|
|
Bf stabbed for eating thanksgiving meal to early
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-12-02 16:06:05
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »Wage gap is a myth, the 77 cents to a dollar figure is independant of profession choice or length of tenure. It's simply the arithmetic mean of women working fulltime vs men working fulltime. Some careers pay less than others.
I don't put much stock in the 77 cents figure, but the wage gap is not a myth. When comparing females and males in the same fields and positions, women less. The few apples to apples comparisons I've seen put it somewhere between 93 and 97 cents, and in very rare instances, women actually make more than their male counterparts. Most of the gap can be attributed to having children, which sadly affects the mother more than the father. Even being married without children has a negative impact on a woman's wage for some reason I can only assume is less opportunities for advancement due to not being available in the work sense or personal sense.
TL:DR - The wage gap isn't a myth, but the figures are grossly exaggerated.
The "Wage Gap" as described by Feminists is most certainly a myth. Feminism believes that evil patriarchal men who are in management positions because of their pen!s deliberately chose to pay women less and men more because they believe the man is more capable because he has a pen!s.
That is horsesh!t and was dispelled a long time ago. It's still used because understanding the real cause of pay discrepancies is difficult and hard to fit the explanation into a news bite. It boils down to labor statistics, especially after marriage / children. Men on average work much more then women and also work more dangerous jobs then women. After getting married a man will start to work longer hours, after having children he work even more. Women do the inverse, after marriage they cut back on hours and after children it plummets. This is not forced onto women nor is it the result of some Bond villain counsel setting secret agenda, it's the result of plain human nature. Men are naturally driven to provide for women and children, this translates into a man seeing his self worth linked to his ability to "provide for his family". Society further reinforces this behavior as it's what created civilization as we know it. Women work less after marriage because they simply no longer need to work as much. After children, well it becomes pretty obvious.
When you compile all this info you get a much better idea on whats happening. Nobody is forcing women to work less, nobody is paying women less, it's purely a result of economics. The only way to possibly change it to so apply a gender tax. Tax men an additional 25% then give that 25% to women as governmental compensation. *Poof* gap gone. Or the really funny part of women wanting men to cover their health insurance (women are charge more then men for the same reason men are charged more in car insurance). Forcing a company to charge both the same just results in the additional cost transfer from the more expensive client (the woman) to the less expensive client (the man). Most welfare works this way, when broken down by users you see a stupendous amount being used for women and their children, when looking at income tax's you see the exact opposite with majority net coming from men. While men and women both pay the same income tax, women use more governmental assistance / services, virtually all of it. Finally, women are most definitely not a minority, they represent 51% of the human race. Nature seems to of slightly tilted gender selection towards producing more females then males. One of the single greatest deceptions of feminism was linking and treating "Women" to a traditionally discriminated / oppressed class like "Blacks". They also happen to earn over %60 of the college degree's today.
People can cry, scream and moan all they want, I'm speaking only from the facts without any modification or prejudice. I'm an egalitarian and therefor believe that all people should be treated the same legally and morally even though they individually have differences. Feminism, as currently applied and lead, is evil as f*ck. It's right up there with Marxism which actually subsumed the feminist cause during the second wave.
You can choose to approach the topic from the standpoint that anyone who objects to paying someone less for the same job is the caricature feminist you imagine, or you can choose (like I am) to approach it from a strictly factual standpoint. All else being equal, women earn less than men. I'd like to understand how much and why, and either determine that it's a natural byproduct of innate gender differences, or it's not and fix it.
Sure, there are plenty of overbearing feminazi's who preach about the patriarchy, etc. That shouldn't invalidate the very real disadvantage women have as earners, especially in STEM fields. Does it mean that every hiring manager is a chauvinist pig? Not anymore than it means every woman is less motivated or qualified.
The why is simple. Women choose to earn less (as a whole) by working less (as a whole). Thinking about taking a few years of to raise your kids? That's part of the equation. Thinking of working part time now cause you got married? That's part of the equation too. On a case by case basis of here's a job, it requires X and I have a male and female candidate. Women get a compensation equal to men probably 99-100% of the time.
Otherwise, why on earth would anyone ever hire a man to do anything when you can save 20% right off the top by ringing the same amount of work out of a woman.
Women choosing to work less or in lower paid fields is at least part of the reason the 77 cents figure is bogus, however, even when all things are equal, women still earn less. The reason for hiring a man over a woman in that situation is the same erroneous perception that makes women worth less. Either way, "women choose to make less" is a pretty weak reason unless you completely discount anything besides the story headline.
 Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2014-12-02 16:08:51
 Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-12-02 16:18:19
Rise of the Commie-feminazis.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-12-02 16:36:24
Closest I've ever been was discussing abortion while being the only male in the classroom...yea my opinion wasn't heard.
/shocked
I seriously entertained the notion that you were a girl.
No women on the internet just confused young boys.
YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
 Leviathan.Draugo
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2775
By Leviathan.Draugo 2014-12-02 16:37:39
Looks like this whole debate has beaten the horse enough, heh.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-12-02 16:41:03
According to this random video women on the internet is a civil rights issue lmao.
 Caitsith.Zahrah
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2014-12-02 16:54:44
Looks like this whole debate has beaten the horse enough, heh. 
Yep. Pretty prevalent topic matter lately, even a matter of off-topic matter. Go figure.
The upside is, there are always GIFs available.
Leviathan.Draugo
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2775
By Leviathan.Draugo 2014-12-02 17:35:48
What up Zahrah still living in spud land? Or is my memory failing?
