directly show it, it shows the salary of hourly workers, and the wage per hour they worked. Using basic math (salary/wage per hour) one sees the difference between the hours worked.

Men(hours worked)

Women(hours worked)

Department head

2113.028

2044.162

Sales Associate

1893.013

1821.886

HD/HM

2000.105

1923.574

Cashier

1743.697

1718.137

All hourly

1948.586

1885.421

Men work longer hours in all cases. As my previously source showed in round one, that small changes in hours worked has a large effect on salary. The difference between working 35 hours a week compared to 45 hours a week is double the salary.

As stated previously, Walmart’s hiring policy favors women over men. CON’s own source indicates that women make up a larger portion of their workforce, despite women making up less of the total workforce.

Furthermore, there’s the assumption that women would want to obtain a promotion. Due to the added stress, hours worked, and relocation there’s a strong probability that women did not want to get a promotion since women on average do not value money as much as men, and thus would not take the negative tradeoff associated with the promotion.

2. Industry Pay

Pro shows that in every industry, women make more than men. However, every field has many different careers that one can go into. Let’s take for example, healthcare. There are more men that work as doctors, rather than nurses so one would expect that men would make more in the healthcare industry. Yet, despite the wide difference in average pay between doctors and nurses, they are both considered part of the healthcare industry. Thus, one could not make reasonable predictions of someone’s pay based on the industry one goes into. Rather, a better predication would be the job one has, experience, and his or her education. As previously stated, when controlling for career path, and other factors, much of these discrepancies go away. Furthermore, I have provided examples in which women were paid more than men in some jobs.

Conclusion:

I have demonstrated that the pay-gap, when controlling for other factors go away. Pro’s examples do not control for these factors which might make it seem as if there is a pay-gap, but in reality there is not.

malcolmxy

Pro

Debunking DK

First of all, I’ve dropped nothing. I was simply waiting to sum everything up in a simple, easy to understand manner. However, I will quickly address the arguments that won’t be addressed in my final summation.

A. Business Rationality

In his 3rd round argument, DK states that it is too hard for large (large enough to be in the S&P 500) businesses to come up with new, innovative products and that it is more likely that someone outside this construct will be an innovator, and that is why these businesses fail. To debunk this, I will actually point to a very successful, innovative, and rational company, because this company shows that DK’s assertion is completely false. That company is IBM.

The sheer numbers of IBM’s product innovations is staggering, and too numerous to list. [1] It is not their innovative products that I would like to highlight here, however, as much as their innovative business strategies. IBM's main consumer products began as typewriters, with the IBM Selectric being the industry standard for the entirety of the electric typewriter’s useful life. Then, they transitioned to the personal computer, the IBM PC was, and is, the standard in personal computing.[2] This is ironic, because IBM, realizing that the era of the personal computer is quickly coming to an end, no longer makes PCs, having sold that wing of their business Lenovo. IBM’s main focus outside large, groundbreaking (WATSON, anyone?) computers is Business Consulting, as opposed to business machines.[1]

IBM has survived since the 1880s precisely because of their innovation, so to say that innovation is somehow unlikely for large companies, is to not understand how business operates...often times poorly, inefficiently, and irrationally.

B. Education

DK argues that the wage gap is greater among Whites and Asians because White and Asian men are more likely to go to college. Why he chose not to account for White and Asian women also being more likely to attend college is quite beyond me, because I posted a source in my 2nd round argument which showed that there are more women attending college, and more women attending private college (the “good” schools) than men, so I have to assume that he was either purposefully trying to obfuscate the issue there, or letting his own gender bias accidentally sneak through.

C. My Use of Charts Last Round

I find this comment by DK to be particularly dishonest, because his only issue with charts is that they are a way to extend one’s 8,000 character limit, and I think if anyone re-reviews my last round argument, adds up the very few words I used, and then adds up the words in the charts, they will see that I was nowhere close to exceeding 8,000 characters, and probably came in under 2,000.

When including this round, my average is 1.33 charts per round.

Summary - Wal-Mart Says It All

What DK fails to realize is that I have addressed all of his points, but I did so without calling out that I was doing so. I will do that now, however.

