Equal Pay Day

[Pope Joan]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-pay-gap/

So this is the day when we talk about ways to make the pay for women more equal to that of men.

The good news IS the bad news: In the lowest paying jobs, there is virtually no pay gap. Yay, equality. Boo, poverty.

Some say the gap is due to women taking time out to birth and raise kids.

If you look at the top dozen national law firms, NONE have women as senior partners. So perhaps a lot of the gap is due to the inequality in the huge salaries at the top.

How would you address the issue?

I would like to shame those male CEOs who are ineffective when there were many women who were rivals for the position who could have done better.

For instance, bailed-out Goldman Sachs is posting self-created headlines about encouraging women to try a business career in the third world. But it treats women in the first world as jokes.

"Goldman Sachs was the biggest sponsor of a Harvard event last weekend aimed at women interested in computer science. But the Wall Street bank’s conference swag at the event was found off-putting by at least one attendee.

The conference, Women Engineers Code, or WECode, which was organized by an undergraduate student group at Harvard, featured stacks of cosmetic mirrors with the Goldman Sachs logo, a photograph posted to Instagram shows. The Instagram user also said that the bank brought nail files to the event."

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/ ... blogs&_r=0

I propose a carrot and stick approach, aimed at organizations with the biggest salaries. Give tax breaks if they promote women to the top, and have the IRS investigate them thoroughly if they do not.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've begun to become convinced that the pay gap is illusory. There are a multitude of reasons for the pay gap, and frankly, taking such a narrow view of it smacks of an agenda.

So they are paid less in actual wage terms.
Well, do they get more benefits? Do you think maybe that might be relevant? Do you think anyone should check that maybe, or would the result be unfortunate for the feminist agenda?
The fact may well be that Women select jobs with more benefits, and Men select jobs with more pay.

I'm unwilling to propose any sweeping changes for the pay gap without taking a look at the whole picture, and not just the narrow part of it that feminists keep shouting about. I'm completely prepared to believe that a pay gap does exist due to some corporations and businesses letting the side down. But are YOU willing to admit that some other firms aren't necessarily paying women less because of sexism, but because they are getting benefits instead, and these firms would be being fucked over by mandating equal pay.

[Pope Joan]

I've begun to become convinced that the pay gap is illusory. There are a multitude of reasons for the pay gap, and frankly, taking such a narrow view of it smacks of an agenda.

So they are paid less in actual wage terms.
Well, do they get more benefits? Do you think maybe that might be relevant? Do you think anyone should check that maybe, or would the result be unfortunate for the feminist agenda?
The fact may well be that Women select jobs with more benefits, and Men select jobs with more pay.

I'm unwilling to propose any sweeping changes for the pay gap without taking a look at the whole picture, and not just the narrow part of it that feminists keep shouting about.

I personally believe that at least some women do value such things as flex time and extended leave for child illness and so on. Maybe men should also value such things?

But i do not think that would affect the greatest inequities, which occur at the TOP of the pay scale.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've begun to become convinced that the pay gap is illusory. There are a multitude of reasons for the pay gap, and frankly, taking such a narrow view of it smacks of an agenda.

So they are paid less in actual wage terms.
Well, do they get more benefits? Do you think maybe that might be relevant? Do you think anyone should check that maybe, or would the result be unfortunate for the feminist agenda?
The fact may well be that Women select jobs with more benefits, and Men select jobs with more pay.

I'm unwilling to propose any sweeping changes for the pay gap without taking a look at the whole picture, and not just the narrow part of it that feminists keep shouting about.

I personally believe that at least some women do value such things as flex time and extended leave for child illness and so on. Maybe men should also value such things?

But i do not think that would affect the greatest inequities, which occur at the TOP of the pay scale.

Yeh, I have no idea where the fuck feminists get off continually telling men and women what they should be valueing.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
"I'm only paid 500 and he's paid 1000. This is bogus D:"
"Um. We also give you a gold bar worth 500... you asked for it..."

What you think is irrelevant. This is an empirical matter. Come back with a proper study that isn't ignoring the obvious for the sake of agenda. (I.E, one that actually takes into account other factors apart from the raw gap.) (Hint, you wont like the results.)

[Ostroeuropa]

Basically:

"I want 500 bucks and a gold bar." -Person A.
"I want 1000 bucks." - Person B

"Seems reasonable."

-trundle along for a while

"WHY AM I ONLY GETTING 500 BUCKS THIS IS DISCRIMINATORY!!!!" - Person A
"Uh. You also get the gold bar. Person B does not."
"WELL, maybe they should want gold bars too!" -Person A
"Um. I don't actually want a gold bar." -Person B
"You SHOULD want gold bars! You're oppressing me by not wanting what I want!" - Person A
"So you want me to raise everyones effective wages by 50%?"
"MISOGYNY!!" - Person A

[Murkwood]

Basically:

"I want 500 bucks and a gold bar." -Person A.
"I want 1000 bucks." - Person B

"Seems reasonable."

