Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   The claim that women make 81 cents to the dollar than men earn doing the same job? It's apparently not only bogus, but also crude and misleading. Like most men   (forbes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

14058 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2012 at 12:08 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-22 12:58:30 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: draypresct: American men spend three hours a day on household chores, but that is one hour and 40 minutes less than American women

That's a lot of hours per day. Even if you assume that they spend extra time on the weekend to boost the overall average, that's a shiatload of time every day.

Do some laundry, cook some food, wash some dishes, vacuum, clean the bathrooms, mow the lawn, repair stuff.

Most of these are not things you need to do every day, and some can be parallelized (like laundry).

Where are these people wasting so much of their time?


You should know, you're one of them aren't you?
 
2012-05-22 12:59:15 PM  

Satyagraha: $.05 more than the gubberment says so they lie


That's just to start. Then you factor in for other things. Little things like how many hours worked, may have an small impact on earnings.
 
2012-05-22 12:59:47 PM  

tuffsnake: AverageAmericanGuy: draypresct: American men spend three hours a day on household chores, but that is one hour and 40 minutes less than American women

That's a lot of hours per day. Even if you assume that they spend extra time on the weekend to boost the overall average, that's a shiatload of time every day.

Do some laundry, cook some food, wash some dishes, vacuum, clean the bathrooms, mow the lawn, repair stuff.

Most of these are not things you need to do every day, and some can be parallelized (like laundry).

Where are these people wasting so much of their time?

You should know, you're one of them aren't you?


That's what I'm saying. I have no idea how they are wasting that much time. I have to assume the statistics are incorrect.
 
2012-05-22 12:59:59 PM  
I think that the author of the article misses much of the point: that women don't just make less when they do the same job, they have a hard time getting the jobs that pay better in the first place.
 
2012-05-22 01:00:58 PM  

Theaetetus: One potential explanation is that employers, believing that women will "be leaving the work force for a considerable amount of time," assign them only to easily-replaceable lower grade positions with higher turnover rates. If you believe your worker is going to leave in 3 years, you don't want to spend 2 training them.


there you go.

That is way you see the wage disparity before kids.

See! You answered your own question.
 
2012-05-22 01:01:23 PM  
What I got from this article:

"You can't PROVE it's discrimination causing the gap, so it CAN'T be discrimination! Nyah-nyah-nyah!"

Seriously, this author wigs out over a couple percentage points difference in describing the gap and then says that including systemic discrimination as part of the explanation for the pay gap is unfair, oh and actually it's women's own fault because they choose to be worth less by working jobs that aren't as important....

Yeah... not buying any of it.
 
2012-05-22 01:07:09 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: That doesn't really address the gap shown in the chart earlier in this thread. If women are taking different jobs, you'd expect some parity in those jobs. However, even in jobs that women are most likely to work, there is a significant pay gap.


I think that it is still relevant. The chart just mentions broad categories of workers with no specifics. Consider "office clerks, general." It says nothing of the working conditions or hours of the specific jobs. My point is that I think men would be more likely than women to take an office clerk job that offered more pay but also had some kind of drawback to make the job more disagreeable. I'm not saying that it's the only factor accounting for the wage gap, but I do think it's a relevant one.
 
2012-05-22 01:09:40 PM  
Maybe this makes up for the fact that choosing between a career or staying home with the children is still not a choice that most men have the luxury to make.
 
2012-05-22 01:10:21 PM  

altrocks: What I got from this article:

"You can't PROVE it's discrimination causing the gap, so it CAN'T be discrimination! Nyah-nyah-nyah!"


Then you didn't read the article because it says exactly the opposite.

altrocks: this author wigs out over a couple percentage points difference in describing the gap


Yes, a couple percentage points. Just a measly 60% of the gap.

Systemic discrimination has nothing to do with women being underpaid. It is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with separately using different means. Exactly what the article says.
 