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-12-03 06:22:30
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »Wage gap is a myth, the 77 cents to a dollar figure is independant of profession choice or length of tenure. It's simply the arithmetic mean of women working fulltime vs men working fulltime. Some careers pay less than others.
I don't put much stock in the 77 cents figure, but the wage gap is not a myth. When comparing females and males in the same fields and positions, women less. The few apples to apples comparisons I've seen put it somewhere between 93 and 97 cents, and in very rare instances, women actually make more than their male counterparts. Most of the gap can be attributed to having children, which sadly affects the mother more than the father. Even being married without children has a negative impact on a woman's wage for some reason I can only assume is less opportunities for advancement due to not being available in the work sense or personal sense.
TL:DR - The wage gap isn't a myth, but the figures are grossly exaggerated.
The "Wage Gap" as described by Feminists is most certainly a myth. Feminism believes that evil patriarchal men who are in management positions because of their pen!s deliberately chose to pay women less and men more because they believe the man is more capable because he has a pen!s.
That is horsesh!t and was dispelled a long time ago. It's still used because understanding the real cause of pay discrepancies is difficult and hard to fit the explanation into a news bite. It boils down to labor statistics, especially after marriage / children. Men on average work much more then women and also work more dangerous jobs then women. After getting married a man will start to work longer hours, after having children he work even more. Women do the inverse, after marriage they cut back on hours and after children it plummets. This is not forced onto women nor is it the result of some Bond villain counsel setting secret agenda, it's the result of plain human nature. Men are naturally driven to provide for women and children, this translates into a man seeing his self worth linked to his ability to "provide for his family". Society further reinforces this behavior as it's what created civilization as we know it. Women work less after marriage because they simply no longer need to work as much. After children, well it becomes pretty obvious.
When you compile all this info you get a much better idea on whats happening. Nobody is forcing women to work less, nobody is paying women less, it's purely a result of economics. The only way to possibly change it to so apply a gender tax. Tax men an additional 25% then give that 25% to women as governmental compensation. *Poof* gap gone. Or the really funny part of women wanting men to cover their health insurance (women are charge more then men for the same reason men are charged more in car insurance). Forcing a company to charge both the same just results in the additional cost transfer from the more expensive client (the woman) to the less expensive client (the man). Most welfare works this way, when broken down by users you see a stupendous amount being used for women and their children, when looking at income tax's you see the exact opposite with majority net coming from men. While men and women both pay the same income tax, women use more governmental assistance / services, virtually all of it. Finally, women are most definitely not a minority, they represent 51% of the human race. Nature seems to of slightly tilted gender selection towards producing more females then males. One of the single greatest deceptions of feminism was linking and treating "Women" to a traditionally discriminated / oppressed class like "Blacks". They also happen to earn over %60 of the college degree's today.
People can cry, scream and moan all they want, I'm speaking only from the facts without any modification or prejudice. I'm an egalitarian and therefor believe that all people should be treated the same legally and morally even though they individually have differences. Feminism, as currently applied and lead, is evil as f*ck. It's right up there with Marxism which actually subsumed the feminist cause during the second wave.
You can choose to approach the topic from the standpoint that anyone who objects to paying someone less for the same job is the caricature feminist you imagine, or you can choose (like I am) to approach it from a strictly factual standpoint. All else being equal, women earn less than men. I'd like to understand how much and why, and either determine that it's a natural byproduct of innate gender differences, or it's not and fix it.
Sure, there are plenty of overbearing feminazi's who preach about the patriarchy, etc. That shouldn't invalidate the very real disadvantage women have as earners, especially in STEM fields. Does it mean that every hiring manager is a chauvinist pig? Not anymore than it means every woman is less motivated or qualified.
The why is simple. Women choose to earn less (as a whole) by working less (as a whole). Thinking about taking a few years of to raise your kids? That's part of the equation. Thinking of working part time now cause you got married? That's part of the equation too. On a case by case basis of here's a job, it requires X and I have a male and female candidate. Women get a compensation equal to men probably 99-100% of the time.
Otherwise, why on earth would anyone ever hire a man to do anything when you can save 20% right off the top by ringing the same amount of work out of a woman.
Women choosing to work less or in lower paid fields is at least part of the reason the 77 cents figure is bogus, however, even when all things are equal, women still earn less. The reason for hiring a man over a woman in that situation is the same erroneous perception that makes women worth less. Either way, "women choose to make less" is a pretty weak reason unless you completely discount anything besides the story headline.
What the f*ck ... huh .... do you even read or do any form of independent research? Women actually make 11% more then men in the same field / qualifications between 23 and 30. It's already been demonstrated that women, as an entire workforce, earn less on average because they go into less risky fields while also working less hours.
When you break down the public labor statistics by age, marriage and children then it becomes extremely clear. Same age / education background / work experience women actually make more per hour worked then men by approximately 11%. During her single / unmarried / childless time the women will make more then her male coworkers doing the same job. Once married, it's statistically proven that women cut down their hours, frequently quitting the work force entirely. Once childbirth happens the women will dramatically cut down her hours and often simply no longer work until all her children are in highschool. That is a 13~18 year hiatus depending on the number of children she has. Of course this is all preconditioned on the male making enough to support her decision to do this, meaning he is now forced to put in more hours then her and work even harder for the next promotion.