Given the broad scope of the requirements for this argument - prove “America’s” gender wage gap is “significant”, the only plausible strategy with which to accomplish this goal is to show, as I have, that females make lower wages across industry, geographic region (both red and blue states, including Wyoming which was the 1st state to grant women’s suffrage) and race, and then use an example in which none of the factors which DK called out in his 2nd round argument exist. Given that they are the largest company in the world, and one of the most egregious offenders in the area of gender wage discrimination, I chose that example to be Wal-Mart.

A. The Difference Between Salary and Hourly

DK took a salary and divided it by an hourly rate and called this out as simple math which proves women at Wal-Mart work less hours than men, on average. While I agree that the math was likely simple, the logic is completely flawed.

Salaried workers are exempt from overtime, and receive a set amount of money per year as their salary. Hourly workers are paid by the hour, and are not exempt from overtime pay. So, taking an average salaried amount and dividing it by an hourly wage is a simple, but simply useless calculation.

Thus, my prior assertion that women work more hours than men at Wal-Mart remains uncontroverted.

B. Walmart Lost? What?

Wal-Mart and their lawyers are going to be shocked to learn, as per DK’s assertion, that they lost the Supreme Court Case to which DK referred in his last argument. They, in fact, won it. However, this case was simply used to dissolve the class of 1.5 million women in the class action suit.

The reason they won was because the lawyers for the class could not prove that there was a policy of sex discrimination endorsed by Wal-Mart on a National Level. The reason they could not prove this is because no one who writes out management policy for Wal-Mart is bone-headed enough to write this in any sort of official Wal-Mart memo or training manual, and because the discrimination at Wal-Mart is so varied in how it is applied, the class was dissolved.

Instead, smaller, statewide classes, like the one in California (100,000 in size), are developing, and are having no problem surviving Wal-Mart’s hypocritical challenges before the state supreme courts. [3]

C. The Glass Ceiling

While women at Wal-Mart do make less than men at the lower wage levels, it is likely not enough less to count as “significant”. That’s because gender discrimination is subtle. It may not happen within any specific, individual job, but may only occur in the opportunities for advancement women are given in this country. We just elected our first non-white president 4 ½ years ago, but we have yet to even have a woman serve as VP in this nation.

The same logic applies at Wal-Mart. Women, despite having more tenure, working more hours and receiving higher performance ratings across every job description, are promoted to management 200% less than men are.

And, it’s not just the difference between a man’s $420K Regional VP average salary as compared to the $280K of the average woman’s. It’s the fact that 90% of the Regional VPs at Wal-Mart are men compared to the 10% of women.[4]

These jobs might involve travel, however, so let’s instead look at the store manager position at Wal-Mart, because with the others already like education, hours worked, etc called out, this position eliminates all of the many factors that DK called out as his “reasons” (justifications is more like it) why women make less money.

At the Store Manager Level, women average $89,280 compared to men’s average of $105,682, but again, even though this is over $16,000 less per year that women make in this job at Wal-Mart than men (significant enough for ya?), it’s the fact that women only comprise 14.2% of the store managers at Wal-Mart that tells the real story here.[4]

At this point, some may be saying to themselves, “well that’s only one position, and he probably cherry picked that one because it was the one which looked the worst.” Those people would be wrong, because at Wal-Mart, at every successively higher management position, there are, percentage-wise, less and less women, and at the same time, the women that do make the cut for these promotions see higher and higher wage gaps, when compared to their male counterparts, with each successive promotion.

D. Final Summary

It is impossible to show the gender pay gap in America with such a limited amount of space, because an analysis like the one I did with Wal-Mart would be necessary for every individual job and career path, so what I did was show, by region, ethnicity and industry, that women make less than men across the board. Then, with Wal-Mart, I showed why. As to how much, that’s a little harder to say with full confidence, but I can say that it’s significantly more than 3 cents on the dollar.

Sources

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2]
http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...


Debate Round No. 4
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Why did malcolm close her account?
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
Im going to do a debate in real life on this topic soon, debating as Con too, thank you for all the helpful information.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
malcolmxy
Lastly, regarding conduct.

DK tried to take advantage of the fact that he believed I was perma-banned to steal this debate. It was sleazy and underhanded and I suppose if you believe something I did somehow equaled this conduct that you might score this part a tie, or like me, if you don't score this part of debates, period, again, I understand not finding in favor of me in this category, but to say that I lost in this part of the debate is an obvious sign that your partiality meant I had no chance of winning your vote (meaning earning more points than my opponent) at any point before you made it.