2012-05-22 01:10:38 PM  

h0tsauce: I think that the author of the article misses much of the point: that women don't just make less when they do the same job, they have a hard time getting the jobs that pay better in the first place.


altrocks: What I got from this article:

"You can't PROVE it's discrimination causing the gap, so it CAN'T be discrimination! Nyah-nyah-nyah!"

Seriously, this author wigs out over a couple percentage points difference in describing the gap and then says that including systemic discrimination as part of the explanation for the pay gap is unfair, oh and actually it's women's own fault because they choose to be worth less by working jobs that aren't as important....

Yeah... not buying any of it.


Guys, read the article:

Now, it may be true that seemingly free choices, such as a person's choice of occupation, might actually be affected by systemic gender discrimination - such as when young women are subtly (or not so subtly) discouraged from pursuing well-paying careers in historically male-dominated industries. But let's not conflate that with direct workplace discrimination, in which a woman is paid less than comparable male colleagues simply because she is a woman. Both are problems that need to be confronted and addressed, but each deserves its own consideration; the better we can distinguish them, the better we can extinguish them, so it does no good to characterize one as the other.
 
2012-05-22 01:11:54 PM  
Where is this occurring? While I believe it, most of the women I've worked with in the same gig earned more. Again, I believe it, but i've never worked anywhere that i've seen it.
 
2012-05-22 01:19:29 PM  
"Math class is tough!" (often misquoted as "Math is hard").

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-05-22 01:20:53 PM  
What the raw numbers don't show is industry pay scales

For example, NPO have a lot more female employees than male. They also pay less, in general, than profit making industries. My anecdote. I spent years as a voluntary grant reviewer for the United Way. Every year the NPO's were asking for Grant Money to give pay raises to their staff to bring them up to "Industry Standard Wages". I don't know about other areas or groups, but our group never granted money that was going to be used for pay raises. We didn't feel it was in the United Way Charter. United Way money was to be used for meeting basic human needs. If the NPO wanted to give pay raises, we expected them to do their own independent fund raising, and raise undesignated dollars to do it with.
 
2012-05-22 01:21:46 PM  

Theaetetus: One potential explanation is that employers, believing that women will "be leaving the work force for a considerable amount of time," assign them only to easily-replaceable lower grade positions with higher turnover rates. If you believe your worker is going to leave in 3 years, you don't want to spend 2 training them.


Another explanation is that women are choosing to go into lower paying, more fulfilling careers, like primary education and social worker, because they know they want a work/life balance. Also being in a low paying field isn't the social stigma for a woman that it is for a man.
 
2012-05-22 01:22:03 PM  
I'm not intelligent enough with numbers to follow half that article, but I think I got the gist of it.

Basically, when they did the numbers for the initial wage gap "they" made it too simple and forgot to include variables that would make the gap less pronounced.
 
2012-05-22 01:25:16 PM  
Never mind the earning gap, let's talk about where the real discrimination occurs: the spending gap. According to The Institute of Stuff I've Made Up, women spend 73% of all household income, regardless of who earns it. So which would you rather do: Earn money or spend it?
 
2012-05-22 01:26:08 PM  
This data is conclusive proof that men are smarter, harder working and worth more to employers than women.

/Statistics... they work lots of different ways.
 
2012-05-22 01:27:58 PM  

doubled99: dywed88 2012-05-22 12:29:38 PM

I love how people are taking the article as saying there is no discrimination, when it says exactly the opposite.

Even if there is a disparity in pay, why does that mean discrimination? My last company had 4 vice presidents. They all did essentially the same job, but all four had different salaries. Discrimination? No. Some people are simply a little more ballsy when negotiating a salary. Like men, for instance.


Some people get a better response to them being ballsy when negotiating a salary. Just because John going in and being assertive and saying "X" gets him a 10% raise doesn't mean Mary going in and being equally assertive and saying exactly the same thing would get her a 10% raise---it might get her fired or demoted. Hint: that's why they call it discrimination.

