Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:34 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,919,031 times
Reputation: 3461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Women are paid less because they work less not because they are women!

If women are paid less for doing the same job, no sane business would hire men!
If that were true in Google's case, why are they being sued by the DOL for failing to comply with the terms of their contract?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:38 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,553,800 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
If that were true in Google's case, why are they being sued by the DOL for failing to comply with the terms of their contract?
How should I know? Big corporations get sued all the time for money and doesn't mean they are guilty.

The fact of the life is that no sane business would hire men if women can do the same job for less. Would you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:39 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,919,031 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Women are paid less because they work less not because they are women!

If women are paid less for doing the same job, no sane business would hire men!
Bold is part of Mr. Damore's rationale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:39 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,553,800 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by grad_student200 View Post
My understanding is that Google seems hypocritical. What about ageism?
I have worked in Information Technology as a software tester for 18 years.
When I relocated from Florida to Arizona last spring, I did an aggressive job
search. Phoenix was great for IT jobs.

But I stayed away from Silicon Valley. The common knowledge in the industry
is that the startups or young companies in Silicon Valley generally exhibit
ageism. Anyone (white, black, female, Asian, Native American, Hispanic, etc), over 30
pretty much is discriminated against. The impression I have is that applying for
a job in Silicon Valley is a waste of time for IT in many cases for those 30+ in age.

Exceptions may be on the "hardware" side of engineering: materials science,
mechanical, civil, infrastructure, etc. But software job searches seem like a waste
of time for anyone over 30 in Silicon Valley - especially at Google.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ite/479468001/

The movie "The Internship" blatantly made a mockery of Generation X men going into IT at Google.
In real life, it's like that too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8DjuGlVknQ
Ageism is not on the leftist agenda. So discriminate as much as you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:40 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,553,800 times
Reputation: 8094
[quote=ChiGeekGuest;49125834]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Women are paid less because they work less not because they are women!

If women are paid less for doing the same job, no sane business would hire men![-QUOTE]

Bold is part of Mr. Damore's rationale.
That is the truth!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:45 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,919,031 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
How should I know? Big corporations get sued all the time for money and doesn't mean they are guilty.

The fact of the life is that no sane business would hire men if women can do the same job for less. Would you?
I provided a link to the lawsuit earlier in the thread. They agreed to share employment records in exchange for government business. A routine audit revealed the pay gap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:47 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,919,031 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
That is the truth!
What truth? Why are they paying women less for doing the same job?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:55 PM
 
18,557 posts, read 7,361,047 times
Reputation: 11372
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhalFaygo View Post
I'd also ask anybody who is outraged over his firing what they think about Colin Kapernick?
I think that, like most Americans, he's a dumbass who believes whatever the mass media say. They fed him a bogus narrative, and he reacted in a way that would be fine with me if the narrative were true. There was and is no problem with cops (and impliedly white cops) shooting black people without justification. There was and is a problem with cops (of all races) shooting people of all races without justification.

The truth -- as Harvard professor Roland Fryer found -- is that whites, not blacks are disproportionately the victims of police shootings. Fryer, a black man, called it the most surprising result of his career. The New York Times reported:
Quote:
In shootings in these 10 cities [Dallas, Austin, Houston, Los Angeles, some Florida cities/counties, etc.] involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.
Be that as it may, there is surely a racial undercurrent in the treatment of Kaepernick. But my wife is calling, so I won't be able to get into it further just now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 08:57 PM
 
Location: SoCal
20,160 posts, read 12,749,142 times
Reputation: 16993
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Women are paid less because they work less not because they are women!

If women are paid less for doing the same job, no sane business would hire men!
More nonsense. This is what I've observed from my kid and her friends, all software engineers. They did bargain hard enough. Settled too soon. Even as a mom, I noticed that. But they are young kids just graduated from college. They didn't know how to negotiate yet. What do you mean by work less?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2017, 09:04 PM
 
Location: SoCal
20,160 posts, read 12,749,142 times
Reputation: 16993
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhalFaygo View Post
The argument goes that as a population, women's wages are lower because they take time off to have children and/or reduce their work hours to raise children. It's not a particularly good argument for professional white collar jobs like Google, however.
Who knows but maybe the new female engineers will be "lean in" like Sheryl Sandberg.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:07 PM.

© 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