Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-24-2014, 04:58 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area, aka, Liberal Mecca/wherever DoD sends me to
713 posts, read 1,082,353 times
Reputation: 713

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
Well, yes and no. Because of the way men´s vs women´s brains work, men have the ability to focus on a particular tak to a greater degree than do women. On the other hand, women are able to multi tak becasue they are working on several things at once in their brains. So it depends on what the job is as to which is better suited.
True to a certain degree although multi-tasking has proven to be very inefficient and doesn't get quality results. However, the biggest pitfall for the OP is that I suspect he lives in an area with very little economic/job growth and not much diverse industries. Plus, he's too busy thinking of how to play the victim rather than thinking how to get himself out of ditch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2014, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,874,291 times
Reputation: 15839
What part of "affirmative action" don't you understand?

There are certain classes of protected people at the Federal level and also at the State level. Off the top of my head, the list includes (but not limited to):
  • Native American Indians
  • Eskimo
  • African Americans
  • Latino/Hispanic
  • Women
  • Veterans
  • Sexual Orientation
  • Sexual Identify
  • Age (over 40?)

You will note that Caucasian Males are not protected class members.

Medium-sized & larger employers (1000 employees) go to great lengths to attract & retain qualified protected class employees to ensure their employment rate of protected class employees does not fall below a threshold that might open them up as a target of litigation. The threshold typically is a reflection of the demographics of the surrounding communities.

This impacts hiring at all levels - NCG and experienced.

For example, I sat in the staff meeting of the General Counsel of a Fortune 50 company, including numerous corporate VPs, one of whom was also the Secretary of the Board of Directors. Also in attendance were senior representatives from HR.
[list][*]"There is a corporate-wide hiring freeze," said the director of HR.[*]"One of my employees departed last week, and I have a mandate from the Chairman of the Board to hire a replacement, as this person provides critical legal services to the Board. You have to let me open a job req," said the legal VP who is the board secretary.[*]"The ONLY exception to the corporate-wide hiring freeze is if you hire a Protected Class member. We are below our targets for the following Protected Class Members: (lists several categories)," said the director of HR[*]"I have several good candidates resumes on my desk, and none of them are protected class members," said the Legal VP.[*]"You cannot extend an offer to any of them because we have a corporate wide hiring freeze."[*]"I have a mandate from the Chairman of the Board."[*]"The ONLY exception to the corporate-wide hiring freeze is if you hire a Protected Class member."[*]"I don't have any Protected Class member candidates."[*]"That is the ONLY exception. There are no exceptions to the exception."[*]"What do you expect me to do - put an add in the San Jose Mercury News for the position, and put in a large font, 'White Males Need Not Apply'? asked the legal VP tongue-in-cheek.[*]"Of course not, and you know it. But, you cannot extend an offer of employment to anyone at all - the exception being members of those Protected Classes."

etc, etc, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2014, 06:59 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,473,071 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader View Post
It is more, what degree you got from your college. Some degrees (harder ones to get) have more jobs available than granduates, the graduate can pick and choose and start at about $100,000. Some other degrees, have a huge surplus of graduates over jobs, and it is very difficult to find a job. And these surplus degrees, pay about 1/3rd the wages of the in demand degrees.

FACT: Some degrees are called worthless degrees, and if you do find a job, expect a very low salary. If you have one of the worthless degrees, it is the degree you have, for the fact you cannot find a job. In other words, you made a bad career
choice, and you are now suffering the consequences of your degree.

so they should go back to school and get a good degree?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 03:58 PM
 
3,670 posts, read 7,166,014 times
Reputation: 4269
What could you do to stand out if that were the case? What traits do you think women have that enables them to get the job instead of you? What could you do to close this gap?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 04:18 PM
 
26,192 posts, read 21,595,618 times
Reputation: 22772
While there is some bias in some places to hire "diverse" candidates which is code for female and/or minority the truth as I see it is still no. Over time there is data I think that would support that folks who stay continuously employed over the course of their adult life often make more than those who take time off for years over their career. Women tend to be the majority of those folks who take years "off" meaning exiting the workforce not actually taking years off
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 04:20 PM
 
18,549 posts, read 15,593,615 times
Reputation: 16235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
While there is some bias in some places to hire "diverse" candidates which is code for female and/or minority the truth as I see it is still no. Over time there is data I think that would support that folks who stay continuously employed over the course of their adult life often make more than those who take time off for years over their career. Women tend to be the majority of those folks who take years "off" meaning exiting the workforce not actually taking years off
Would this then be so even if you looked only at childless women vs. childless men, who never take time out of work to start/raise a family?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 07:37 PM
 
26,192 posts, read 21,595,618 times
Reputation: 22772
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Would this then be so even if you looked only at childless women vs. childless men, who never take time out of work to start/raise a family?


I believe there would still be a wage gap but no where near as wide when it's just a female vs male comparison
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:27 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top