The exercise you went through was one to justify what you did, not objectively review the debate, despite how wonderfully detailed you did delve into it.

It's cool as far as I'm concerned, but please don't brag about your unbiased vote here to anyone. It was anything but that.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
malcolmxy
6. Dropping Babies - I am the one who started this argument...using what should have been DK's side of it to show that women with higher fertility rates make more when compared to the men of the same ethnicity...and DK dropped the argument, not me.

7. Rationality - first of all, when I responded is irrelevant. I didn't make a new argument. I simply used a different illustration to illustrate my original argument. Secondly, IBM is an outlier, because more companies don't act rationally. The companies that survive are the ones which siphon natural resources and IBM. That's it. The rest go through a shuffle because they all make really sh!tty decisions, including gender wage discrimination.

8. DK's non-gender factor list - THIS was the reason I used Walmart, and not one of the many other examples out there, as my illustration of the problem - after addressing education and a few other of the items in this list directly (travel being another), the jobs are Walmart, because they are the same jobs, cancel out these factors for me.

Without running in circles and addressing each one individually, as I know DK was expecting, I hit on all of them right under his nose without him realizing it, and by the time he did, he couldn't make a counter argument - if nothing else, that was a tactical victory for which I deserve credit.

My only conclusion can be that you were looking for reasons to vote against me, and that's fine. I can neither stop you, nor do I particularly care that you voted how you did.

My opponent and I know who won this debate and that is what matters to me.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
malcolmxy
Responding to your comments, briefly -

1. Eggs and baskets - as I stated the only way to fully and effectively judge and review workplace discrimination is to do what I did along every company, industry and career path, and I did not have the time, nor the inclination to do that. So, I demonstrated that women make less money across the board and then I used a specific example to show why.

2. Significance of 1.4% - How many companies which employ people are there in this country? More than 70? Because, at 1.4% employment, there would only be 70 companies in the entire country, should every company employ that many people.

Also, 1.4% is arrived at by using the entire population of people in this country, working or not. When viewed by working population, walmart employs something closer to 5% (which brings us down to 20 companies, should all of them employ a group at least that large).

Regardless, the numbers weren't meant to be the significant part. The illustration of the root cause of the issues was.

3. Graduation vs. Enrollment? - this is like DK's assertion that Asian and White women make so much less than men of the same ethnicity because Asian and White men are more likely to go to college, ignoring the fact that Asian and White women are also more likely to go to college.

Point being, with numbers that large, women are just as likely to graduate as men are. It's the law of large numbers and the fact that I would have to call it out is ridiculous.

4. Walmart was the largest company in 2011 (#1 in the Fortune 500, and since fiscal 2012 hasn't ended yet, your assertion that they aren't the largest company in the world is premature)

5. Walmart Lawsuit - no one has lost that suit. Walmart was only successful in dissolving the class. Each and every person in the class is still free to sue Walmart, and as I demonstrated with California, they all are...just in smaller groups.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
malcolmxy
you appear to have untied. Cool.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Sources:

Con certainly brought more sources, both were about equally reliable, con was slightly better, but not significantly enough to warrent 2 points.
As stated, I was disturbed by pros use of source #4 & #5 in R2.
I"m undecided, & awaiting a response from pro, so I"ll leave it a tie for now.

DONE.

For now.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Pro counters:
a) "workplace discrimination is ridiculously difficult to prove in court. This has little bearing on its existence."
Con maintains (R4) "Walmart lost the case because there was no discrimination"
As I see it, neither side is right about this, the law suit doesn"t show one way or the other.
It doesn"t support pro because, it didn"t go through. It doesn"t support con, because lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
b) " the numbers are there"
I too could not find the #"s, I sent pro a PM asking him to point these #"s out.
Have not gotten any answers.
( c) "The rest of my opponent"s argument last round was either illogical or irrelevant."
I personally find the point that wal-mart consists of only 1.4% of the entire work force, to be rather significant.

