2015 post UK election discussion

[Tree13]

You're scraping the barrel now. Women earn 30% less than men in the legal profession because men ask for more pay rises and don't go on maternity leave?

Nope.

All the women in law combined earn less as a total amount than their male counterparts do as a total amount because HISTORIC recruitment and retention patterns mean that the longest-serving (by default also the highest-earning) members of the profession, be they Barristers, Judges or Solicitors, are overwhelmingly male. This skews the figures and produces the result you claim. You are however misrepresenting that result and making a wholly spurious argument that the result is due to the illegal practice of checking an employee's genitals and then ascribing them a certain level of pay according to these genitals. You then contradict yourself by pointing out that this DOESN'T happen at Trainee or NQ level - somehow the women only decide to accept this sexism as they become more experienced and valuable to their employers.

I'm gonna call you on this mate: you're wrong. You know you're wrong, and you're on a massive wind up.

 

[Tree13]

so your basically saying people on low wages shouldn't have children

No - I'm saying I wouldn't do it. I've explained why, and I've made it clear that I struggle to understand why someone in the same scenario would ignore the realities of the situation, or somehow reach a different conclusion about the reality of the situation.

Not understanding why someone would act differently to me is not the same as denying them the right to make their own choice.

 

[Groucho]

I'm gonna say that folk don't have to get all het up just to make a point. Remain calm and chilled when debating please.

Just gonna leave that there.......

 

[tim cahill]

Working off a couple of assumptions (37.5 hours a week working; 46 weeks a year), a 21 year old on minimum wage (£6.50 an hour) earns £11,212.50 a year. More than happy to be corrected if I've got my maths wrong.

You are right. £11,212.50pa is not enough to save anything after paying basic living costs. It's not enough to buy a house, or save for a deposit towards one. It's not enough to buy everything needed to raise a child.

So my question to you would be: why on earth would I consider having a child in that situation? Wouldn't I be far more responsible to try to better myself first?

But the way the system is set up it relies on a big % of people to earn next to nothing so the fat cats can earn the mega bucks. So there will always be a big % of people who can't afford to have kids without support. You can't expect them to go without kids if they want them (and most people do) because they don't want to receive support from a system that is basically exploiting them.

 

[neil999]

No - I'm saying I wouldn't do it. I've explained why, and I've made it clear that I struggle to understand why someone in the same scenario would ignore the realities of the situation, or somehow reach a different conclusion about the reality of the situation.

Not understanding why someone would act differently to me is not the same as denying them the right to make their own choice.

hmmm, but your not in that situation are you? there are people out there that are very unlikely to get a better job than minimum wage...that want to have children and could be very good parents, your argument that you wouldn't do it is an irrelevant argument if you aren't going to be in that situation

you seem to be hinting at something that sounds like eugenics

 

[bring the ghost on]

Nope.

All the women in law combined earn less as a total amount than their male counterparts do as a total amount because HISTORIC recruitment and retention patterns mean that the longest-serving (by default also the highest-earning) members of the profession, be they Barristers, Judges or Solicitors, are overwhelmingly male. This skews the figures and produces the result you claim. You are however misrepresenting that result and making a wholly spurious argument that the result is due to the illegal practice of checking an employee's genitals and then ascribing them a certain level of pay according to these genitals. You then contradict yourself by pointing out that this DOESN'T happen at Trainee or NQ level - somehow the women only decide to accept this sexism as they become more experienced and valuable to their employers.

I'm gonna call you on this mate: you're wrong. You know you're wrong, and you're on a massive wind up.

The study I linked to isn't based upon historic recruitment and the longest-serving members of the profession, but instead breaks it down into various career stages, based on a random selection of practising solicitors. It also does not take into account Barristers or Judges.

Your crude description of checking genitals and ascribing a pay level does nothing to help your argument. Sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination are still problematic in our society and by burying your head in the sand and ignoring it, you are part of the problem. I await your answer to my previous post in which I asked why male solicitors from ethnic minorities are earning 25% less than white male solicitors.