On aggregate women take far less career risks then men, they tend to favor median paying jobs with high security whenever possible. On aggregate they avoid STEM fiends, financial fields and rarely start independent business's. Men on the other hand will take risks of switching careers or entering into less secure but more profitable work agreements. Women represent over 60% of all college graduates, men are now a minority on campus (yet somehow title IX is only applied to women even though they are now the majority) yet only 10~20% of STEM students with most women choosing to go into the medical field. This is even with universities and foundations offering gender based financial aid exclusively to females choosing to go into STEM fields (which should be f*cking illegal). While men represent the majority of high school dropouts and the homeless. They have a staggeringly higher suicide rate along with representing over 90% of workplace related deaths. Men also present the majority of powerful business leaders and business owners, even failed business owners.
Simply put, on average, men take more risks then women and are more likely to seek employment outside their comfort zone. This results in men being over represented in both the top and the very bottom of the economic ladder. When was the last time you heard a feminist clamoring to be hired as trash truck operators, plumbers, janitors, coal miners, farmers, day laborers, or carpenters? When was the last time you heard a feminist lament about why there wasn't more women working on deep sea fishing boats? They only care about employment in high status professions and thus miss an entire population segment compromised almost entirely of men.
Seriously if your near a city, find out where the homeless hang out at and go see how many are men. Just to get a grasp on the big picture of things.
[+]
 Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-12-03 07:50:08
The only study that discusses women between the ages of 22-30 earning 8% more for median earnings than single men of the same age in some cities in the US is an unpublished study from Reach Advisors using 2008 census data.
This did not compare women and men in the same field, only within the same age range, household status, and employment status.
The methodology has never been released and the only statistics released were those cherry picked by Reach Advisors. Out of supposedly 150 cities reviewed 10 cities statistics were released to Time magazine.
According to the census 2012 there are still significant issues in pay between men and women as a whole and within the same industry in the US.
**the data used by the BLS is based on surveys of households at a 90% confidence level. They use 15,000 of 60,000 surveys conducted for BLS on a monthly basis. Looking for the actual data now rather than percentages.
[+]
Cerberus.Anjisnu
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2803
By Cerberus.Anjisnu 2014-12-03 08:06:38
*** humans have you seen what they pay machines, animals, etc. For their work per hr it's deplorable!
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-12-03 09:26:49
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »Wage gap is a myth, the 77 cents to a dollar figure is independant of profession choice or length of tenure. It's simply the arithmetic mean of women working fulltime vs men working fulltime. Some careers pay less than others.
I don't put much stock in the 77 cents figure, but the wage gap is not a myth. When comparing females and males in the same fields and positions, women less. The few apples to apples comparisons I've seen put it somewhere between 93 and 97 cents, and in very rare instances, women actually make more than their male counterparts. Most of the gap can be attributed to having children, which sadly affects the mother more than the father. Even being married without children has a negative impact on a woman's wage for some reason I can only assume is less opportunities for advancement due to not being available in the work sense or personal sense.
TL:DR - The wage gap isn't a myth, but the figures are grossly exaggerated.
The "Wage Gap" as described by Feminists is most certainly a myth. Feminism believes that evil patriarchal men who are in management positions because of their pen!s deliberately chose to pay women less and men more because they believe the man is more capable because he has a pen!s.
That is horsesh!t and was dispelled a long time ago. It's still used because understanding the real cause of pay discrepancies is difficult and hard to fit the explanation into a news bite. It boils down to labor statistics, especially after marriage / children. Men on average work much more then women and also work more dangerous jobs then women. After getting married a man will start to work longer hours, after having children he work even more. Women do the inverse, after marriage they cut back on hours and after children it plummets. This is not forced onto women nor is it the result of some Bond villain counsel setting secret agenda, it's the result of plain human nature. Men are naturally driven to provide for women and children, this translates into a man seeing his self worth linked to his ability to "provide for his family". Society further reinforces this behavior as it's what created civilization as we know it. Women work less after marriage because they simply no longer need to work as much. After children, well it becomes pretty obvious.
When you compile all this info you get a much better idea on whats happening. Nobody is forcing women to work less, nobody is paying women less, it's purely a result of economics. The only way to possibly change it to so apply a gender tax. Tax men an additional 25% then give that 25% to women as governmental compensation. *Poof* gap gone. Or the really funny part of women wanting men to cover their health insurance (women are charge more then men for the same reason men are charged more in car insurance). Forcing a company to charge both the same just results in the additional cost transfer from the more expensive client (the woman) to the less expensive client (the man). Most welfare works this way, when broken down by users you see a stupendous amount being used for women and their children, when looking at income tax's you see the exact opposite with majority net coming from men. While men and women both pay the same income tax, women use more governmental assistance / services, virtually all of it. Finally, women are most definitely not a minority, they represent 51% of the human race. Nature seems to of slightly tilted gender selection towards producing more females then males. One of the single greatest deceptions of feminism was linking and treating "Women" to a traditionally discriminated / oppressed class like "Blacks". They also happen to earn over %60 of the college degree's today.
People can cry, scream and moan all they want, I'm speaking only from the facts without any modification or prejudice. I'm an egalitarian and therefor believe that all people should be treated the same legally and morally even though they individually have differences. Feminism, as currently applied and lead, is evil as f*ck. It's right up there with Marxism which actually subsumed the feminist cause during the second wave.
You can choose to approach the topic from the standpoint that anyone who objects to paying someone less for the same job is the caricature feminist you imagine, or you can choose (like I am) to approach it from a strictly factual standpoint. All else being equal, women earn less than men. I'd like to understand how much and why, and either determine that it's a natural byproduct of innate gender differences, or it's not and fix it.
Sure, there are plenty of overbearing feminazi's who preach about the patriarchy, etc. That shouldn't invalidate the very real disadvantage women have as earners, especially in STEM fields. Does it mean that every hiring manager is a chauvinist pig? Not anymore than it means every woman is less motivated or qualified.
