The Lie About The Male/Female Wage Gap

[Buff]

So I saw another study lamenting the disparity in pay between men and women. This one tells us that "Corporations Pay Women CFOs 16 Percent Less Than Men". My answer is so what? Is that supposed to be some sort of injustice? Let's apply some logic:

If women really do the same quality and quantity of work as men, if they bring the same shareholder value to the corporation as men, if they are not costlier to hire than men, but you can pay the 16% (or as much as 25% in some studies) less than you pay men...

WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE HIRE A MAN IF THERE WERE A WOMAN AVAILABLE TO DO THE JOB? You're getting the same benefits but saving 16%-25% on your labor costs! You'll put your idiotic misogynist competition out of business because they're stupid enough to hire men when women are available.

The fact that not only is this not the case, but the government actually has to pass laws to ensure women get hired at all by businesses tells you that there's more to this story. One (or more) of the above premises is/are false. Period. That's how the real world works. Especially in the modern global age where everyone wants to outsource to get the cheapest labor possible.


Use your fucking brains, people, and don't let the media and others think for you. Apply some fucking logic to what they tell you. Verbum sat sapienti.

[porno jew]

on their side = facts. on your side = your stupid opinions.

i think they won this round.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by porno jew

on their side = facts. on your side = your stupid opinions.

i think they won this round.

Written like a typical public "school" "educated" rube. No refutation of the logic provided. Just some pedantic assertion and an ad hominem.

Go fuck yourself.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by Buff

Written like a typical public "school" "educated" rube. No refutation of the logic provided. Just some pedantic assertion and an ad hominem.

Go fuck yourself.

there was no logic to refute moron.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by porno jew

there was no logic to refute moron.

It was here:

If women really do the same quality and quantity of work as men, if they bring the same shareholder value to the corporation as men, if they are not costlier to hire than men, but you can pay the 16% (or as much as 25% in some studies) less than you pay men...

WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE HIRE A MAN IF THERE WERE A WOMAN AVAILABLE TO DO THE JOB? You're getting the same benefits but saving 16%-25% on your labor costs! You'll put your idiotic misogynist competition out of business because they're stupid enough to hire men when women are available.

Learn to read, fukwit.

[Rochard]

When I was a kid... Every job until I worked on porn had a woman in charge, making more than me. Go figure.

[porno jew]

so according to that abortion you call your "argument" a business is going to shut down because they paid their ceo 15-25% more than a competitor?

if that is your "argument" you shouldn't have dropped out of the evil public school system in grade 8.

[L-Pink]

You're paid what you are worth, women are worthless.

.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by porno jew

so according to that abortion you call your "argument" a business is going to shut down because they paid their ceo 15-25% more than a competitor?

if that is your "argument" you shouldn't have dropped out of the evil public school system in grade 8.

NO. The argument is that if you can pay women (at all levels) 16%-25% less for the same quality and quantity of work as a man, companies which hire women preferentially will save significantly on labor costs and outcompete misogynist companies stupid enough to overpay for labor.

Look, I get it, the average IQ in America is about 98 (http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm) because jackholes like yourself are dragging down the average. Just walk away, dude, you're in over your head.

[porno jew]

why not tell me what you dispute about the actual study and methodology not try and debate some stupid hypothetical situation you came up with?

like i said your "argument" is too retarded to take seriously.

tell me why you dispute the actual study and we can talk.

[papill0n]

the company might save money now but ultimately society and inevitably the company suffers because no work force nor society can function effectively nor sustain itself when 50% of the members are unhappy

[papill0n]

shit i cant believe i posted that without insulting you

very slack on my behalf

idiot

[Buff]

Originally Posted by porno jew

why not tell me what you dispute about the actual study and methodology not try and debate some stupid hypothetical situation you came up with?

like i said your "argument" is too retarded to take seriously.

tell me why you dispute the actual study and we can talk.

You fucking idiot! I don't dispute the study! Of course there's a wage gap. But it exists for a reason (several actually) and almost none of the wage gap has to do with sexism.

I swear to god, you're stupid.

[porno jew]

actually your disorganized mind is trying to argue a few different things there.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Buff

NO. The argument is that if you can pay women (at all levels) 16%-25% less for the same quality and quantity of work as a man, companies which hire women preferentially will save significantly on labor costs and outcompete misogynist companies stupid enough to overpay for labor.