So yeah, it may be that John does a better job of asking. Or it may be that the boss is more receptive to being asked by John.

When I was in junior high, if you asked the regular kids if there were cliques in school, they would tell you yes, very much, their grade was entirely run by cliques of popular kids.

If you asked the popular kids if there were cliques in school, they would tell you no, that their grade didn't have cliques, everyone just had their own friends.

That's pretty much true of every junior high--it's all a matter of perspective.

So one person's "John's just a more ballsy negotiator than Mary." is another person's "John's boss discriminates in favor of John and against Mary."

The truth is somewhere in the middle. When women do negotiate assertively, and come to the table prepared, they tend to find managers who are primed to think women don't negotiate assertively and that women will accept lowball offers. So while women who negotiate assertively get better offers than other women, they don't get offers as good as the ones gotten by men who negotiate assertively. And so forth.

It's a mix of both.

It's business, and at the levels of the game where people are really counting the dollars and caring about negotiating, people are less worried about "fair" and more worried about maximizing their returns in the game.

It is what it is. And if the prevailing stink of the market lets them shave a buck here and there by paying a gal less for the same job, they're not going to pay her one dollar more than they absolutely have to just to be nice guys. They're going to pay her what they can get away with paying her. Until market forces make it so they can't.
 
2012-05-22 01:31:16 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Theaetetus: One potential explanation is that employers, believing that women will "be leaving the work force for a considerable amount of time," assign them only to easily-replaceable lower grade positions with higher turnover rates. If you believe your worker is going to leave in 3 years, you don't want to spend 2 training them.

Another explanation is that women are choosing to go into lower paying, more fulfilling careers, like primary education and social worker, because they know they want a work/life balance. Also being in a low paying field isn't the social stigma for a woman that it is for a man.


What about when you correct for that? In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.

Female heart surgeons start out ~$27k per year less. Female pulmonary disease specialists start out ~$44k per year less.

Link
 
2012-05-22 01:34:37 PM  
But women spend more money, so they got that going for them!
 
2012-05-22 01:36:17 PM  
The article writer's real problem is that he doesn't seem to realize that people use statistics to reinforce their beliefs, and not the other way around.

If he spent more time on Fark, Digg, and Slashdot, he'd realize how futile his efforts are.
 
2012-05-22 01:39:12 PM  
Yeah, yay hooray for being the one to pick up shiat at the grocery store.
 
2012-05-22 01:39:24 PM  

mgshamster: What about when you correct for that? In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.


From you own link, just like I was saying:

The large gender gap in starting salaries may have something to do with female physicians negotiating greater flexibility and family-friendly benefits, such as not being on-call after certain hours, Lo Sasso suggested.

"It may be that lifestyle factors are increasingly important to newer physicians. It could be that women in particular want to have more of a lifestyle balance in their medical careers," he said.



And this is a matter of my personal experience as the wife is a physician who is currently choosing to work part time to raise our kids.
 
2012-05-22 01:41:04 PM  
Other studies of gender distribution in the workplace show that the fields where women are in the majority tend to provide more stable work.

Men tend to be hurt more in recessions because male-dominant fields like construction and manufacturing tend to be linked to the state of the economy.. when times are good, the pay is good, but when times are bad, the pay is bad. Female-dominant fields like nursing and office management tend to be less volatile.. the pay isn't as good when times are good, but the pay doesn't drop as much when times are bad.

You could say that women tend to be more conservative about choosing jobs, and that -- like most investments -- the conservative options tend to offer lower but more stable returns. That isn't a condemnation.. you could easily say that women tend to be smarter about choosing jobs.

That also isn't a denial that gender bias in the workplace exists.. but when you hear about the need to narrow the gender gap in employment, people tend to think 'CEOs getting $100 million bonuses' not 'coal miners making $15/hr'.
 