The why is simple. Women choose to earn less (as a whole) by working less (as a whole). Thinking about taking a few years of to raise your kids? That's part of the equation. Thinking of working part time now cause you got married? That's part of the equation too. On a case by case basis of here's a job, it requires X and I have a male and female candidate. Women get a compensation equal to men probably 99-100% of the time.
Otherwise, why on earth would anyone ever hire a man to do anything when you can save 20% right off the top by ringing the same amount of work out of a woman.
Women choosing to work less or in lower paid fields is at least part of the reason the 77 cents figure is bogus, however, even when all things are equal, women still earn less. The reason for hiring a man over a woman in that situation is the same erroneous perception that makes women worth less. Either way, "women choose to make less" is a pretty weak reason unless you completely discount anything besides the story headline.
Women only earn less for the same work when you compare them as a whole group over their lifetimes. This is because a big chunk of them stop working when they have kids. Its real simple.
Why on earth would any company hire a man if they could save 5%, 10%, 20% right off the bat by hiring a woman to do the same work? Either they can't save that money (because it's a myth) or they aren't doing the same amount of work.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-12-03 09:43:37
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »Wage gap is a myth, the 77 cents to a dollar figure is independant of profession choice or length of tenure. It's simply the arithmetic mean of women working fulltime vs men working fulltime. Some careers pay less than others.
I don't put much stock in the 77 cents figure, but the wage gap is not a myth. When comparing females and males in the same fields and positions, women less. The few apples to apples comparisons I've seen put it somewhere between 93 and 97 cents, and in very rare instances, women actually make more than their male counterparts. Most of the gap can be attributed to having children, which sadly affects the mother more than the father. Even being married without children has a negative impact on a woman's wage for some reason I can only assume is less opportunities for advancement due to not being available in the work sense or personal sense.
TL:DR - The wage gap isn't a myth, but the figures are grossly exaggerated.
The "Wage Gap" as described by Feminists is most certainly a myth. Feminism believes that evil patriarchal men who are in management positions because of their pen!s deliberately chose to pay women less and men more because they believe the man is more capable because he has a pen!s.
That is horsesh!t and was dispelled a long time ago. It's still used because understanding the real cause of pay discrepancies is difficult and hard to fit the explanation into a news bite. It boils down to labor statistics, especially after marriage / children. Men on average work much more then women and also work more dangerous jobs then women. After getting married a man will start to work longer hours, after having children he work even more. Women do the inverse, after marriage they cut back on hours and after children it plummets. This is not forced onto women nor is it the result of some Bond villain counsel setting secret agenda, it's the result of plain human nature. Men are naturally driven to provide for women and children, this translates into a man seeing his self worth linked to his ability to "provide for his family". Society further reinforces this behavior as it's what created civilization as we know it. Women work less after marriage because they simply no longer need to work as much. After children, well it becomes pretty obvious.
When you compile all this info you get a much better idea on whats happening. Nobody is forcing women to work less, nobody is paying women less, it's purely a result of economics. The only way to possibly change it to so apply a gender tax. Tax men an additional 25% then give that 25% to women as governmental compensation. *Poof* gap gone. Or the really funny part of women wanting men to cover their health insurance (women are charge more then men for the same reason men are charged more in car insurance). Forcing a company to charge both the same just results in the additional cost transfer from the more expensive client (the woman) to the less expensive client (the man). Most welfare works this way, when broken down by users you see a stupendous amount being used for women and their children, when looking at income tax's you see the exact opposite with majority net coming from men. While men and women both pay the same income tax, women use more governmental assistance / services, virtually all of it. Finally, women are most definitely not a minority, they represent 51% of the human race. Nature seems to of slightly tilted gender selection towards producing more females then males. One of the single greatest deceptions of feminism was linking and treating "Women" to a traditionally discriminated / oppressed class like "Blacks". They also happen to earn over %60 of the college degree's today.
People can cry, scream and moan all they want, I'm speaking only from the facts without any modification or prejudice. I'm an egalitarian and therefor believe that all people should be treated the same legally and morally even though they individually have differences. Feminism, as currently applied and lead, is evil as f*ck. It's right up there with Marxism which actually subsumed the feminist cause during the second wave.
You can choose to approach the topic from the standpoint that anyone who objects to paying someone less for the same job is the caricature feminist you imagine, or you can choose (like I am) to approach it from a strictly factual standpoint. All else being equal, women earn less than men. I'd like to understand how much and why, and either determine that it's a natural byproduct of innate gender differences, or it's not and fix it.
Sure, there are plenty of overbearing feminazi's who preach about the patriarchy, etc. That shouldn't invalidate the very real disadvantage women have as earners, especially in STEM fields. Does it mean that every hiring manager is a chauvinist pig? Not anymore than it means every woman is less motivated or qualified.
The why is simple. Women choose to earn less (as a whole) by working less (as a whole). Thinking about taking a few years of to raise your kids? That's part of the equation. Thinking of working part time now cause you got married? That's part of the equation too. On a case by case basis of here's a job, it requires X and I have a male and female candidate. Women get a compensation equal to men probably 99-100% of the time.
Otherwise, why on earth would anyone ever hire a man to do anything when you can save 20% right off the top by ringing the same amount of work out of a woman.
Women choosing to work less or in lower paid fields is at least part of the reason the 77 cents figure is bogus, however, even when all things are equal, women still earn less. The reason for hiring a man over a woman in that situation is the same erroneous perception that makes women worth less. Either way, "women choose to make less" is a pretty weak reason unless you completely discount anything besides the story headline.