Look, I get it, the average IQ in America is about 98 (http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm) because jackholes like yourself are dragging down the average. Just walk away, dude, you're in over your head.

Typically you can't pay women less on all levels. Many of the places where women make less than men come in fields/positions that are typically male dominated and have few women in them. So those women have to accept less pay in order to get the job and get the chance to compete in the male dominated field.

I can give you two solid examples. 1. Nursing. Nursing is a female dominated profession. Almost every nurse you will encounter out there is a woman. Those nurses get paid well. There is no wage discrepancy here.

2. Logging. When I was a little kid my mom worked for a couple of years in a lumber mill. That mill had about 400 employees that worked in the mill itself (not counting the accounting/bookkeeping areas) and only 6-8 of them were women. My mom was paid about 20% less than the guys were. She didn't know it at first. They offered her the job and told her how much it paid and she took it. A few months later she found out she was making less. A few years after she left that job she ran into her old boss from the mill and asked him why she and the other women were paid less. He told her it was because the guys that worked in the mill didn't want women there because they felt they didn't do as much work and didn't work as hard. So when they hired women they offered them less money and that seemed to appease the guys.

If you could hire a women for every job in your company likely they wouldn't take the smaller wage just to get their foot in the door and they would demand to be paid what men are so your theory of saving yourself cash would likely not work.

[papill0n]

johnnyclips is a busy little boy today

[L-Pink]

And an attractive woman is usually worth even less.

There is a good chance she won't be taken as seriously as others. There is an excellent chance she will become pregnant and quit or miss a lot of work. She will have limited flexibility due to child care issues. There is a good chance she will move if her husband or boyfriend is transferred.

As a business owner, women are worth less.

.

[ottopottomouse]

you can't employ women for every job as they don't work well on different levels and just turn into backstabbing nutcases.

[kane]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

And an attractive woman is usually worth even less.

There is a good chance she won't be taken as seriously as others. There is an excellent chance she will become pregnant and quit or miss a lot of work. She will have limited flexibility due to child care issues. There is a good chance she will move if her husband or boyfriend is transferred.

As a business owner, women are worth less.

.

Interestingly enough I have seen some of this first hand. The girl I am dating right now is smoking hot. She is so out of my league I sometimes wonder what they fuck I did to make this happen. She is far and away the hottest girl I have ever dated. I have seen how a lot of people treat her like she is dumb just because she is good looking. Her looks help her out in some situations for sure, but in a lot of cases she gets dismissed as not being smart.

She has told me she gets it worse from other women. Guys tend to want to help her out and make her happy, although sometimes they do talk down to her. Women either hit on her or seem to really hate her.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by kane

Interestingly enough I have seen some of this first hand. The girl I am dating right now is smoking hot. She is so out of my league I sometimes wonder what they fuck I did to make this happen. She is far and away the hottest girl I have ever dated. I have seen how a lot of people treat her like she is dumb just because she is good looking. Her looks help her out in some situations for sure, but in a lot of cases she gets dismissed as not being smart.

She has told me she gets it worse from other women. Guys tend to want to help her out and make her happy, although sometimes they do talk down to her. Women either hit on her or seem to really hate her.

Small to mid size businesses are where most job growth has always been. Feel good equality laws aside women in key positions can be the death of a small business based on my above posted reasons. Reasons that have zero to do with future opportunity or working conditions.

.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by papill0n

johnnyclips is a busy little boy today

yes after his MIT fiasco i guess he started to start fresh.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by porno jew

yes after his MIT fiasco i guess he started to start fresh.

Fuck, I wasted time arguing with that idiot?

.

[raymor]

The link and the OP are both missing something important. The OP shows why it worlds be ILLOGICAL to pay women less (or equivalently, to be unwilling to pay them about the same). Yes, but the feminists agree that discrimination is illogical - stupid. Just because a company would be stupid to discriminate doesn't prove that they don't.

A stronger version of the OPs argument would be involve several parts:

Companies that do not discriminate have a competive advantage over those that don't, by getting better people at better prices.

Companies owned or controlled by women are unlikely to discriminate against women.