-trundle along for a while

"WHY AM I ONLY GETTING 500 BUCKS THIS IS DISCRIMINATORY!!!!" - Person A
"Uh. You also get the gold bar. Person B does not."
"WELL, maybe they should want gold bars too!"
"So you want me to raise everyones effective wages by 50%?"
"MISOGYNY!!"

This in a nutshell.

Also, I love the word trundle.

[Ostroeuropa]

Basically:

"I want 500 bucks and a gold bar." -Person A.
"I want 1000 bucks." - Person B

"Seems reasonable."

-trundle along for a while

"WHY AM I ONLY GETTING 500 BUCKS THIS IS DISCRIMINATORY!!!!" - Person A
"Uh. You also get the gold bar. Person B does not."
"WELL, maybe they should want gold bars too!"
"So you want me to raise everyones effective wages by 50%?"
"MISOGYNY!!"

This in a nutshell.

Also, I love the word trundle.

Remember to create an environment where employers will be extremely skeptical of any woman applying for a job because it leaves them open to legal action.
That'll help women.
Trundle is great yeh, I also love trundle.

[Murkwood]

This in a nutshell.

Also, I love the word trundle.

Remember to create an environment where employers will be extremely skeptical of any woman applying for a job because it leaves them open to legal action.
That'll help women.
Trundle is great yeh, I also love trundle.

It funny how solutions to problems cause even worse problems. Now, instead of being paid less, they won't be paid at all!

[Nazi Flower Power]

I personally believe that at least some women do value such things as flex time and extended leave for child illness and so on. Maybe men should also value such things?

But i do not think that would affect the greatest inequities, which occur at the TOP of the pay scale.

Yeh, I have no idea where the fuck feminists get off continually telling men and women what they should be valueing.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
"I'm only paid 500 and he's paid 1000. This is bogus D:"
"Um. We also give you a gold bar worth 500... you asked for it..."

What you think is irrelevant. This is an empirical matter. Come back with a proper study that isn't ignoring the obvious for the sake of agenda. (I.E, one that actually takes into account other factors apart from the raw gap.) (Hint, you wont like the results.)

So do you have a study that takes benefits into account?

[Ostroeuropa]

Yeh, I have no idea where the fuck feminists get off continually telling men and women what they should be valueing.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
"I'm only paid 500 and he's paid 1000. This is bogus D:"
"Um. We also give you a gold bar worth 500... you asked for it..."

What you think is irrelevant. This is an empirical matter. Come back with a proper study that isn't ignoring the obvious for the sake of agenda. (I.E, one that actually takes into account other factors apart from the raw gap.) (Hint, you wont like the results.)

So do you have a study that takes benefits into account?

Sure, lemme go grab it a second. Watch this space.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf

If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing (I understand that you might wish to skip to the summary)
Page 35.

As a result, it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether
any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and
men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt
discrimination against women. In addition, at a practical level, the complex combination of factors that
collectively determine the wages paid to different individuals makes the formulation of policy that will
reliably redress any overt discrimination that does exist a task that is, at least, daunting and, more
likely, unachievable.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

Basically:

"I want 500 bucks and a gold bar." -Person A.
"I want 1000 bucks." - Person B

"Seems reasonable."

-trundle along for a while

"WHY AM I ONLY GETTING 500 BUCKS THIS IS DISCRIMINATORY!!!!" - Person A
"Uh. You also get the gold bar. Person B does not."
"WELL, maybe they should want gold bars too!" -Person A
"Um. I don't actually want a gold bar." -Person B
"You SHOULD want gold bars! You're oppressing me by not wanting what I want!" - Person A
"So you want me to raise everyones effective wages by 50%?"
"MISOGYNY!!" - Person A

practically the argument every single time they bring it up.
could not have summed it up better myself, 10/10 good posts friend.

[Unemployable Idiots]

Basically:

"I want 500 bucks and a gold bar." -Person A.
"I want 1000 bucks." - Person B

"Seems reasonable."

-trundle along for a while

"WHY AM I ONLY GETTING 500 BUCKS THIS IS DISCRIMINATORY!!!!" - Person A
"Uh. You also get the gold bar. Person B does not."
"WELL, maybe they should want gold bars too!" -Person A
"Um. I don't actually want a gold bar." -Person B
"You SHOULD want gold bars! You're oppressing me by not wanting what I want!" - Person A
"So you want me to raise everyones effective wages by 50%?"
"MISOGYNY!!" - Person A

Yep. This. This right here.

[Bering]

Basically:

"I want 500 bucks and a gold bar." -Person A.
"I want 1000 bucks." - Person B

"Seems reasonable."