Women only earn less for the same work when you compare them as a whole group over their lifetimes. This is because a big chunk of them stop working when they have kids. Its real simple.
Why on earth would any company hire a man if they could save 5%, 10%, 20% right off the bat by hiring a woman to do the same work? Either they can't save that money (because it's a myth) or they aren't doing the same amount of work.
Maybe it wasn't clear enough...
All things being equal, women make less money for the same jobs with the same qualifications and experience. It's closer to 97% and not the 77% overall figure your attached to.
The idea that the free market would invariably choose the cheapest option is bunk. Whatever leads them to pay a woman less would lead them to prefer to hire a man.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-12-03 10:07:58
Right, right! Those capitalists are so evil they won't forget about overlooking their patriarchal sexism in order to make money. If you can't secure the 77% number how are you securing the 97% number?
I've held the same "position" as co-workers, but that hardly guarantee we all provide equal value to our bosses. I've worked with women who didn't work as hard as me, or provide as much value as me and the opposite. It doesn't really make logical sense that we would be paid the same, even though we held the same title. For the record I never knew what others were paid.
It never really bothered me what how my boss agreed to compensate others, I was only concerned with how they compensated me. Conversely I worked with someone who was absolutely venomous about it. Frequently saying "so and so better not be getting paid more money than me." etc, when we all knew they provided more value to the company.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-12-03 10:20:25
Right, right! Those capitalists are so evil they won't forget about overlooking their patriarchal sexism in order to make money. If you can't secure the 77% number how are you securing the 97% number?
I've held the same "position" as co-workers, but that hardly guarantee we all provide equal value to our bosses. I've worked with women who didn't work as hard as me, or provide as much value as me and the opposite. It doesn't really make logical sense that we would be paid the same, even though we held the same title. For the record I never knew what others were paid.
It never really bothered me what how my boss agreed to compensate others, I was only concerned with how they compensated me. Conversely I worked with someone who was absolutely venomous about it. Frequently saying "so and so better not be getting paid more money than me." etc, when we all knew they provided more value to the company.
If you read my earlier posts, you notice that I said the same thing about their respective value to an employer and made the speculation about why.
I've never claimed the 77% figure to be anything more than a reflection of dishonest methodology. When you compare apples to apples, the pay gap falls somewhere in the 93-97% range according to the studies I've seen.
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »Wage gap is a myth, the 77 cents to a dollar figure is independant of profession choice or length of tenure. It's simply the arithmetic mean of women working fulltime vs men working fulltime. Some careers pay less than others.
I don't put much stock in the 77 cents figure, but the wage gap is not a myth. When comparing females and males in the same fields and positions, women less. The few apples to apples comparisons I've seen put it somewhere between 93 and 97 cents, and in very rare instances, women actually make more than their male counterparts. Most of the gap can be attributed to having children, which sadly affects the mother more than the father. Even being married without children has a negative impact on a woman's wage for some reason I can only assume is less opportunities for advancement due to not being available in the work sense or personal sense.
TL:DR - The wage gap isn't a myth, but the figures are grossly exaggerated.
The "Wage Gap" as described by Feminists is most certainly a myth. Feminism believes that evil patriarchal men who are in management positions because of their pen!s deliberately chose to pay women less and men more because they believe the man is more capable because he has a pen!s.
That is horsesh!t and was dispelled a long time ago. It's still used because understanding the real cause of pay discrepancies is difficult and hard to fit the explanation into a news bite. It boils down to labor statistics, especially after marriage / children. Men on average work much more then women and also work more dangerous jobs then women. After getting married a man will start to work longer hours, after having children he work even more. Women do the inverse, after marriage they cut back on hours and after children it plummets. This is not forced onto women nor is it the result of some Bond villain counsel setting secret agenda, it's the result of plain human nature. Men are naturally driven to provide for women and children, this translates into a man seeing his self worth linked to his ability to "provide for his family". Society further reinforces this behavior as it's what created civilization as we know it. Women work less after marriage because they simply no longer need to work as much. After children, well it becomes pretty obvious.
When you compile all this info you get a much better idea on whats happening. Nobody is forcing women to work less, nobody is paying women less, it's purely a result of economics. The only way to possibly change it to so apply a gender tax. Tax men an additional 25% then give that 25% to women as governmental compensation. *Poof* gap gone. Or the really funny part of women wanting men to cover their health insurance (women are charge more then men for the same reason men are charged more in car insurance). Forcing a company to charge both the same just results in the additional cost transfer from the more expensive client (the woman) to the less expensive client (the man). Most welfare works this way, when broken down by users you see a stupendous amount being used for women and their children, when looking at income tax's you see the exact opposite with majority net coming from men. While men and women both pay the same income tax, women use more governmental assistance / services, virtually all of it. Finally, women are most definitely not a minority, they represent 51% of the human race. Nature seems to of slightly tilted gender selection towards producing more females then males. One of the single greatest deceptions of feminism was linking and treating "Women" to a traditionally discriminated / oppressed class like "Blacks". They also happen to earn over %60 of the college degree's today.
People can cry, scream and moan all they want, I'm speaking only from the facts without any modification or prejudice. I'm an egalitarian and therefor believe that all people should be treated the same legally and morally even though they individually have differences. Feminism, as currently applied and lead, is evil as f*ck. It's right up there with Marxism which actually subsumed the feminist cause during the second wave.
You can choose to approach the topic from the standpoint that anyone who objects to paying someone less for the same job is the caricature feminist you imagine, or you can choose (like I am) to approach it from a strictly factual standpoint. All else being equal, women earn less than men. I'd like to understand how much and why, and either determine that it's a natural byproduct of innate gender differences, or it's not and fix it.