2012-05-22 01:42:24 PM  
The only real value in this kind of breakdown isn't really the whole "battle of the sexes" thing. It's to look at life choices for potential pitfalls. Most people's life decisions happen not as a battle of the sexes but as part of a married team, and most people are in a marriage that stays married, and works out.

So the caveats are good things for them to note in their career planning so that they as a pair don't have either of them get skunked and they can plan together and avoid the pitfalls. That way if one of them gets disabled or something, they're as covered as possible.
 
2012-05-22 01:42:35 PM  

antron: WhippingBoy: I'm going to fire all my male employees and only hire women from now on.
I'll save at least 15% in salary, and the work that gets done will be exactly the same.

Have you ever worked in an all-female environment?


I'm gonna be honest here. Women over the age of 40 piss me right the hell off if I'm around them for more than a half an hour. I literally can't eat lunch between 11 and 12 in the cafeteria here because of the incessant, LOUD cackling. I get being social. But the loud, long, constant KAHAKAHAKA! is ridiculous.

YMMV, I work in a fairly unique environment.

/The women I actually *work* with are nice and low key though.
//Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...
 
2012-05-22 01:44:14 PM  
And then there are all of the rest of us who for whatever reason don't fit that model, and avoiding whatever pitfalls we can, too. Or engaging in 20/20 hindsight.
 
2012-05-22 01:46:52 PM  

dywed88: I love how people are taking the article as saying there is no discrimination, when it says exactly the opposite.


Well, you gotta want it.
 
2012-05-22 01:47:58 PM  

Julie Cochrane: And then there are all of the rest of us who for whatever reason don't fit that model, and avoiding whatever pitfalls we can, too. Or engaging in 20/20 hindsight.


Jesus... Don't you write for a living? :p

Diagram that sentence for me, why don't ya?
 
2012-05-22 01:49:10 PM  
Honest question.

If I am selling life insurance it is accepted practice to charge more for men of the same age because they will probably die sooner and I will have to pay out sooner, having made less off of premiums and investing those premiums. It is also OK to charge men more for their car insurance because they are more likely to have an accident.

But if I hire a woman and discount her salary because there is an 80% chance she will leave the workforce for an extended period, which would have a detrimental effect on my company, that is unacceptable discrimination.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but I do have to question how we decide what kind of discrimination is and isn't morally acceptable.
 
2012-05-22 01:50:03 PM  

BeesNuts: //Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...


Isn't that about the normal time for making that info public? Or is the minimum number of missed periods before a woman has to tell her co-workers less than 3?
 
2012-05-22 01:51:09 PM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: I remember seeing an article a while back which said that single professional women make more than their male counterparts. Of course that was for yet another cherry-picked set of particular criteria, but that's kind of the point... context always matters. And at what point do we differentiate between "we need to do something about this" versus "something people should just take note of when making life and career decisions".


Not quite... That article does note that single professional women make more than men their age... but they're not their counterparts. Rather, they compare college-educated women in their first professional jobs after college, to all men, including GED earners and high-school drop out day laborers.
However, if they control for that variable and look at single college educated women and single college educated men in their very first job, the men earn more. And before you suggest "different career choices," as noted above, even in the same exact job, men out-earn women.

In other words, it's exactly the same sort of mistake as this article is pointing out - if you simply compare the median incomes of both populations, you're not really showing anything other than a single variable. In the case you mention, they've shown only that higher education raises median incomes compared to the average... which should be obvious already.
 
2012-05-22 01:56:14 PM  

BeesNuts: antron: WhippingBoy: I'm going to fire all my male employees and only hire women from now on.
I'll save at least 15% in salary, and the work that gets done will be exactly the same.

Have you ever worked in an all-female environment?

I'm gonna be honest here. Women over the age of 40 piss me right the hell off if I'm around them for more than a half an hour. I literally can't eat lunch between 11 and 12 in the cafeteria here because of the incessant, LOUD cackling. I get being social. But the loud, long, constant KAHAKAHAKA! is ridiculous.