 

[daylightrobber]

so your basically saying people on low wages shouldn't have children

I don't think he is. I think what he's actually saying, in a very roundabout way, is that he and his Mrs aren't ready for kids yet.

I'd still like to think that when they are he'll have a different view on matters. He's resilient in his argument alright and fair play. I've never known anyone remove the emotional element quite like it.

 

[Tree13]

I will give a serious answer to a serious question. Nik's question had a sub-text which suggested women perform worse than men in the profession. He then confirmed that this was his meaning when I asked him the question. I can't agree to that at all, so I'm not going to answer it.

At every turn, you and Nik have refused to acknowledge any sort of sexism to explain such a huge disparity in earnings. Here's a question for both you and Nik. The same article I linked to shows that white men earn 25% more than male solicitors from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background.

If you're so confident that pay is based purely on talent and billing targets, what is your explanation for that?

He's referring to performance in terms of quantifiable returns - billable hours. You chose to deliberately misinterpret him.

I have explained what i believe to be the reason in the disparity in earnings in my post 2506 - read it. Your question re BME male solicitors can be answered in the same way: the industry is over-represented at the more elderly (and therefore senior, and better-paid) levels by white males. The rising numbers at the lower levels show that the barriers that were there historically are not present any more - at least, not to the same extent. Over time, the female and the BME male figures will meet the white male figures, because the current over-representation at the oldest, most senior, higher paid end of the profession will die out and be replaced by women and BME males achieving highly-paid positions on their own merit.

The legal industry is neither sexist nor racially discriminatory in the way you are pretending it is. It used to be, but it isn't anymore and over time the reforms will create the balance in raw figures that isn't there at the moment. This cannot be fast-tracked unless you want to overpay / over-promote younger women and BME males who do not possess the seniority and experience yet, or you cull the profession of every white male practitioner over 45 years old.

You are a WUM.

 

[Woolly Blue]

A lot of the current vitriol has been attributed to people not having any compassion for their fellow man, but that's probably difficult when you're just getting by yourself, working hard and trying to do the right thing. There's been quite a bit of financial stability for your average Joe of late, you can't blame them for not wanting that to change.

I smell a few champagne socialists on GOT with no genuine fear that things will ever go tits up for them

Probably true on both points. When the coalition took office, there was a lot of talk from Labour about how awful their policies would make things. If you put aside any preconceptions, your average voter has had a look at the reality for them, and decided it wasn't as bad for them as everyone made out, so stuck with what they've got

As for champagne socialists, well, it's easy to criticise folk like that, but the reality is that if Labour are going to make a decent stab at the next election then they need to persuade the relatively well off to vote for them.

 

[Tree13]

I don't think he is. I think what he's actually saying, in a very roundabout way, is that he and his Mrs aren't ready for kids yet.

I'd still like to think that when they are he'll have a different view on matters. He's resilient in his argument alright and fair play. I've never known anyone remove the emotional element quite like it.

I 'm sure you didn't mean it to be, but you sound quite patronising there. We are ready to have children - we've chosen to save up in order to facilitate it.

You seem to be suggesting that it's sensible to allow emotion to overwhelm all other factors in making important life decisions. I'm simply disagreeing.

 

[Tree13]

hmmm, but your not in that situation are you? there are people out there that are very unlikely to get a better job than minimum wage...that want to have children and could be very good parents, your argument that you wouldn't do it is an irrelevant argument if you aren't going to be in that situation

you seem to be hinting at something that sounds like eugenics

MASSIVE leap there mate. Beware Godwin's law of internet debating!

 

[Jags..class]

Benefits street on, a lad on DLA for memory loss

 

[neil999]

MASSIVE leap there mate. Beware Godwin's law of internet debating!

not sure if hitler advocated the minmum wage lol

 

[neil999]

Benefits street on, a lad on DLA for memory loss

will prob forget to claim the money then...

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

The UK "living wage" - an hourly rate based on the amount needed to cover the basic costs of living - has been raised by 20p to£7.85.(London £9.15) The voluntary wage - set by the Living Wage Foundation - is now 21% higher than the compulsory National Minimum Wage, which is currently £6.50 an hour.