Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's meant to be wrong. It's pandering for the female vote by creating a system that would lead to endless litigation.
The devil is always in the details in these things. "The title sounds so good, how could anyone be against it?"
And then you read it and think about it and realize it's an election year stunt to make the other party look bad.
Just like the violence against women act. The liberals made a huge deal of conservatives voting No on renewing VAWA. Of course, they didn't mention that the Republicans had their own act to prevent domestic violence that simply stripped out any reference to gender or sexual orientation. It simply protected all victims equally. But a law that doesn't set up special categories for people doesn't offer opportunities for identity politics and pandering to different voting blocs.
And again with the Voting Rights Act. Liberals had a hissy fit over conservatives wanting to destroy the voting rights act. When all they did was want one section struck down where out of 1,400 cases pertaining to that section 1,399 were passed without issue and the 1,400th case was passed after a review. So that section has actually accomplished precisely nothing. So when it comes to voter ID to prevent fraud, the liberals say there isn't enough fraud to worry about. But when not a single violation of that section of the voting rights act has been found ever in history, they scream bloody murder at removing that section. Again, done purely to create a wedge issue so they can scream about racism.
My point is a Master's does not help much in a lot of occupations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
NO, if you have a masters degree and im doing the exact same job with out one, that just means you paid alot of money for a degree you arent using... Or I have have excelled beyond my stated education.
Either way, you going to school longer does not mean you deserve more money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
Baloney. If both are doing EQUAL work, the employer is NOT benefiting from the "masters degree" so the employee does not warrant higher pay. There is no value to the employer thus no extra compensation.
I don't care about your masters degree in women's studies. You were hired to do "Job X" which has nothing to do with your degree.
I think you three don't have a master's. Look at what is being said on the ed forum, by those who do have one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_of_DC
I have an MBA... it is from a 10 tier school... lol.
Funny though, no one every asks "where did you get your mba?" But I think my experience gets me ahead more than anything.... mba is simply icing on the cake. Solidifies my work... that and I went through with a gpa undergrad 4.0 / grad 3.9 (helped on my resume).
Far as your question, it depends... I went for an mba since I owned a business at the time... it helped. I ended up "going gov't" and it helped even more... mba is an mba. And I've worked with people with degrees all over...
When I was hired at the gov't, my mba helped me get $11,000 more per year than the other people hired without one. Within two years, I was making $15,000 more. At one point, I was making around $20,000 more than one guy. My mba has MORE than paid for itself.
I might be the exception though... I had a lot of experience before going gov't...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoma11
I have my MBA... honestly, it was more for me. I wanted to understand more indepth how the world works.
Getting a bump in pay once i graduated was a bonus. Also, i knew if i didn't get it while i as in my late 20's i'd be too lazy to get it after 30.
It IS common, in most of the work world, for more education to be rewarded, no matter what you Libertarians think.
What it will lead to is the death of negotiated salary and benefits, because if females tend to negotiate less aggressively or seek benefits in lieu of salary it opens a company up to litigation.
What it will lead to is the death of negotiated salary and benefits, because if females tend to negotiate less aggressively or seek benefits in lieu of salary it opens a company up to litigation.
Only people who are represented by a labor union have much in the way of negotiated salary and benefits. The individual has very little power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
If women are paid less for the same work, then one would think the working world would be full of women.
That's a cute talking point, but it is not reality. Even in teaching and nursing, men make more than women.
Only people who are represented by a labor union have much in the way of negotiated salary and benefits. The individual has very little power.
That's not my experience, though I haven't looked into any studies on the issue.
I've negotiated my salary for every job I've had in the past 20 years, sometimes I even negotiate in order to keep an employer from losing me to a competitor. I negotiate and renegotiate every chance I get.
My wife just negotiated more time off in lieu of a raise, which would subject her employer to litigation if Paycheck fairness act were passed.
Looks like Canadian women make less than 70% of what Canadian men make (as of 2009). Probably all that maternity leave is partly the cause of that.
Here you go. I'm making the exact same hourly wage as a man in my position. That being said, my total yearly earnings are less because I work less. I worked a lot less when my son was small.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.