YMMV, I work in a fairly unique environment.

/The women I actually *work* with are nice and low key though.
//Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...


I agree 100%.

I used to take a train to work and back (1 hour each way). The majority of commuters were middle-aged women.
If you didn't bring an iPod, or some other device to shut out the cackling, you would literally be driven insane by the time the train pulled into the station.

I thought it was just me until I spoke with others about the experience. As soon as one guy mentioned "train ladies", everyone instantly knew what he was talking about, and had their own horror stories to tell.
 
2012-05-22 02:00:30 PM  
i would love to discuss the merits of equal pay for women, but, as a woman... i have to leave the office now to visit my daughter's 3rd grade teacher to discuss her coloring book options. this is actually good news, because i don't really understand what i do at work.. and it tends to give me frequent, workday ending migranes. omg i'm pregnant!
 
2012-05-22 02:01:38 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: mgshamster: What about when you correct for that? In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.

From you own link, just like I was saying:

The large gender gap in starting salaries may have something to do with female physicians negotiating greater flexibility and family-friendly benefits, such as not being on-call after certain hours, Lo Sasso suggested.

"It may be that lifestyle factors are increasingly important to newer physicians. It could be that women in particular want to have more of a lifestyle balance in their medical careers," he said.


And this is a matter of my personal experience as the wife is a physician who is currently choosing to work part time to raise our kids.


That's not what you were saying. You said: "fewer hours worked," and "lower paying/more fulfilling careers to get a better work/life balance." The link I provided corrected for hours, and showed the exact same career, so neither of those could be it. The only thing in the link is a suggestion that it might be salary negotiations for better work/life balance, but no evidence to back it.

If you did mean to say that they negotiate a lower wage for better benefits, then the article's suggestions support what you meant to say, rather than what you actually said. It does seem to make a bit of sense, but is it true? Is there research which supports this hypothesis? Or does the available research negate the hypothesis? Might be a good thing for us to look into.

As for your anecdote about your wife working part time - that was corrected by hours worked in the article. Also, since the article is based on starting salary fresh out of residency, did your wife choose to work part time fresh out of residency? How does her salary compare with male physicians in the same specialty with the same experience who work part time? (Since this is only anecdotal, whatever decisions your wife made won't skew the results, as it's just one of thousands of data points).

As for my own anecdotes, when my wife (a chemist) started her job, she made less than her male counterparts, despite the fact that she had greater work experience, better education, and was a harder worker (and this could be shown based on the quality and quantity of her work). This was a few years ago, though, and I don't know if it's changed since she got hired on as a salaried employee vs the hourly employee when she first started. She's asked me to stop bugging her about it, because she's not going to challenge the company in fear of reprisal.
 
2012-05-22 02:03:24 PM  
so buy 10 cent store-brand ramen instead of the 11 cent Nissin brand
 
2012-05-22 02:06:08 PM  
What I alway wonder when this comes around again... If women are being paid less, then why is anyone even employing men?
 
2012-05-22 02:07:48 PM  

mgshamster: She's asked me to stop bugging her about it, because she's not going to challenge the company in fear of reprisal.


This is pretty much the reason this gap exists... in my anecdotal experience.

/But we all know that already.
 
2012-05-22 02:13:38 PM  

SharkTrager: Honest question.

If I am selling life insurance it is accepted practice to charge more for men of the same age because they will probably die sooner and I will have to pay out sooner, having made less off of premiums and investing those premiums. It is also OK to charge men more for their car insurance because they are more likely to have an accident.

But if I hire a woman and discount her salary because there is an 80% chance she will leave the workforce for an extended period, which would have a detrimental effect on my company, that is unacceptable discrimination.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but I do have to question how we decide what kind of discrimination is and isn't morally acceptable.