Sure, there are plenty of overbearing feminazi's who preach about the patriarchy, etc. That shouldn't invalidate the very real disadvantage women have as earners, especially in STEM fields. Does it mean that every hiring manager is a chauvinist pig? Not anymore than it means every woman is less motivated or qualified.
The why is simple. Women choose to earn less (as a whole) by working less (as a whole). Thinking about taking a few years of to raise your kids? That's part of the equation. Thinking of working part time now cause you got married? That's part of the equation too. On a case by case basis of here's a job, it requires X and I have a male and female candidate. Women get a compensation equal to men probably 99-100% of the time.
Otherwise, why on earth would anyone ever hire a man to do anything when you can save 20% right off the top by ringing the same amount of work out of a woman.
Women choosing to work less or in lower paid fields is at least part of the reason the 77 cents figure is bogus, however, even when all things are equal, women still earn less. The reason for hiring a man over a woman in that situation is the same erroneous perception that makes women worth less. Either way, "women choose to make less" is a pretty weak reason unless you completely discount anything besides the story headline.
What the f*ck ... huh .... do you even read or do any form of independent research? Women actually make 11% more then men in the same field / qualifications between 23 and 30. It's already been demonstrated that women, as an entire workforce, earn less on average because they go into less risky fields while also working less hours.
When you break down the public labor statistics by age, marriage and children then it becomes extremely clear. Same age / education background / work experience women actually make more per hour worked then men by approximately 11%. During her single / unmarried / childless time the women will make more then her male coworkers doing the same job. Once married, it's statistically proven that women cut down their hours, frequently quitting the work force entirely. Once childbirth happens the women will dramatically cut down her hours and often simply no longer work until all her children are in highschool. That is a 13~18 year hiatus depending on the number of children she has. Of course this is all preconditioned on the male making enough to support her decision to do this, meaning he is now forced to put in more hours then her and work even harder for the next promotion.
On aggregate women take far less career risks then men, they tend to favor median paying jobs with high security whenever possible. On aggregate they avoid STEM fiends, financial fields and rarely start independent business's. Men on the other hand will take risks of switching careers or entering into less secure but more profitable work agreements. Women represent over 60% of all college graduates, men are now a minority on campus (yet somehow title IX is only applied to women even though they are now the majority) yet only 10~20% of STEM students with most women choosing to go into the medical field. This is even with universities and foundations offering gender based financial aid exclusively to females choosing to go into STEM fields (which should be f*cking illegal). While men represent the majority of high school dropouts and the homeless. They have a staggeringly higher suicide rate along with representing over 90% of workplace related deaths. Men also present the majority of powerful business leaders and business owners, even failed business owners.
Simply put, on average, men take more risks then women and are more likely to seek employment outside their comfort zone. This results in men being over represented in both the top and the very bottom of the economic ladder. When was the last time you heard a feminist clamoring to be hired as trash truck operators, plumbers, janitors, coal miners, farmers, day laborers, or carpenters? When was the last time you heard a feminist lament about why there wasn't more women working on deep sea fishing boats? They only care about employment in high status professions and thus miss an entire population segment compromised almost entirely of men.
Seriously if your near a city, find out where the homeless hang out at and go see how many are men. Just to get a grasp on the big picture of things.
By independent do you mean "incredulous" or "unsubstantiated"? Maybe you mean "unpublished" or never submitted for peer review?
Listen, all credible sources should be considered, but you have to be skeptical of their methodology. We all understand why the overall workforce figures aren't reflective of the actuality of pay variances, but study after study show women taking home less. I don't know why, there are some good theories. But, if you want to oppose the idea of a patriarchy or sexism, the first step is to understand the issue, not deny its existence.
[+]
By Ramyrez 2014-12-03 10:26:19
But, if you want to oppose the idea of a patriarchy or sexism, the first step is to understand the issue, not deny its existence.
I dunno. Just going "la la la it's not there!" seems to work pretty well for a lot of people on a lot of topics, some others with which Nausi also identifies.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-12-03 10:28:34
But, if you want to oppose the idea of a patriarchy or sexism, the first step is to understand the issue, not deny its existence.
I dunno. Just going "la la la it's not there!" seems to work pretty well for a lot of people on a lot of topics, some others with which Nausi also identifies.
I miss the old days.
By Ramyrez 2014-12-03 10:46:18
But, if you want to oppose the idea of a patriarchy or sexism, the first step is to understand the issue, not deny its existence.
I dunno. Just going "la la la it's not there!" seems to work pretty well for a lot of people on a lot of topics, some others with which Nausi also identifies.
I miss the old days. 
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-12-03 10:48:31
seems to work pretty well for a lot of people on a lot of topics, some others with which Nausi also identifies.
I've never said the differences aren't there. The oversimplification of it down to "women are worth 77% of a man in our patriarchy of a society" is utterly dishonest. Skepticism of agenda driven "facts" is beneficial in all debates, trust me bro.
Why do you think companies aren't exclusively all women if you can pay them downwards of 23% of what you can pay a man for the same job?
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-12-03 10:53:44
Why do you think companies aren't exclusively all women if you can pay them downwards of 23% of what you can pay a man for the same job?
I'm not saying it's the case, but if there was a mindset that women are worth less, why would you hire more of them? It would stabilize at a proportionate offset to the wage difference... maybe like 44% of the workforce... oh wait...