-trundle along for a while

"WHY AM I ONLY GETTING 500 BUCKS THIS IS DISCRIMINATORY!!!!" - Person A
"Uh. You also get the gold bar. Person B does not."
"WELL, maybe they should want gold bars too!" -Person A
"Um. I don't actually want a gold bar." -Person B
"You SHOULD want gold bars! You're oppressing me by not wanting what I want!" - Person A
"So you want me to raise everyones effective wages by 50%?"
"MISOGYNY!!" - Person A

I feel like this is the case most of the time

[Driving Fast]

women complaining again, typical

[Tatooene]

Let's grant incentives for companies to not choose the most qualified candidate, nothing can go wrong! Look, I support gender equality, but bribing companies just so that they'll hire women? Not a good idea.

[Ostroeuropa]

women complaining again, typical

It isn't women. Women are a valueable contribution to the workforce.
It's feminists complaining again, which is indeed typical. No matter how much the feminists attempt it, don't let them con you into conflating the two, or they'll use it to spin their nonsense about how opposing feminism means you hate women.

[Page]

Uhm okay guys I just want to remind everyone that we have a black President and that black President's wife is a woman who is also black and basically there is no racism or sexism or homophobia at all.

The only truly oppressed group now are affluent, white, male, Christian heterosexuals.
(sentiments of actual MRA's on nationstates)

[Page]

opposing feminism means you hate women.

Unless we're talking about the super extreme separatist types or the transphobic types of feminists, those words are correct.

[Nervium]

Rather than shame the offenders, publicise them. Make people (consumers) make up their own mind.

[Vashta Nerada]

Basically:

"I want 500 bucks and a gold bar." -Person A.
"I want 1000 bucks." - Person B

"Seems reasonable."

-trundle along for a while

"WHY AM I ONLY GETTING 500 BUCKS THIS IS DISCRIMINATORY!!!!" - Person A
"Uh. You also get the gold bar. Person B does not."
"WELL, maybe they should want gold bars too!" -Person A
"Um. I don't actually want a gold bar." -Person B
"You SHOULD want gold bars! You're oppressing me by not wanting what I want!" - Person A
"So you want me to raise everyones effective wages by 50%?"
"MISOGYNY!!" - Person A

Thank you. Someone finally said it. Women may be paid less, but they get more in terms of benefits. Paid maternal leave, increased training and safety to help to work in traditionally male occupations, plus the additional money that goes into acquiring wares that can be used by women (such as uniforms or sanitary napkins depending on the job), all kick down the wages of women as a result. Because, let's be honest, that money has to come from somewhere. Men have lower costs, and thus we're paid more. Men don't get to stay home and get paid at the same time, women do. Plus, women have a higher turnover rate because many may start families, or only work to help support families since there may already exist a primary worker in the family (aka, a man). So they should be grateful about what they get because it costs more to employ them, nevermind the ever present danger of getting sued because one of the male employees gave one of them a once-over.

[Tatooene]

Uhm okay guys I just want to remind everyone that we have a black President and that black President's wife is a woman who is also black and basically there is no racism or sexism or homophobia at all.

The only truly oppressed group now are affluent, white, male, Christian heterosexuals.
(sentiments of actual MRA's on nationstates)

While I can agree that there is some ill will and perhaps even discrimination against them, asserting that they are "the only truly oppressed group" is complete rubbish.

[Kyuji]

Uhm okay guys I just want to remind everyone that we have a black President and that black President's wife is a woman who is also black and basically there is no racism or sexism or homophobia at all.

The only truly oppressed group now are affluent, white, male, Christian heterosexuals.
(sentiments of actual MRA's on nationstates)

This isnt tumblr

[Ostroeuropa]

Uhm okay guys I just want to remind everyone that we have a black President and that black President's wife is a woman who is also black and basically there is no racism or sexism or homophobia at all.

The only truly oppressed group now are affluent, white, male, Christian heterosexuals.
(sentiments of actual MRA's on nationstates)

You're more than welcome to find a comprehensive study on the matter that doesn't ignore the obvious.
As I said, i'm fully prepared to admit that some businesses are letting the side down by underpaying women for sexist reasons.
The vast, vast majority of businesses however are paying them equally when you take into account other factors. HOWEVER, these factors are typically not taken into account when you look at the raw wage gap like feminists do. Because saying "We're paid 0.05 less cents per dollar!" isn't a rallying cry that anyone is going to take seriously.
(Yes, that number is magiced out of nowhere. Because noone knows the actual number caused by discrimination.)

[Reploid Productions]

women complaining again, typical

Somebody with a past rule violations history trolling, typical. PROTIP: Incendiary comments that are there simply to rile people up without actually, you know, addressing the topic of discussion or contributing to said discussion are probably not a good idea. I'd suggest brushing up on the site rules, as well.

*** Driving Fast, warned for trolling. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

Uhm okay guys I just want to remind everyone that we have a black President and that black President's wife is a woman who is also black and basically there is no racism or sexism or homophobia at all.

The only truly oppressed group now are affluent, white, male, Christian heterosexuals.
(sentiments of actual MRA's on nationstates)

actually just white guys in general, no need to get even more specific categories