We incorporated our business with my wife as top-billing just in case we ever needed the benefits of being "woman owned" or "disabled venteran" status(she is). We don't net anything, but it sure helps reduce our tax liability, especially since we live above our business.
So I wouldn't say those numbers represent "not a good thing", so to speak. I know from our experience it's helped considerably even(especially?) without having a net profit.
aircooled wrote: Can I ask, as someone with interest in the area, what you think of the "women make less then men" thing we have been hearing lately? It's obviously a bit politicized, so it's hard to know where the truth is. I have heard that that statement is lacking in perspective / context. In some cases they are not referring to the same jobs (men tend to take more dangerous higher paying jobs) and in others may not be accounting for other factors (e.g. women are more likely to drop out of the workforce for family reasons). Thoughts?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
It mostly comes down to reproductive and child rearing decisions. Women tend to play a much more active role in these things than men. That takes up more of their time that is not used for work. If two people work at the same hourly pay rate, and one has leave to take off 5% of their time to deal with kids, they will earn 5% less. (I'm sure it is actually much more complicated and nuanced than that, but that is sort of the issue distilled.)
I've heard that studies that do account for reproductive decisions show little to no pay gap. Does that mean there is no institutional sexism? Hardly. But it means that the problem is less severe than advertised.
(I get pissed off when social ills are inflated to serve an agenda. I know there are problems out there, but many I can not take seriously because of lack of objective information on the topics.)
aircooled wrote: Can I ask, as someone with interest in the area, what you think of the "women make less then men" thing we have been hearing lately? It's obviously a bit politicized, so it's hard to know where the truth is. I have heard that that statement is lacking in perspective / context. In some cases they are not referring to the same jobs (men tend to take more dangerous higher paying jobs) and in others may not be accounting for other factors (e.g. women are more likely to drop out of the workforce for family reasons). Thoughts?
Oh boy... Now you are trying to get me in trouble !
This is not even close to a new subject. My mother (a pretty radical feminist) and I have been discussing it for over 40 years.
I agree with Beer Baron, sort of. I wouldn't call it lies, I would call it nuanced.
My mother still has a button that says "68%". It is a reference to the gender gap in the late 60's, early 70's. Today's gap is 81%. So it is greatly improved.
But even she would now opine that the real bias is against men in today's economy.
What industry? Women vastly outperform men in real estate sales ( for example).
I've spent most of my life in construction. I'd much rather hire women than men (they are better- they have to be).
My opinion is that it is now insignificant or non-existent. There is really no basis for comparison.
Think of it from the business' perspective. Train someone up, invest in them, and BAM, they drop out of the workforce for a few years to raise kids, or are distracted by other priorities for a few years even if they don't leave.
Women loose career momentum because of the choices they make. I think those choices are important and a good priority, but they still loose momentum, and therefore value to the company.
It can't be measured accurately. It's like asking who are better parents, women or men?
It is now nothing more than a political hot potatoe, with no real basis.
My $.02.
SVreX wrote: ....It is now nothing more than a political hot potatoe, with no real basis. My $.02.
OK, thanks. That is what I was thinking. I was just curious if there was some new basis for the recent popularity.
SVreX wrote: Doesn't excuse the bad journalism.
And seeing stuff like that is why I got out of journalism while I was still in journalism school. Back then (20 years ago) there was at least some attempt to teach removal of "editorial opinion" from news stories. But working as a copy editor for the school paper, it was a constant battle with the student reporters who wanted to be editorial columnists.
Apparently now the teachers have given up. Then again, I'm not sure traditional journalism is even taught anymore.
Any ladies have an opinion? Or did I already piss you off too much?
In reply to SVreX:
Actually, I was keying more onto the "statistics" part of that quote.
I absolutely agree that momentum is significant too.
Interesting subject. I don't put much weight behind what I read in the media anymore though, there seems to always be an agenda driving "news" stories. I see the media more as another marketing agent rather than a news source, and there is always more to the story than they will dedicate the space to print, even on the web.