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-12-03 12:05:05
What the f*ck ... huh .... do you even read or do any form of independent research? Women actually make 11% more then men in the same field / qualifications between 23 and 30. It's already been demonstrated that women, as an entire workforce, earn less on average because they go into less risky fields while also working less hours. Good, then you should have absolutely no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
When you break down the public labor statistics by age, marriage and children then it becomes extremely clear. Same age / education background / work experience women actually make more per hour worked then men by approximately 11%. Good, then you should have no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
During her single / unmarried / childless time the women will make more then her male coworkers doing the same job. Once married, it's statistically proven that women cut down their hours, frequently quitting the work force entirely. Good, then you should have no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
Once childbirth happens the women will dramatically cut down her hours and often simply no longer work until all her children are in highschool. That is a 13~18 year hiatus depending on the number of children she has.
Good, then you should have no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
Of course this is all preconditioned on the male making enough to support her decision to do this, meaning he is now forced to put in more hours then her and work even harder for the next promotion. Good, then you should have no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
On aggregate women take far less career risks then men, they tend to favor median paying jobs with high security whenever possible.
Good, then you should have no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
On aggregate they avoid STEM fiends, financial fields and rarely start independent business's. Men on the other hand will take risks of switching careers or entering into less secure but more profitable work agreements.
Good, then you should have no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
Women represent over 60% of all college graduates, men are now a minority on campus (yet somehow title IX is only applied to women even though they are now the majority) yet only 10~20% of STEM students with most women choosing to go into the medical field.
Good, then you should have no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
You also seem to not recognize the difference between attending and graduating college, since those are not the same.
While men represent the majority of high school dropouts and the homeless. Good, then you should have no problem being able to provide primary source documents.
They have a staggeringly higher suicide rate along with representing over 90% of workplace related deaths. It isn't nearly as straightforward as that.
Canetto S. S. and Sakinofsky I. (1998), The Gender Paradox in Suicide. Suicide and Life-Threat Behavi, 28: 1–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1943-278X.1998.tb00622.x said: In most Western countries females have higher rates of suicidal ideation and behavior than males, yet mortality from suicide is typically lower for females than for males. This article explores the gender paradox of suicidal behavior, examines its validity, and critically examines some of the explanations, concluding that the gender paradox of suicidal behavior is a real phenomenon and not a mere artifact of data collection. At the same time, the gender paradox in suicide is a more culture-bound phenomenon than has been traditionally assumed; cultural expectations about gender and suicidal behavior strongly determine its existence. Evidence from the United States and Canada suggests that the gender gap may be more prominent in communities where different suicidal behaviors are expected of females and males. These divergent expectations may affect the scenarios chosen by females and males, once suicide becomes a possibility, as well as the interpretations of those who are charged with determining whether a particular behavior is suicidal (e.g., coroners). The realization that cultural influences play an important role in the gender paradox of suicidal behaviors holds important implications for research and for public policy. Men also present the majority of powerful business leaders and business owners, even failed business owners.
This is relevant to what, exactly? Because hard work, effort, determination, and skill are the obvious keys to success; luck, connections, and social status obviously play no roles.
Seriously if your near a city, find out where the homeless hang out at and go see how many are men. Just to get a grasp on the big picture of things. Which is what?
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-12-03 12:07:25
Why do you think companies aren't exclusively all women if you can pay them downwards of 23% of what you can pay a man for the same job?
I'm not saying it's the case, but if there was a mindset that women are worth less, why would you hire more of them? It would stabilize at a proportionate offset to the wage difference... maybe like 44% of the workforce... oh wait...
Well there you go, running off to the knee jerk and dishonest "sexism". Maybe 50-100 years ago, but this isn't then.
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-12-03 12:10:24
Why do you think companies aren't exclusively all women if you can pay them downwards of 23% of what you can pay a man for the same job?
I'm not saying it's the case, but if there was a mindset that women are worth less, why would you hire more of them? It would stabilize at a proportionate offset to the wage difference... maybe like 44% of the workforce... oh wait...
Well there you go, running off to the knee jerk and dishonest "sexism". Maybe 50-100 years ago, but this isn't then. You are arguing that there isn't sexism in the US anymore?
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-12-03 12:21:01
Why do you think companies aren't exclusively all women if you can pay them downwards of 23% of what you can pay a man for the same job?
I'm not saying it's the case, but if there was a mindset that women are worth less, why would you hire more of them? It would stabilize at a proportionate offset to the wage difference... maybe like 44% of the workforce... oh wait...
Well there you go, running off to the knee jerk and dishonest "sexism". Maybe 50-100 years ago, but this isn't then. You are arguing that there isn't sexism in the US anymore?
If by sexism you mean the myth of ominous members of the patriarchy all huddled in one room passing comments of "we don't have to pay women as much as a man because she's not a man", then yes.
Sexism still exists, I mean look at how fathers are treated in divorce court, that's pretty sexist.
Caitsith.Zahrah
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2014-12-03 13:16:18
Nausi, I think you might be looking at this very linearly.
Women only earn less for the same work when you compare them as a whole group over their lifetimes. This is because a big chunk of them stop working when they have kids. Its real simple.
No, it's not that simple in a nation where both men and women are basically penalized for even taking the familial route.
The limitations that employers put on paternity leave, or whether they even offer paternity leave, is offered at the discretion of individual companies. I think you're forgetting that it also puts dads in a tough spot when their paternity leave is minimal, or even non-existent to where they need to use vacation/sick leave to accommodate the birth of a child. Then, there's the question of what's to be done in the case of a medical complication that leaves their partner bedridden?
