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.
What truth? Why are they paying women less for doing the same job?
The truth is that women on average are paid less because on average, women tend to work less and take on less risky jobs, not because they are women.
If women are paid less for doing the same job, every greedy bloodsucking for profit evil corporation with half wit would just hire women rather than men.
Companies don't always hire the cheapest person you know. They hire for the right talent. Unfortunately, women are notoriously bad or lax about negotiating and I believe this is why they tend to have lower salaries.
On average, companies hire the right talent at the lowest cost to them. If Steve Jobs can produce $100 billion profit, paying him $1 billion is CHEAP; if Joe Blow can product $1 million profit, paying him $1 is expensive.
Of course companies don't always hire the cheapest person, but given the same talent and the capability to do the same job, a man and a woman, why wouldn't a rational for profit company hire the cheaper woman?
I am speaking out of my 20 plus years of hiring people here.
Hardly. Conservatives don't care if certain races or genders can do it or not- they won't help or give a dang either way; as long as they have theirs (whether they actually earned it themselves or not) as long as women and those pesky colored folks are kept away from their ivory towers
Why would anybody care about gender or race at work?
The truth is that women on average are paid less because on average, women tend to work less and take on less risky jobs, not because they are women.
If women are paid less for doing the same job, every greedy bloodsucking for profit evil corporation with half wit would just hire women rather than men.
With this post, you very adequately laid out for everyone why you should be completely ignored on this particular topic.
Your over simplistic musings are way down there on the order of scale so as to be as insignificant as that stuff on the bottom of all our shoes and rather revealing as to why this is still a problem in the 21st century.
With this post, you very adequately laid out for everyone why you should be completely ignored on this particular topic.
Your over simplistic musings are way down there on the order of scale so as to be as insignificant as that stuff on the bottom of all our shoes and rather revealing as to why this is still a problem in the 21st century.
Good grief.
With this post, you very adequately laid out ZERO substance.
That memo may urge Google to improve it's diversity statistics now that it's become national news - or, once the news dies down, Will it be buried?
Google Reveals Updated Workplace Diversity Statistics | Time.com
Google says that 69% percent of its employees are now male, while 31% are female. That marks a small increase from the 70% to 30% ratio the company reported last year. But only 19% of Google's technical roles are held by women, while 81% of them are held by men. That's also a 1% increase compared to last year.
i said collectively, referring to the total time off if the person takes 3-4 months per child (i know many that take more) and they have 2 + children.
Yes, my colleague had her first child in May and is taking advantage of the full 32 week maternity leave (16 weeks at full pay with the option to take up to an additional 16 weeks at 50% pay) that was implemented a couple of years ago. She will probably do this three times during her career, which would come to 96 weeks or 1.85 years total.
She is an eminently capable colleague and a huge asset and I have no doubt she'll pick up where she left off. She's also smart enough to understand that taking 7 months away multiple times will as a matter of course have an impact on her overall career arc. It's part of the work-life balance, but everything else being equal if she were to not have kids and never take these 7 month stints off she would be around for more projects, initiatives, etc. It would be unreasonable to assume there would be no impact.
On average, companies hire the right talent at the lowest cost to them. If Steve Jobs can produce $100 billion profit, paying him $1 billion is CHEAP; if Joe Blow can product $1 million profit, paying him $1 is expensive.
Of course companies don't always hire the cheapest person, but given the same talent and the capability to do the same job, a man and a woman, why wouldn't a rational for profit company hire the cheaper woman?
I am speaking out of my 20 plus years of hiring people here.
Because it doesn't always work out that "clean." If that were true, even all men would make the same salary for the same job or all women would make the same salary as each other for the same job. On my team, I've seen a $20k difference in salary among my same-role coworkers. Not because of contribution or skill but negotiation.
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.