2) Education:
Pro argues:
"Women outpace men in college enrollment, 11 million to 8 million, and more importantly they outpace men 3 million to 2 million in private college enrollment"
I would have liked to see graduation statistics rather than enrollment statistics.
Percentages, rather than #"s, (there are more women than men).
& finally the #"s should be the average over the past few decades, (to represent the entire population in the work-force), instead of just the #"s for the year 2008.
Fortunately pro did bring some other education based statistics, but those centered around wal-mart.
Although con did mention some statistics on education, as far as I see con did not respond directly to this argument. I would have liked to see counters based on grades & what not.
I did not find the argument to be a game changer as it only addressed 1 of many differences mentioned by con, & I wasn"t so swayed by the education statistics all together.

3) Babies:
Pro seems to have dropped this issue.

Pro, had BOP, & put all of his eggs in a wal-mart basket, which was not big enough, & had a hole. He also dropped a few of cons arguments.

MCA - con
---------
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Pro counters:
a) "workplace discrimination is ridiculously difficult to prove in court. This has little bearing on its existence."
Con maintains (R4) "Walmart lost the case because there was no discrimination"
As I see it, neither side is right about this, the law suit doesn"t show one way or the other.
It doesn"t support pro because, it didn"t go through. It doesn"t support con, because lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
b) " the numbers are there"
I too could not find the #"s, I sent pro a PM asking him to point these #"s out.
Have not gotten any answers.
( c) "The rest of my opponent"s argument last round was either illogical or irrelevant."
I personally find the point that wal-mart consists of only 1.4% of the entire work force, to be rather significant.

2) Education:
Pro argues:
"Women outpace men in college enrollment, 11 million to 8 million, and more importantly they outpace men 3 million to 2 million in private college enrollment"
I would have liked to see graduation statistics rather than enrollment statistics.
Percentages, rather than #"s, (there are more women than men).
& finally the #"s should be the average over the past few decades, (to represent the entire population in the work-force), instead of just the #"s for the year 2008.
Fortunately pro did bring some other education based statistics, but those centered around wal-mart.
Although con did mention some statistics on education, as far as I see con did not respond directly to this argument. I would have liked to see counters based on grades & what not.
I did not find the argument to be a game changer as it only addressed 1 of many differences mentioned by con, & I wasn"t so swayed by the education statistics all together.

3) Babies:
Pro seems to have dropped this issue.

Pro, had BOP, & put all of his eggs in a wal-mart basket, which was not big enough, & had a hole. He also dropped a few of cons arguments.

MCA - con
---------
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
3) Con"s 3rd argument is that: Legislation already protections unfair discrimination in the workforce. Pro does not address this point at all. He only uses it to counter con"s 1st argument, which was discussed above.

4) Cons final argument came from Studies which have confirmed that unfair discrimination against women does not occur. He shows that there are 90 fields where women make more than men.
Pro does not seem to deal with this directly, but he does show (R3) that men make more in each of 13 industries.
Con (R4) points out that his studies based on 90 field division are superior to cons based on 13 industries since every field has many different careers that one can go into. & provides the fact that Doctors & nurses are put in the same industry.

Pro"s arguments:
1) Walmart:
a) law suit.
b) Pro shows that walmart discriminates between men & women with regard wages & promotions/ giving high level jobs.

The obvious problem with this is that Wal-Mart is but one company among many, which pro preempts, & writes "This is true, but they are THE LARGEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD."(As an aside, as far as I know, this is not true, Wal-Mart is #3, not #1.)
Con makes the argument that:
a) The law suit didn"t go through. & in fact shows the opposite.
b) Pro"s sources do not demonstrate that women at Walmart women work longer hours than men on average. As pro claimed.
c) "It should also be noted that Walmart only consists of 1.4% of the entire labor force[5], not a significant amount of the labor force at all like PRO claims."

To be continued.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
darkkermitmalcolmxyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
darkkermitmalcolmxyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped several of Con's arguments, while Con efficiently dismissed all of Pro's relevant arguments. Pro could not definitively prove that the wage gap was due to unjust discrimination by employers, and as such, failed to meet his burden of proof. Con's sources better supported their argument than Pro's, and unlike a certain someone, I wil not forgo the source vote simply because of a personal disliking in regards to the wording of the source.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
darkkermitmalcolmxyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
darkkermitmalcolmxyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: forced to unvote then allowed to revote only then encouraged to unvote again.... long story
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
darkkermitmalcolmxyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment