POSTED BY FROSTY TROY
Here's a news flash: Women get paid less than men. OK, so that's not anything new. Even just a year out of college, women earn 20% less than male counterparts.
Ten years after graduation, the pay gap gets worse with women earning 69% of what men earn, according to a new study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
The group analyzed two surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. The studies provide nationally representative information on the lives of two groups of college students.
One study followed about 9,000 bachelor's degree graduates from 1992 to 1993 for 10 years after college. The second examined the 10,000 four-year degree recipients of the 1999-2000 class for one year.
These pay differences that appear early in female careers are so important because pay wages and job offers are based on previous earnings. Over time, they become cemented and the differences continue to grow.
The study found many women major in subjects that traditionally pay less, such as education, but the pay gap exists among men and women who concentrate in the same area, though the size of the gap varies.
In education, for instance, women earn 5% less than their male colleagues in the first year after graduation.
Accounting for hours, occupation, parenthood and other factors, it was found that one-quarter of the wage disparity is unexplainable and may be due to discrimination.
The study suggests several ways to close the pay disparity, including encouraging women to enter careers in traditionally male-dominated and higher-paying occupations such as mathematics and science; creating awareness among women to negotiate for better pay; and promoting family-friendly policies in the workplace.
Female students must have such knowledge in order to deal with the issue. They have to be more educated in what they can do, and professions that they are not going into as females.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Abortion Politics
POSTED BY ARNOLD HAMILTON
Three things you need to know about SB 139, the Legislature-approved, mean-spirited anti-abortion bill that is ostensibly aimed at ensuring state tax dollars do not pay for the procedure:
1. Anti-abortion zealots – mostly Republicans, backed by religious fundamentalists – could not present a single shred of evidence that elective abortions are being performed at taxpayers’ expense at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center.
A crisis in need of a solution? Hardly. This is pure politics. This is about the 2008 elections – and beyond.
It’s much easier in Bible-belt Oklahoma to demagogue the abortion issue in a 30-second TV spot, a pamphlet or a church voters guide than it is to explain that this bill doesn’t really end abortion, why it damages one of our state’s crown jewels – the OU Health Sciences Center – and why it’s unfair to poor women who don’t have options in the event of a troubled pregnancy.
Besides, aren’t Republicans supposed to be against government intrusion? What could be worse for a true conservative than government meddling in one of the most sacred relationships – between patient and doctor.
2. This version won converts because it includes exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
But what nobody seems to be discussing is that the bill requires rape and incest victims to report the crime to law enforcement before they can be eligible for this treatment. Rape and incest are two of the most under-reported crimes for a reason: Many still fear being stigmatized.
Haven’t these the women been through enough? Can you imagine a young girl being forced to turn her father or brother into police in order to be helped medically?
3. Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, D-OKC, is persona non grata in the House Democratic Caucus because of her role in refashioning SB 139 into an anti-abortion bill.
It put some colleagues in the terrible position of having to vote on this issue for a second time this session [SB 714, which included even more restrictive language, passed both houses earlier, only to be vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry].
As mentioned earlier, it is too easy to demagogue this issue. Hamilton’s anti-abortion zealotry played into the Republicans’ hands, giving them a cheap – but oft-times effective – campaign issue to browbeat some of her colleagues.
House Democrats won’t soon forget the betrayal.
Finally: What will Gov. Henry do with SB 139?
Best guess: He will sign it. The measure passed both houses by what would appear to be veto-proof margins.
Three things you need to know about SB 139, the Legislature-approved, mean-spirited anti-abortion bill that is ostensibly aimed at ensuring state tax dollars do not pay for the procedure:
1. Anti-abortion zealots – mostly Republicans, backed by religious fundamentalists – could not present a single shred of evidence that elective abortions are being performed at taxpayers’ expense at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center.
A crisis in need of a solution? Hardly. This is pure politics. This is about the 2008 elections – and beyond.
It’s much easier in Bible-belt Oklahoma to demagogue the abortion issue in a 30-second TV spot, a pamphlet or a church voters guide than it is to explain that this bill doesn’t really end abortion, why it damages one of our state’s crown jewels – the OU Health Sciences Center – and why it’s unfair to poor women who don’t have options in the event of a troubled pregnancy.
Besides, aren’t Republicans supposed to be against government intrusion? What could be worse for a true conservative than government meddling in one of the most sacred relationships – between patient and doctor.
2. This version won converts because it includes exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
But what nobody seems to be discussing is that the bill requires rape and incest victims to report the crime to law enforcement before they can be eligible for this treatment. Rape and incest are two of the most under-reported crimes for a reason: Many still fear being stigmatized.
Haven’t these the women been through enough? Can you imagine a young girl being forced to turn her father or brother into police in order to be helped medically?
3. Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, D-OKC, is persona non grata in the House Democratic Caucus because of her role in refashioning SB 139 into an anti-abortion bill.
It put some colleagues in the terrible position of having to vote on this issue for a second time this session [SB 714, which included even more restrictive language, passed both houses earlier, only to be vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry].
As mentioned earlier, it is too easy to demagogue this issue. Hamilton’s anti-abortion zealotry played into the Republicans’ hands, giving them a cheap – but oft-times effective – campaign issue to browbeat some of her colleagues.
House Democrats won’t soon forget the betrayal.
Finally: What will Gov. Henry do with SB 139?
Best guess: He will sign it. The measure passed both houses by what would appear to be veto-proof margins.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
New Survey
POSTED BY FROSTY TROY
The National School Boards Association's Council of Urban Boards of Education has released findings of a major research study, Where We Teach, which surveyed how teachers and administrators feel about their urban school environments.
A majority of urban teachers and building administrators hold high expectations for students and care whether students are successful.
The survey found that nearly one-third of teachers and nearly 16% of administrators agree that students at their schools are not motivated to learn.
Nearly one-quarter of teachers also agree that most students at their school would not be successful at a community college or university.
Among the major findings is that while most teachers and administrators in the survey believe they can deter bullying in their schools, the majority believe that bullying still goes on at least once a month.
Three-quarters of teachers disagree that racial barriers to educational and economic opportunity no longer exist in the U.S.
While parent involvement is known to be one of the indicators of success for students, teachers and administrators differ in their perceptions of parent involvement.
While 81% of administrators agree that parents support their school and activities, only 57% of teachers agree with that perception.
Teachers know – but most remain mum – that the biggest obstacle, especially for minority children, is sorry parenting. All the "reforms" in the world won't improve the situation until parenting improves.
The National School Boards Association's Council of Urban Boards of Education has released findings of a major research study, Where We Teach, which surveyed how teachers and administrators feel about their urban school environments.
A majority of urban teachers and building administrators hold high expectations for students and care whether students are successful.
The survey found that nearly one-third of teachers and nearly 16% of administrators agree that students at their schools are not motivated to learn.
Nearly one-quarter of teachers also agree that most students at their school would not be successful at a community college or university.
Among the major findings is that while most teachers and administrators in the survey believe they can deter bullying in their schools, the majority believe that bullying still goes on at least once a month.
Three-quarters of teachers disagree that racial barriers to educational and economic opportunity no longer exist in the U.S.
While parent involvement is known to be one of the indicators of success for students, teachers and administrators differ in their perceptions of parent involvement.
While 81% of administrators agree that parents support their school and activities, only 57% of teachers agree with that perception.
Teachers know – but most remain mum – that the biggest obstacle, especially for minority children, is sorry parenting. All the "reforms" in the world won't improve the situation until parenting improves.
Monday, May 7, 2007
What Risk?
POSTED BY FROSTY TROY
Don't cry for the insurance industry. Despite poor-mouthing by some, the property and casualty industry raked in record profits last year.
With no major hurricane activity in 2006, coupled with premium increases, the property and casualty industry profit is estimated at $68.1 billion.
In medical malpractice, the national 2004 and 2005 loss payments as a percentage of premiums paid by doctors were 63.3% and 52.4%.
Despite all the lies you've heard or read, in Oklahoma the losses paid out to victims for each dollar paid in by doctors were only 33.2 cents in 2004 and 13.8 cents in 2005.
The Consumer Federation of America and other consumer groups released the study on the profitability of the property/casualty insurance industry in America.
In 2004, the property and casualty insurance industry set an industry record by netting an after-tax profit of $40.5 billion.
In 2005, even considering Hurricane Katrina and other major hurricanes, the industry posted a profit of $48.8 billion – another new record.
The $157.4 billion in profit over the last three years equates to roughly $524 for every American, or $1,574 per household.
One of the key reasons that the insurers can make so much money even in what would appear to be hard times is that they have found ways to lay-off risk onto the public by requiring victims of injury to pay more.
They have also tried to limit payouts by pushing so-called tort reform in Oklahoma and elsewhere to limit their payouts [but not their profits].
In 2004-2005, the profit of insurance companies in the state exceeded national averages by $235 million.
Kudos to Gov. Brad Henry for his veto of the so-called tort reform bill, based on nothing more than a tissue of lies.
Don't cry for the insurance industry. Despite poor-mouthing by some, the property and casualty industry raked in record profits last year.
With no major hurricane activity in 2006, coupled with premium increases, the property and casualty industry profit is estimated at $68.1 billion.
In medical malpractice, the national 2004 and 2005 loss payments as a percentage of premiums paid by doctors were 63.3% and 52.4%.
Despite all the lies you've heard or read, in Oklahoma the losses paid out to victims for each dollar paid in by doctors were only 33.2 cents in 2004 and 13.8 cents in 2005.
The Consumer Federation of America and other consumer groups released the study on the profitability of the property/casualty insurance industry in America.
In 2004, the property and casualty insurance industry set an industry record by netting an after-tax profit of $40.5 billion.
In 2005, even considering Hurricane Katrina and other major hurricanes, the industry posted a profit of $48.8 billion – another new record.
The $157.4 billion in profit over the last three years equates to roughly $524 for every American, or $1,574 per household.
One of the key reasons that the insurers can make so much money even in what would appear to be hard times is that they have found ways to lay-off risk onto the public by requiring victims of injury to pay more.
They have also tried to limit payouts by pushing so-called tort reform in Oklahoma and elsewhere to limit their payouts [but not their profits].
In 2004-2005, the profit of insurance companies in the state exceeded national averages by $235 million.
Kudos to Gov. Brad Henry for his veto of the so-called tort reform bill, based on nothing more than a tissue of lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)