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.
Because the liberal/left/democrats refuse to see the forest for the trees. That is educated women who know how the game is played are doing well enough for themselves. What they want is for an across the board "cut" so that everything is "blind" and that all women will get paid a higher wage regardless.
This is the logic behind recent legislation passed in Massachusetts, New York City, and other state/local governments along with directives from the Obama administration that prevent employers from asking about wage history.
Truth is the story behind why this or that female isn't making bank largely comes down to the individual and choices *SHE* made or makes.
Pick any business/industry/employment sector that employs a number of females and look at things like call out rates, lateness, having to leave early, face time, etc.. and often women come up short.
"according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%)"
You left this out: "Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide. "
You left this out: "Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide. "
Which is the other side of the liberal/progressive/democrat argument; that females are penalized for their biology and or historical roles as care givers.
The recently enacted wage laws in MA forbid employers from counting time off work for maternity and other specific family leave purposes when calculating wages/raises in most instances.
Being as all this may there is a trend that affects both conservatives or liberals; educated women of all races but in particular white/European are either forsaking having children in order to concentrate on their professional careers, and or delaying it for many years while they establish themselves. This and or females who drop out of the workforce because the dream of "having it all" just wasn't or isn't possible.
Because the liberal/left/democrats refuse to see the forest for the trees. That is educated women who know how the game is played are doing well enough for themselves. What they want is for an across the board "cut" so that everything is "blind" and that all women will get paid a higher wage regardless.
This is the logic behind recent legislation passed in Massachusetts, New York City, and other state/local governments along with directives from the Obama administration that prevent employers from asking about wage history.
Truth is the story behind why this or that female isn't making bank largely comes down to the individual and choices *SHE* made or makes.
Pick any business/industry/employment sector that employs a number of females and look at things like call out rates, lateness, having to leave early, face time, etc.. and often women come up short.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't think men come in late or leave early. How sexist of you.
Women do it more. They more time
Off work and are more likely to work part time. It's a fact. Accept reality
Actually, I once read that men are more likely to just up and leave work early for an appointment, a kid's school activity, etc, while women are more likely to charge the time to their PTO.
If Emma was getting equal pay, she would have never complained. Ironically, she was not the only member of the cast who felt she was getting less pay than the others; she admitted that when she received equal pay with her male co-stars in the movie La La Land, the men willingly took a pay cut and gave her the difference.
And Stone is not the only actress at all who is protesting the pay inequality. Two members of the cast of the CBS series Hawaii Five-O just quit, one female, and one Asian, because both were receiving less pay than the others in the cast.
So debunk it if you will, Seneca, but the pay inequality is real in the movie biz. That it was even worse in the past is no comfort at all for all the actors who are now making their living in the business who aren't white males.
That you find it comical is a sign of a sick mind to me, but then I believe any person who can do the job should get full pay for the work. I guess you don't.
Should LeBron James be paid the same as every other player on the Cavaliers? They're all doing the same job right? Is it fair that Brad Pitt makes more than other male actors? They're all doing the same job right? No, some people bring more value to "the same job" than others. It's pretty obvious if you're not living in a PC bubble.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't think men come in late or leave early. How sexist of you.
I don't know the statistics on this, but will trust you.
That aside, if women were really paid 30% (or whatever the claim is now) less than men for "the same work", then profit driven corporations would only hire women. What corporation would willingly pay 30% because someone has a penis?
Often times it's as simple as this: A man and a woman start their careers at the same time, let's say as teachers. Both start off at the same pay & receive the same raises. They meet at work, fall in love and get married. After 5 years, the woman gets pregnant and decides to stay home with the kid until they start kindergarten. Maybe even has a second kid & stays home until that one is in kindergarten. When that woman re-enters the workforce as a teacher, her husband has 8 years of raises & seniority on her. Naturally he's going to be earning more money & be in line for promotions over her, yet technically he's getting paid for "the same work". No one I know would argue the this is unfair.
Many women, once they have kids, prefer to work part time, or turn down raises that require more time investment, or relocation.
What isn't happening is the widespread underpaying of women, for no reason.
Last edited by Mason3000; 07-08-2017 at 11:23 PM..
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.
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.
