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 not fairness; it is to show you title doesn't mean value.
Again, equal work title doesn't mean equal results or equal value.
Could you give me one example where a woman is paid less but she produces more value than her peers?
Your question is: "Should she be paid the same as her peers?", is already a fairness question. So why are you saying your own question isn't about fairness?
Again, think from the governmental level.
You don't know what happens underneath and you shouldn't care as the government, you only have job titles/occupations to go off of, as every single company is different and this even applies to men's wages too.
But like I said, if you sum up all the jobs that women held in every single industry and averaged the wages against men, adjust for inflation to account for cost of living in various cities, you'd get somewhere around 0.8. This already tells you, no matter what goes on in each individual situation, there's some form of bias.
If the number was closer to say 0.95, ok great, women are generally paid 95% of what men makes, which isn't a big issue. But this is a 20% statistical difference, that's significant.
Many employers don't want to hire women because they're worried the women will go out on maternity leave and potentially not come back. Working moms also tend to be responsible for more of the childcare than working dads. They feel like men are a safer bet. Even if they have to pay them more.
OK, that's because women prioritize family and children over career, not because the employers purposely pay them less because they are women.
Your question is: "Should she be paid the same as her peers?", is already a fairness question. So why are you saying your own question isn't about fairness?
Again, think from the governmental level.
You don't know what happens underneath and you shouldn't care as the government, you only have job titles/occupations to go off of, as every single company is different and this even applies to men's wages too.
But like I said, if you sum up all the jobs that women held in every single industry and averaged the wages against men, adjust for inflation to account for cost of living in various cities, you'd get somewhere around 0.8. This already tells you, no matter what goes on in each individual situation, there's some form of bias.
If the number was closer to say 0.95, ok great, women are generally paid 95% of what men makes, which isn't a big issue. But this is a 20% statistical difference, that's significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857
This will give you statistical evidence.
Your number did not account for the type of work or the number of hours worked.
Do you see companies are filled with women? No. Why not? Hell, if companies can pay women less for doing the same job and producing the same quality, why don't hire them to make money?
Meaning, if I tally up all the jobs held by women, compared the title to men and their salaries would be approximately 0.8. Meaning all women earn 80% of what men make, for the same title
If that is true then it is interesting how statistics on white American women say that white women own half the wealth in the United States. If said women only earn 80% of what their white husbands make, and their rich ones own roughly half the wealth of the United States, then how do they as women own half that wealth and simulataenously be treated unfairly by their ol' men?
This is like Tiger Woods ex-wife and her divorce settlement (money she never helped him create as he was working in become a golf star sense he was a little kid) and/or alimony vs poor women on welfare. The average American only sees the poor welfare Mother as lazy but somehow think Tiger Woods ex-wife abs other women like her are deserving of "free" money in the hundreds of thousands a year if not millions for the rest of their lives.
Women should not marry men if it is sooooooo economically and morally oppressive on them. Just be single women working. Many will become CEO's too. The economic "unfairness" will be more highlighted then if in fact women are getting as screwed over as they claim.
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.
