Posted on 04/11/2018 9:57:36 AM PDT by VegasVictor
The people most responsible for the much-hyped gender pay gap are women.
Tuesday was Equal Pay Day, a chance for liberals to lament that women in America make only 80 cents — or 81 cents in Nevada — for every dollar a male makes. Activists say a woman has to work more than 15 months to make as much as a man did in 2017. The hyper-liberal National Partnership for Women and Families calculates this by comparing the median annual earnings of men and women working full-time.
Democrats and the national mainstream media take this as proof positive that America is full of widespread sexism. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto spent the day tweeting about “how absurd it is that the gender pay gap still exists. We will not tolerate blatant discrimination against women.”
Good news. We don’t tolerate blatant discrimination against women. Congress banned wage discrimination based on gender — in 1963. The 20 percent, mythical wage gap is a statistical deception derived from an aggregate total of all male and female workers, without regard to education, experience or profession.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
I’ve never studied it so I rarely comment and risk putting my foot in my mouth, but whenever I hear about the gender pay gap, I wonder if the people compiling the statistics are comparing men and women in the same positions with the same seniority or job in a position and with the same education and experience, because my cynical suspicion is that they are not.
I just had a job interview in IT. It was me being interviews by five employees/managers and one employee from HR.
They were all women. The managers of the women are all women. The directors of the groups are all women.
My understanding is that for the same job women actually earn more than men. The disparity is only there because there are more men in high paying positions than women. e.g. Garbage collector makes more than day care worker.
According to the article, the wage gap statistic is derived from comparing aggregate wages for all women to aggregate wages for all men. In other words, its only purpose is to give Alinskyites ammo to agitate for more government regulation.
I have been an employer for 40 years. If I had known that I could hire a chick to do the same job for a whole lot less I would have hired a bunch of em. Why wasn’t I informed of this loophole until now?????
Then there's the ones that come into the workforce with great potential, but end up leaving (temporarily or permanently) to raise a family. If they do come back, it is usually below their pre-child pay grade in order to have a schedule that works for the family life.
No one ever mentions the Family Time Gap.
There are many ‘truths that shall not be spoken’ among proggies — those regarding the races, the sexes, children, Christianity, immigrants, the Constitution, The Founders, Marxism, capitalism, homosexuality, abortion...
Lies, big lies and huge lies, repeated continuously — the hallmark of progressives and Marxists (redundant, I know).
What kind of tech company?
What does she sell?
your suspicion is well-founded. The Gender Pay Gap is a malicious hoax.
As I sit here in my office, doing two people’s jobs again, because my female co worker called out for the 5 or 6th time this year.
Equal pay for equal work is fine by me. But, back when I was tending bar I was expected to change my own beer kegs, carry my own cases of beer and liquor to restock, and take out my own garbage. The women (usually) had the busboys or bouncers do those tasks.
But when we worked together as a team, I had no problem doing the lugging work while she schmoozed the male customers and increased the take in our tip jar!
It’s my take that women should make as much as a man in any given position, but as you mention, what are the factors that contribute to them making less?
Seniority, job mobility, gaps in their career...
At one point the business that I used to work at lowered the salary for a new single prominent position hires. New hires were hired in at a pay scale less than the long term staff was getting.
IMO, the new hires agreed to the salary they were to be paid, and that was all that needed to be done. After five to seven years, these new hires threw a hissy fit because others holding the same position were being paid more.
In time the older long term staff had to take a significant hit, to quell the dissatisfaction of the shorter term hires. The new hires didn’t get raises. The more long term staff simply had their scale trimmed. Of course this pleased the newer hires. This angered me, and I didn’t hold the same title as this group.
To my way of thinking, if a salary is offered and you accept it, it doesn’t make any difference what other people are making. In time as the old-timers drop off the work rolls, the pay scales will level out.
If the relative new-comers couldn’t be happy with their compensation, they should find a new place to work that pleased them more.
Businesses have to take salaries into consideration. At times of belt-tightening, they have to adjust salaries.
I think adjusting the pay scales down for newcomers is both respectful of the long term employees, and the new employees. Both made agreements when they signed up or over time, that resulted in them being paid what they were.
I wonder if this sort of thing may play into the male/female pay scales at times. Of course this may be deemed illegal in this day and age.
Sometimes rational attempts to protect people’s rights really skew the market-place. Screwing one employee to make another one happy, isn’t my idea of sound policy.
If women really earned 20% less than men for the same job, then employers like me would pay off all of our male employees and only hire women.
Sorry — I meant LAY off all of our male employees. :-P
“a woman has to work more than 15 months to make as much as a man”
Lying with statistics.
Stack overflow had a huge survey of developers. The 4 highest answers were completely reversed Men vs. Women and shows clearly why there is a pay gap and it is their own (Well meaning fault)
| Question | Rank(M) | Males | Females | Rank(F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The compensation and benefits offered | 1 | 19.00% | 14.10% | 4 |
| The languages, frameworks, and other technologies I'd be working with | 2 | 17.60% | 16.40% | 3 |
| Opportunities for professional development | 3 | 15.70% | 16.80% | 2 |
| The office environment or company culture | 4 | 13.50% | 16.90% | 1 |
| The opportunity to work from home/remotely | 5 | 10.30% | 10.20% | 5 |
| The industry that I'd be working in | 6 | 7.30% | 7.30% | 6 |
| How widely used or impactful the product or service I'd be working on is | 7 | 6.60% | 5.40% | 8 |
| The specific department or team I'd be working on | 8 | 5.50% | 5.90% | 7 |
| The financial performance or funding status of the company or organization | 9 | 3.30% | 2.60% | 10 |
| The diversity of the company or organization | 10 | 1.30% | 4.30% | 9 |
I could be misinterpreting this as a social engineering thing and instead it's a reflection that women engineers are the smartest and best managers but I don't see them as better/worse than their male counterparts. They just rise faster and hence make more ... a LOT more.
But the women who prioritize family don't rise because they don't want to. They make less because they are less committed to their careers. Go figure.
ya....they want 3 months paid maternity leave, while their male counterparts pick up the slack, without any change in compensation, and then they expect to return with full credit for time served without having contributed to product output in that period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.