Certainly if women are finding themselves unhappy or underpaid (not compared to men but relative to their desired income) in the workforce, they may tend to pursue other opportunities available to them, such as going into business for themselves. The article mentioned that "there are myriad sources of support for women-owned businesses locally, one of the “good signs” for continued growth in the number of women-owned firms." I think if there truly is a myriad of support for something, then it will flourish.
petegossett wrote: So I wouldn't say those numbers represent "not a good thing", so to speak. I know from our experience it's helped considerably even(especially?) without having a net profit.
I wasn't referring to the profits. I understand how there can be benefits other than profits.
I was referring to the employees per business.
It looks like GA female-owned businesses employ 0.76 employees per company, while GA male-owned businesses employ more like 4.88 employees per company.
That's quite a discrepancy.
In reply to SVreX:
Ah, yes. Totally agree with you there.
I’m not sure if this comes directly from the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) or if it’s my company’s interpretation of the EEOC’s requirements but as a manager, I’ve been advised to make an aggressive effort to have at least 50% woman within each pay grade. This may not sound like a bad thing but it’s actually a terribly biased hit against men.
Why…to begin with, half the time, you’ll have an odd number of people within a pay grade. In these cases, you’ll need to overweight with woman to comply with the 50% rule. If there were hundreds of people within a pay grade, it wouldn’t matter very much but that isn’t the case with my company or most of the others I’m familiar with. If you have one person in a pay grade, you’ll need 100% woman, with three, it’s 67% women, and with five, it’s 60% women. I just made a little math model with the minimum number of women needed to be compliant with a range of one to ten people and the average came to 58.97%.
Again, I don’t know if this comes directly from the EEOC but if we’re interpreting the rules this way, certainly many other companies are too either because the language of the law is ambiguous or past experience with the EEOC has been inconsistent. Whatever the reason, men are clearly placed at a huge disadvantage.
Next, we do not offset meaning that if you have 60% women in one area, you can’t run with 40% somewhere else and I’m pretty sure this requirement does come straight from the EEOC. So, departments like HR that have ~90% women are a windfall for the gender that doesn’t need to be “paid” for in other areas.
I find the thought of not giving someone a job or paying them less or not providing the same opportunities for advancement due to any irrelevant attribute such as gender repugnant. However, the devil is in the details and time after time we wind up in these terrible situations.
Interesting.
Any idea where that EEOC guideline is?
SVreX wrote: Interesting. Any idea where that EEOC guideline is?
I’m sure it’s publicly available but let me reinitiate my point…there’s no reason to believe my company is unique in its interpretation of the requirements so even if the EEOC doesn’t specifically mandate these things, they are, in a practical sense, in effect in many cases.
That is quite strange... I work for the provincial government, and while there are rules in place for fair hiring, we definitely don't have anything that makes such numbers MANDATORY.
Quick question RXReven: what happens if you don't staff the way you do? As in, what happens to YOU personally?
RX Reven' wrote:SVreX wrote: Interesting. Any idea where that EEOC guideline is?I’m sure it’s publicly available but let me reinitiate my point…there’s no reason to believe my company is unique in its interpretation of the requirements so even if the EEOC doesn’t specifically mandate these things, they are, in a practical sense, in effect in many cases.
I understand.
I'm still interested in seeing the guideline.
aircooled wrote: Can I ask, as someone with interest in the area, what you think of the "women make less then men" thing we have been hearing lately? It's obviously a bit politicized, so it's hard to know where the truth is.
I'll admit, I had heard very little in the recent media before you posted this, but ever since you posted it, it's all the noise I hear.
Good grief. What Pandora's box did you open?? 
Friggin election year. Pure political BS.
SVreX wrote: Friggin election year. Pure political BS.
Yeah, pretty much except it follows a long established strawman meme. It's also a tactic played by both parties.
It's been more successful recently as our lapdog media almost always gets distracted by the shiny baubles thrown at them (for the last seven years) and media consumers are too stupid to figure it out.
You'll need to log in to post.
