Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65608
    09 Apr '18 11:061 edit
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    OMG
    I wish you had the intelligence to see how stupid you look.

    Consider 1950's London (or even whole UK)
    Labour shortages.
    Solution: Bring women into workforce or ... advertise for men in West Indies.

    You really do not understand discrimination do you?
    So now we have wolfgang claiming women get paid more than men. There's no end to the idiocracy.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Apr '18 11:29
    Originally posted by @uzless
    again, you miss the point when it is so clearly and plainly stated....I said and i quote, " they should be asking why women are in lower paying positions than men, not just simply focussing on the dollar value alone."

    You want to have women make more money, then get them into jobs that pay more! Don't sit here and complain that an office assistant isn't ...[text shortened]... h money....you should be why that office assistant can't get a more senior role with higher pay!
    uzless: .you should be why that office assistant can't get a more senior role with higher pay!

    Could you hazard a guess why that female office assistant with similar qualifications to her manager "can't get a more senior role with higher pay"?
  3. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65608
    09 Apr '18 11:33
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    uzless: .you should be why that office assistant can't get a more senior role with higher pay!

    Could you hazard a guess why that female office assistant with similar qualifications to her manager "can't get a more senior role with higher pay"?
    Yes, yes, we understand employers like to pay more for less.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Apr '18 11:38
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    Yes, yes, we understand employers like to pay more for less.
    Most employers are male; would it be surprising if they had gender stereotypes?

    I hate to break it to ya, but all employers aren't the super rational, perfect profit maximizers you learned about in the first half hour of an ECO 101 class.
  5. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65608
    09 Apr '18 11:43
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Most employers are male; would it be surprising if they had gender stereotypes?

    I hate to break it to ya, but all employers aren't the super rational, perfect profit maximizers you learned about in the first half hour of an ECO 101 class.
    Ok, now we agree on something, not all employers make entirely rational decisions, there may be some predominately female companies that discriminate against men.

    What the 1-4% stat says is that the gender pay gap is massively over hyped and nothing like the 43% mentioned in the OP.

    What's your beef anyway, would you like to correct the 1-4% stat with regulation?
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Apr '18 11:43
    Here's some evidence you'll have some irrational excuse for ignoring because of your preconceived ideological bias:

    For the study, researchers from Yale University asked more than 100 science faculty members at academic institutions across the country to evaluate one of two student résumés. The résumés were identical except for one small part: The candidate’s name was either John or Jennifer. Despite both candidates having the exact same qualifications and experience, science faculty members were more likely to perceive John as competent and select him for a hypothetical lab manager position.

    And it didn’t stop there. Female and male science faculty members alike offered John a higher salary than they did Jennifer and were more willing to offer him mentoring opportunities.


    The discrepancy in John and Jennifer’s treatment is important because women are woefully underrepresented in STEM fields, especially in engineering and computing. Gender bias contributes to scenarios in which women like “Jennifer” are evaluated as less competent, less hirable, and less valuable than identically qualified male counterparts.

    Another study by researchers at Columbia University, Northwestern University, and the University of Chicago found that participants acting as employers systematically underestimated the mathematical performance of women compared with men. The result? The experiment’s employers hired lower-performing men over higher-performing women for mathematical work.

    https://www.aauw.org/2015/06/11/john-or-jennifer/
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Apr '18 11:48
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    Ok, now we agree on something, not all employers make entirely rational decisions, there may be some predominately female companies that discriminate against men.

    What the 1-4% stat says is that the gender pay gap is massively over hyped and nothing like the 43% mentioned in the OP.

    What's your beef anyway, would you like to correct the 1-4% stat with regulation?
    The 1-4% stat is the tip of the iceberg for reasons already explained.