People don't stay with one company that long anymore. The truth is that the male worker you hire will leave your company, too. Promoting from within is largely a fantasy left over from a bygone era. Might happen that you can tap a guy from within, but generally a guy you have who acquires the knowledge base you're going to need for the next level up isn't going to wait around for a new position to open up, and a guy you have when a new position opens up isn't going to immediately have the knowledge base you need---while a guy applying from outside will already have it.

It used to be that men would sit around for years or entire careers while companies screwed them over and didn't promote them, despite the guys going out and working their butts off to earn MBAs, etc. You'd have a guy with an MBA and a list of quals as long as your arm, and management would pass him over for promotion not because he wasn't qualified for what he was applying for, but just because he was really good where he was and the company preferred to have him stay there.

Well, nowadays that wouldn't wash. Now, you pass someone over for promotion when they've worked their ass off for it, and they're qualified, just because you want them to keep doing what they're doing---they're going to go get that promotion from another company.

The military can tell you, "We want you where you are, shut up and soldier." Civilians can't. "Oh yeah? I'm outta here, jack."

So your 80% argument did make some sense back when people were "company men" and worked for one company their whole life.

Now? Nobody stays, because they know your company would fire them in a heartbeat if the bean-counters said it would save a nickel.
 
2012-05-22 02:16:04 PM  

mgshamster: That's not what you were saying. You said: "fewer hours worked," and "lower paying/more fulfilling careers to get a better work/life balance." The link I provided corrected for hours, and showed the exact same career, so neither of those could be it. The only thing in the link is a suggestion that it might be salary negotiations for better work/life balance, but no evidence to back it.


Better work life balance, whether in the same field or different fields, that is a factor in women's salaries. That's the point.

mgshamster: As for your anecdote about your wife working part time - that was corrected by hours worked in the article. Also, since the article is based on starting salary fresh out of residency, did your wife choose to work part time fresh out of residency?


Again it comes down to work life balance, as for the wife she worked full-time out of residency however she accepted a lower starting salary because she wanted to stay local, she did not want to relocate.
 
2012-05-22 02:20:51 PM  
b-b-but PATRIARCHY!
 
2012-05-22 02:21:16 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Better work life balance, whether in the same field or different fields, that is a factor in women's salaries. That's the point.


Once again, is there evidence for this? We can make it up and claim it's true all day long, but that really doesn't mean anything unless we have the evidence to support it.

I would argue that a good work/life balance is also important for men in today's world. It certainly is for me. And if it's true, it would negate the argument that women get less pay for a better work/life balance if men are also looking for a better work/life balance while still getting the higher pay.
 
2012-05-22 02:22:13 PM  
Given that EVERY woman I know (even the "liberated" ones) still prattles on about how she wants a man who makes more than her... though, she supports the idea of women being breadwinners and stay-at-home dads in principle... just not in HER case... I really don't care how much money women make.

You can't make the same as men AND feel that men should be the breadwinners. It doesn't work that way. Start caring about actual equality, and I'll start caring about it again too.

/I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability
 
2012-05-22 02:33:11 PM  

VonEvilstein: What I alway wonder when this comes around again... If women are being paid less, then why is anyone even employing men?

 
2012-05-22 02:37:54 PM  
It would be best if the working women would just shut up and make sure that the coffee is fresh.
 
2012-05-22 02:38:18 PM  
Julie Cochrane 2012-05-22 01:27:58 PM

doubled99: dywed88 2012-05-22 12:29:38 PM

I love how people are taking the article as saying there is no discrimination, when it says exactly the opposite.

Even if there is a disparity in pay, why does that mean discrimination? My last company had 4 vice presidents. They all did essentially the same job, but all four had different salaries. Discrimination? No. Some people are simply a little more ballsy when negotiating a salary. Like men, for instance.

Some people get a better response to them being ballsy when negotiating a salary. Just because John going in and being assertive and saying "X" gets him a 10% raise doesn't mean Mary going in and being equally assertive and saying exactly the same thing would get her a 10% raise---it might get her fired or demoted. Hint: that's why they call it discrimination.