Thefore, companies owned or controlled by women will, on average, do better than companies that discriminate.

Companies owned or controlled by women do not in fact do better on advantage than most companies.

Therefore most companies don't discriminate. (If they did, the female run companies would be bearing them.)

On the other hand, the link, like all similar studies I've seen, is also lacking. It's very difficult to do a proper control for such a study. For example, most women I know stayed home with their kids for a while. People who choose to delay or interrupt their careers by staying home will of.course miss out on experience and advancement opportunities. That's not discrimination, that's "Ted has been here for five years. Lisa just started with this company last year after staying home for three years and falling behind the technology." Who is more likely to get a raise? I have a friend who was let go partially because a couple times per month she had to leave work for half a day to go deal with some trouble her kids got into. When she left, coworkers had to scramble to try to do her job and theirs simultaneously. She wasn't a reliable employee, in other words, because of her kids. It's awefully hard to design a study that takes all of those kinds of factors into account.

The only company I know 100% about is RMEE. Here, the women average higher salaries than the men, even though the health insurance cost we pay is 50% higher for women.

[kane]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Small to mid size businesses are where most job growth has always been. Feel good equality laws aside women in key positions can be the death of a small business based on my above posted reasons. Reasons that have zero to do with future opportunity or working conditions.

.

My experience having worked for a few small companies is that it depends on the type of woman you hire. For example if you hire a 19 year old who just moved out of the house and into her own place with a couple of roommates she is much more likely to quit or be flaky because she is young, wants to party and as you say she could meet someone or change her mind or decide to move to a different city etc.

If you hire a 40 year old woman who is married and has kids that are old enough that they don't need her every minute of every day she is much more likely to be a stable employee.

But then, the same can be said for guys. At 19 I didn't even have a regular house. I lived between Portland and Seattle crashing on people's couches, renting places with others and renting rooms. I was writing for a music magazine for a living so I was always moving around. I did that from the time I was 18 until I was 25. I then worked for a record label for 3 years. After leaving the label I moved to New Orleans for about a year then I moved to Los Angeles for about a year then I moved to Seattle and eventually back to Portland. I was a shitty employee during that time because I was always moving and deciding what I wanted to do. I probably had about 15 different jobs in the 4-5 years I moved between those different cities.

Still, what you say about cattiness is true. Women hold a grudge much longer and more intensely than guys do and it can cause some serious issues.

[kane]

Originally Posted by raymor

The link and the OP are both missing something important. The OP shows why it worlds be ILLOGICAL to pay women less (or equivalently, to be unwilling to pay them about the same). Yes, but the feminists agree that discrimination is illogical - stupid. Just because a company would be stupid to discriminate doesn't prove that they don't.

A stronger version of the OPs argument would be involve several parts:

Companies that do not discriminate have a competive advantage over those that don't, by getting better people at better prices.

Companies owned or controlled by women are unlikely to discriminate against women.

Thefore, companies owned or controlled by women will, on average, do better than companies that discriminate.

Companies owned or controlled by women do not in fact do better on advantage than most companies.

Therefore most companies don't discriminate. (If they did, the female run companies would be bearing them.)

On the other hand, the link, like all similar studies I've seen, is also lacking. It's very difficult to do a proper control for such a study. For example, most women I know stayed home with their kids for a while. People who choose to delay or interrupt their careers by staying home will of.course miss out on experience and advancement opportunities. That's not discrimination, that's "Ted has been here for five years. Lisa just started with this company last year after staying home for three years and falling behind the technology." Who is more likely to get a raise? I have a friend who was let go partially because a couple times per month she had to leave work for half a day to go deal with some trouble her kids got into. When she left, coworkers had to scramble to try to do her job and theirs simultaneously. She wasn't a reliable employee, in other words, because of her kids. It's awefully hard to design a study that takes all of those kinds of factors into account.

The only company I know 100% about is RMEE. Here, the women average higher salaries than the men, even though the health insurance cost we pay is 50% higher for women.

A real, accurate, study would be one where they compared men and women doing the same jobs where both had the same education level, the same amount of job experience and the same amount of time on the job and they compared salaries. If both employees were identical in all areas other than sex and the woman made less you could say without question that women make less for the same work. However, like you say, there are often many variables that are not taken into consideration.