Personally, I think the lingering societal stigma of the male provider role of yesteryear usurps the necessary bonding experience that men, realistically, should have a part in. Not to mention, men a very much hormonally tied to their children via progressively dropping testosterone in the wake of a child.
You're really playing a dirty game when you can't comprehend a loss for "the team", and haphazardly toss blame on women, especially given that the rest of the Western World has a better concept of the familial team than the US.
Quote: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 11 percent of all private industry workers have access to paid family leave (16 percent of state and local government employees have access to some paid family leave; federal workers don’t get any, though all employees may be able to use accrued sick leave). Well-paid people who work in managerial or professional occupations at companies with 100 employees or more are the most likely to have the benefit, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
Even the policies at some of the most generous American companies pale in comparison with the 31 countries that provide a year or more of paid maternity leave, typically through government-run insurance programs, experts say. Working Mother compiles a list of the “100 Best Companies” in the United States each year, and parental leave policies are one of several factors baked into those rankings.
Sneer all you want, but don't drone on about about accommodating a family when the odds are stacked against families in the US.
We could get into cost of living and real estate costs of our parents' generation compared to ours, if we really want to get gritty about this. Seriously, have you ever asked your parents what the median price of residential real estate was in their twenties or thirties? Do you even have the slightest inkling of the cost of childcare now? Do you even understand that other developed nations offer Kindergarten at age three? In the US, early-childhood care is privatized and, in this state, Pre-K is only offered, publicly, on a low-income based contingency.
For some women, if you're only going to be breaking even, why the *** not stay at home? They shouldn't be demonized for that choice if they're "taking one for the team" in the most fiscally responsible way they see fit. ((And, no, I'm not saying that women jumping ship after getting pregnant (not after birth), even when work conditions are quite kushy (yes, because that does happen), doesn't annoy me also. Catch-22 for some families though.))
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-12-03 13:19:33
Why do you think companies aren't exclusively all women if you can pay them downwards of 23% of what you can pay a man for the same job?
I'm not saying it's the case, but if there was a mindset that women are worth less, why would you hire more of them? It would stabilize at a proportionate offset to the wage difference... maybe like 44% of the workforce... oh wait...
Well there you go, running off to the knee jerk and dishonest "sexism". Maybe 50-100 years ago, but this isn't then. You are arguing that there isn't sexism in the US anymore?
If by sexism you mean the myth of ominous members of the patriarchy all huddled in one room passing comments of "we don't have to pay women as much as a man because she's not a man", then yes.
Sexism still exists, I mean look at how fathers are treated in divorce court, that's pretty sexist.
No, we're all talking about inconsistent treatment of people based on their gender, not some illuminati secret court of despots you would read about in a Dan Brown novel. Real disadvantages exist independent of dubious planning.
And you accuse me of knee-jerk reactions...
[+]
By Blazed1979 2014-12-03 13:50:19
This is the dumbest issue of the modern age.
Some women have issues with their gender and the limitations it imposes on them. We get it.
Starting my own movement; Men against bitchin' and naggin, saggy titts and talking-back.(MAB&NSTT)
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-12-03 13:52:47
At current exchange rates, our daycare-equivalent here is between roughly 578USD/month, for up to 52hr/wk. It drops to roughly 300USD when they are over 3 years of age.
(Exact rates):
30 hours- under 3 yr 2290 kr.
52 hours - under 3 yr 3434 kr.
30 hours - over 3 yr 1198 kr.
52 hours - over 3 yr 1796 kr.
If we look at Babycenter.com, childcare looks to be 300 to 330USD/mo at the absolute bottom end of the barrel (unknown as to what the hours are), with 995 to 1000USD/mo at the upper end.
Although there is no minimum wage in DK, the general lowest wage corresponds to somewhere around 15-20USD/hr, at 37hr/wk (not considering minor workers, e.g. under 18). This is compared with a US federal wage of 7.25USD/hr ( source), although some states are slightly higher.
When you get to states with the upper end, if you have one or more children and minimum wage jobs, you start getting into scenarios where you are better off as a couple if the lowest wage-earner stays home to look after the children, rather than paying someone else to do it.
That doesn't account for situations where you have friends/relatives looking after children for free, but that is arguably not necessarily a commonly available thing.
*edit* corrected spoiler for thousands separator, since DK uses commas for decimal, periods for thousands
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 33979
By Bismarck.Dracondria 2014-12-03 14:08:50
Between 1 and 3 years old
* Youngest child: 3% of income, max 1260 SEK/$167 / month
* Second youngest child: 2% of income, max 840 SEK/$111 / month
* In the following children: 1% of income, max 420 SEK/$56 / month
* From the fourth child: no charge"
From what I could find about Sweden's daycare
It seems like the rules vary a bit depending on where you live but not by much
[+]
By Blazed1979 2014-12-03 14:12:59
We get a 5% increase on our base salary for every child we have at a cap of 5 over here.
That and everything for them is free, (medical/school/football clubs etc).
I just found this one interesting...
Quote: WILKES-BARRE, Pa. (AP) -- Police say a northeast Pennsylvania woman chased her boyfriend around a dining room and stabbed him in the chest because he started eating Thanksgiving dinner while she slept off a bender.
Police say Jacklyn Blake confessed Thursday to officers responding to her Wilkes-Barre home. They say they found her boyfriend inside holding a towel over his chest. He was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.
The 47-year-old Blake is charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, simple assault, reckless endangerment and making terroristic threats. Information on her lawyer wasn't immediately available. According to police, Blake's boyfriend says she'd been drunk earlier in the day and attacked him after waking up from a nap. He says she stabbed him and then threw the knife at him, striking just below the left eye.
Source
|
|