So yeah, it may be that John does a better job of asking. Or it may be that the boss is more receptive to being asked by John.

When I was in junior high, if you asked the regular kids if there were cliques in school, they would tell you yes, very much, their grade was entirely run by cliques of popular kids.

If you asked the popular kids if there were cliques in school, they would tell you no, that their grade didn't have cliques, everyone just had their own friends.

That's pretty much true of every junior high--it's all a matter of perspective.

So one person's "John's just a more ballsy negotiator than Mary." is another person's "John's boss discriminates in favor of John and against Mary."

The truth is somewhere in the middle. When women do negotiate assertively, and come to the table prepared, they tend to find managers who are primed to think women don't negotiate assertively and that women will accept lowball offers. So while women who negotiate assertively get better offers than other women, they don't get offers as good as the ones gotten by men who negotiate assertively. And so forth.

It's a mix of both.

It's business, and at the levels of the game where people are really counting the dollars and caring about negotiating, people are less worried about "fair" and more worried about maximizing their returns in the game.

It is what it is. And if the prevailing stink of the market lets them shave a buck here and there by paying a gal less for the same job, they're not going to pay her one dollar more than they absolutely have to just to be nice guys. They're going to pay her what they can get away with paying her. Until market forces make it so they can't.


You've made the word "discrimination" virtually meaningless. Technically, any hire would be discrimination unless you didn't interview and simply chose people on the merits of their resume.

When you pick a babysitter for your kids, you're simply "discriminating" too. Oh, wait. then, it's okay. It's just using your judgement.
 
2012-05-22 02:38:45 PM  
Apparently, the entire American economy is now firmly based upon the notion that somebody, somewhere is getting screwed.
 
2012-05-22 02:41:27 PM  
either the corps enjoy discriminating against women so much they are willing to forgo profit by hiring more expensive but merely equally productive men, or they actually believe the extra cost of hiring males pays off in production for some reason.
 
2012-05-22 02:53:11 PM  

SharkTrager: "But if I hire a woman and discount her salary because there is an 80% chance she will leave the workforce for an extended period, which would have a detrimental effect on my company, that is unacceptable discrimination."



Not only that, but in most cases you'll have to keep paying her for the time she's gone. AND you'll have to pay again for a substitute worker to do her job while she's away, AND you'll have to train that substitute to do her job on your own dime (training you've already paid for), AND you'll have to throw away that additional training investment and let that substitute worker go because you HAVE to let her back to her original job.

People forget -- it's not just about how much the employee gets, it's also about how much the employer pays. In the end, an employer who hires a woman over a man doesn't just pay even parity, in many cases they pay substantially more -- and lose productivity in the process.

I'll tell you what: When 50% of child custody cases are decided in favor of fathers, when 50% of alimony payments are from ex-wives to ex-husbands, when men can and do take 6-12 weeks of paternity leave without jeopardizing their jobs or careers, when men get as much uncounted time out of the office for family reasons (taking kids to the doctor, etc.) as women, when the average full-time work week is as long for women as it is for men....THEN we can talk about glass ceilings and "81¢ on the dollar". Fair?

BTW, I say full-time because for part-time work, women actually earn substantially MORE than men.

And before anyone accuses me of bitterness, I'm not bitter at all - I just think that when we talk about gender equality, it's more valuable to debate apples vs. apples than to scream our heads off about how women are getting short-changed.
 
2012-05-22 02:53:20 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: draypresct: American men spend three hours a day on household chores, but that is one hour and 40 minutes less than American women

That's a lot of hours per day. Even if you assume that they spend extra time on the weekend to boost the overall average, that's a shiatload of time every day.

Do some laundry, cook some food, wash some dishes, vacuum, clean the bathrooms, mow the lawn, repair stuff.

Most of these are not things you need to do every day, and some can be parallelized (like laundry).

Where are these people wasting so much of their time?


I'm guessing you don't have kids.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report