    Even assuming that women wanted to discriminate against men and/or held unfavorable gender stereotypes that would limit men's advancement in their companies, "predominately female companies" in the sense of ones controlled by women are rare:

    In the U.S., the report said women held 4.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 4.6 percent of Fortune 1000 CEO positions in 2013, according to data provided by Catalyst Inc., a nonprofit organization in New York City that promotes inclusive workplaces for women. In the U.S., women held 16.6 percent of board seats of the Fortune 500 in 2012, “the seventh consecutive year of no improvement,” the report said.

    https://www.bna.com/women-underrepresented-ceos-n17179922362/
  8. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65608
    09 Apr '18 11:53
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The 1-4% stat is the tip of the iceberg for reasons already explained.

    Even assuming that women wanted to discriminate against men and/or held unfavorable gender stereotypes that would limit men's advancement in their companies, "predominately female companies" in the sense of ones controlled by women are rare:

    In the U.S., the report said women h ...[text shortened]... improvement,” the report said.

    https://www.bna.com/women-underrepresented-ceos-n17179922362/
    So would you like to correct the 1-4% difference with regulation?

    What regulation?

    Quotas? Would the same quotas be forced on predominately female companies?
  9. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65608
    09 Apr '18 11:55
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Here's some evidence you'll have some irrational excuse for ignoring because of your preconceived ideological bias:

    For the study, researchers from Yale University asked more than 100 science faculty members at academic institutions across the country to evaluate one of two student résumés. The résumés were identical except for one small part: The ca ...[text shortened]... performing women for mathematical work.


    https://www.aauw.org/2015/06/11/john-or-jennifer/[/b]
    Summary:

    Some actors who didn't have to dip into their own pockets played some games.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Apr '18 12:01
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    So would you like to correct the 1-4% difference with regulation?

    What regulation?

    Quotas? Would the same quotas be forced on predominately female companies?
    You do realize there are already laws against sex discrimination in employment in the US or the numbers would be skewed even more (I'm going to ignore your "1-4%" tactic that continues to be non-responsive to my points):

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects individuals from discrimination based upon sex. This law makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against individuals in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment, such as promotions, raises, and other job opportunities because of their sex.

    https://www.workplacefairness.org/sexual-gender-discrimination#2
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Apr '18 12:02
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    Summary:

    Some actors who didn't have to dip into their own pockets played some games.
    Summary:

    Any evidence that dents your preconceived worldview will be ignored.
  12. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65608
    09 Apr '18 12:091 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    You do realize there are already laws against sex discrimination in employment in the US or the numbers would be skewed even more (I'm going to ignore your "1-4%" tactic that continues to be non-responsive to my points):

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects individuals from discrimination based upon sex. This law m ...[text shortened]... nities because of their sex.

    https://www.workplacefairness.org/sexual-gender-discrimination#2
    You went too far No1, you got carried away. What would the numbers be if it weren't for regulation. That's a pretty wild claim there, and you have nothing to back it up. How far would they be 'skewed' without the regulation It's indicative of your style, but it's just too blatant this time.

    Of course you'd like to ignore the 1-4% stat (posted by shav) because that is the proof that the gender pay gap is negligible.
  13. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65608
    09 Apr '18 12:11
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Summary:

    Any evidence that dents your preconceived worldview will be ignored.
    I must have missed it then,because I'm pretty sure none of the participants in your little charade were actual employers.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Apr '18 12:18
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    I must have missed it then,because I'm pretty sure none of the participants in your little charade were actual employers.
    Actually they all were.

    Maybe you should learn how to read.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40045
    09 Apr '18 12:20
    Originally posted by @wajoma
    You went too far No1, you got carried away. What would the numbers be if it weren't for regulation. That's a pretty wild claim there, and you have nothing to back it up. How far would they be 'skewed' without the regulation It's indicative of your style, but it's just too blatant this time.

    Of course you'd like to ignore the 1-4% stat (posted by shav) because that is the proof that the gender pay gap is negligible.
    Since the Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, the wage gap has been closing at a very slow rate. In 1963, women who worked full-time, year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. In 2010, women earned 77 cents to men's dollar.

    http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html
Back to Top