[AmeliaG]

During the economic downturn, more men than women have lost their jobs and been unable to find work precisely because companies did the math.

[porno jew]

this study was about cfo's not someone working up the ladder.

no point for intellectual gymnastics. women's work is simply valued less. even though they do exactly the same amount and quality of work.

Originally Posted by raymor

The link and the OP are both missing something important. The OP shows why it worlds be ILLOGICAL to pay women less (or equivalently, to be unwilling to pay them about the same). Yes, but the feminists agree that discrimination is illogical - stupid. Just because a company would be stupid to discriminate doesn't prove that they don't.

A stronger version of the OPs argument would be involve several parts:

Companies that do not discriminate have a competive advantage over those that don't, by getting better people at better prices.

Companies owned or controlled by women are unlikely to discriminate against women.

Thefore, companies owned or controlled by women will, on average, do better than companies that discriminate.

Companies owned or controlled by women do not in fact do better on advantage than most companies.

Therefore most companies don't discriminate. (If they did, the female run companies would be bearing them.)

On the other hand, the link, like all similar studies I've seen, is also lacking. It's very difficult to do a proper control for such a study. For example, most women I know stayed home with their kids for a while. People who choose to delay or interrupt their careers by staying home will of.course miss out on experience and advancement opportunities. That's not discrimination, that's "Ted has been here for five years. Lisa just started with this company last year after staying home for three years and falling behind the technology." Who is more likely to get a raise? I have a friend who was let go partially because a couple times per month she had to leave work for half a day to go deal with some trouble her kids got into. When she left, coworkers had to scramble to try to do her job and theirs simultaneously. She wasn't a reliable employee, in other words, because of her kids. It's awefully hard to design a study that takes all of those kinds of factors into account.

The only company I know 100% about is RMEE. Here, the women average higher salaries than the men, even though the health insurance cost we pay is 50% higher for women.

[TheSquealer]

The few times i've ever worked anywhere where women were working, the women had a tendency to act as if coming to work and doing their job was optional... always with an excuse to be out, always having to run errands to do shit. If she's a mother? Forget it. 10X worse.

Maybe women earn 20% less than men because on the average they are 20% less likely to show up for work and put in the same time, effort and energy into their jobs as men?

[katergirl]

Having children is a huge factor in why women make less. They spend fewer years working so they are paid less when you average it out. Women also get fewer promotions because they are less likely to play up their strengths. Being ambitious and somewhat egotistical is necessary to make it in the business world. No one will know you're awesome if you don't make it known.

Being female in a male dominated industry is hard and it takes a lot of work. In order to get paid as much, if not more, than a man, a woman has to work harder, longer and smarter and make sure that the people above them know it. Basically, what anyone should have to do to get a raise. Sadly, a woman also has to make the choice between having a family and advancing her career, and most choose children.

Personally, I am way too much of a workaholic to ever have kids, unless I have a stay at home husband.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by porno jew

this study was about cfo's not someone working up the ladder.

no point for intellectual gymnastics. women's work is simply valued less. even though they do exactly the same amount and quality of work.

The article about CFOs specifically says they did not control for exactly those I obvious factors that I mentioned:

The GMI study didn?t account for the possibility that female CFOs could have shorter work histories due to being more likely than men to interrupt their careers to bear and care for children, according to the report.

The study also didn?t consider the possibility that women might be more likely to move up within a single organization over time. Men may be more likely to switch employers as they move up, a factor that could lead to higher pay.

Further, they did engage in a lot of gymnastics to come up with a model of what a woman might be paid. It's not that they just used raw numbers and didn't adjust for things. They DID adjust in ways that they chose too, they just chose to ignore the obvious factors like experience. That doesn't necesarily mean that they were TRYING to come up with the answer the sponsoring organization wanted, but it does show they ignored fundamental considerations perhaps because a proper study is very difficult.

Of course that's what you would expect to find if you look on thinkprogess.com, a liberal activism site that doesn't pretend their articles are in any way objective. If you look on conservative.org you'll find tne opposite. Pointless examples of liberals (or conservatives) telling themselves what they want to hear. Like mental masturbation. To actually learn anything we have to leave thinkprogress.com, moveon.org, conservative.org and other mental masturbation sites and find something that tries to be objective.