>Tl;dr Women are generally delusional about the way markets work, and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed on the spot. They have virtually no ambition and complain about statistics that they don’t bother to fact-check or try to understand.
I’m a Resident Advisor at my university and a member of the Social and Education Committee and FEA. I graduate in less than a month with two Summa Cum Laude degrees in Economics and Political Science.
Resident Advisors get a stack of fliers every week that we are expected to pin to our bulletin boards for residents to see. I was flipping through my fliers and noticed one titled “Salary Negotiation Workshop”. I was interested and read further. Apparently the entire event was targeted at women. The following are word-for-word quoted items taken from the flier:
>Over the course of her life, a woman earns roughly $1 million less than a man… SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN >Cost: FREE to Female [University] Students
Now I (having taken classes on the economics of education, law, gender segregation, etc.) know that the first assertion is wrong. On my way to the bulletin board, I voice this to a female coworker who agrees with me, but a male who was eavesdropping interrupted us with: “Guys, the gender pay gap is real and seriously cripples our economy!” He keeps going with some other bullshit. I eventually tell him as I step off the elevator: “You’re wrong. I don’t have the time to explain to you why you are wrong, but you are.”
I realize that it isn’t everyone’s fault that they don’t know about gender economics. With Obama and every news outlet in the country spouting the 77% statistic, it’s a wonder anyone knows the truth about gender pay. I decide that, given my soon-to-be credentials and position in my committee and Finance and Economics Association, I could prepare a presentation and lecture to educate people on the issue.
I prepare an event with reputable scholarly articles, references available for fact-checking, and I break down the misconceptions in a reasonable manner—all the while keeping the presentation very pro-women. It addresses the fact that the 77% is a mean-ratio and doesn’t control for education, experience, or even occupation. It addresses that when controlled for this, women actually make about 98% what men make. It also addressed the social reasons why men generally occupy higher paying fields and why this is a problem, and how it can be remedied.
I took the presentation to my committee chair. He told me that it would be inappropriate to contradict the other event since Student Housing already endorsed it. If I was to go forward, I would have to go to the Women’s Resource Center and receive permission, as well as speak to the President of Housing and ask if I can present this controversial material and risk branding the association as prejudiced.
I thought: “Hey, this is okay. If the Women’s Resource Center likes my presentation, they may endorse my event.”
I go to the Women’s Resource Center (WRC). The first thing I address is the cost of their event. Is it free to everybody, or just women? If it’s not free to me, how much does it cost?
>It’s free to everyone, but we are marketing to women. It’s an advertising strategy.
Okay. I tell them my predicament but not that my event might contradict theirs. I ask if they can provide me with the works cited for the information in their lecture so I can add some of it to my own, or avoid sending mixed messages.
>We don’t have that stuff. We get our lectures off a website. They tell us what to say and we ferry it.
Ask if they are giving lectures on information which they haven’t verified as factual. Yep. I ask if they can email the website to me so I can check it out. I ask if they would be interested in an analysis of the pay gap to complement their Salary program. They want to see what I have so far, so I give them a copy and we go over it in person. The woman working with me was visibly upset by every slide in my PowerPoint.
After it’s over:
>I’ll look at some stuff with my coworkers. I don’t understand economics, so I need to verify things. We’ll get back to you. You’re welcome to lecture at your Residence Hall, but not here.
Pretty much know that they will turn me down, but at least I got the go ahead for the original event I had planned. I tell them that I’m still interested in attending their Salary Negotiation event if I’ll be welcome. They’ll see me there.
I get an email from them two days later. The email has the website I asked for: www.wageproject.org
I go to the website to do some fact-hounding. I find absolutely no cited sources. None. They put one link at the bottom of some graphics: “U.S. Census Data on Women’s Wages”. I click on it; it’s a dead link. This site is complete shit. I do find this, though:
>women’s work is consistently paid less than men’s work >Are janitors really worth more than nurses’ aides, parking lot attendants more than child care workers, construction laborers more than bookkeepers and cashiers?
Thinking to myself: >Janitors jobs are paid higher because they are low-prestige, labor-intensive, and downright nasty, and therefore have a lower supply and higher demand for workers; nurses’ aids aren’t even nurses—they do very remedial paperwork and fetching assignments >Parking lot attendants are forced to stand out in whatever weather for hours and have high instances of violent assaults against them; child care workers are paid lower wages because it wouldn’t make sense for anyone to pay more per hour to take care of their child than they would gain working in that time—it is BY DEFINITION a job that MUST pay lower than almost all other jobs >Construction laborers vs. bookkeepers and cashiers? This one has to be a fucking joke… it has to be…
They're not joking. They think people who do less work under less stressful conditions should be paid MORE. This is what my University is TEACHING.
>I spoke with [name] about your presentation and we don’t feel it would be appropriate for our messaging and the audience we try to bring into the WRC. >I understand you plan to attend which is perfectly fine… As we’ll be following a pre-set agenda and tight timeline, we [discourage interjections during the lecture].
To cut down on the length of my posts, she basically told me that my lecture may or may not be accurate, but they don’t want me to give it because it hurts their cause. Whatever. They have contacted my boss to tell him that what I am proposing to teach is detrimental to the Feminist movement and that by disseminating this information to the public, I am increasing gender prejudice. I might get a cease and desist.
Regardless, I go to their event. Not to interrupt or criticize, but to genuinely listen to what they had to say and open my mind to the possibility I might be wrong. Stay quiet. Stay supportive. If I have issues, I’ll address them in private. I was the only man in a room about 50 women.
All in all, it was a good event. There was some legitimately good advice on salary negotiation, and I was generally pleased with how everything turned out, but here are some things that I realized throughout the workshop:
>Everyone introduced themselves with their Name, Majors/Jobs, and “an interesting fact about themselves”; all my what… >When introducing themselves, almost all of them listed their majors as Gender Studies, Sociology, English, or Art >More than half of the “interesting facts about themselves” were in the following three categories: what their husbands did for a living, what was going on in their child’s life, recent engagements or marriages—these women had to think HARD on this, so they literally had nothing good to say about themselves >When talking about budgeting, every single woman in the room (not exaggerating) factored in entertainment and vacation into their monthly budgets (which would be used to justify higher wages)—this was not even a thought in my mind and I was genuinely surprised by this; I always thought that entertainment and vacation were things that you did with the EXTRA money you had after the budget was figured >Many women were in agreement that they should negotiate for longer paid vacation time or sick days before hearing benefits or GETTING OFFERED THE JOB
I have no idea if women can ever be saved in our economy. They fuck themselves in the face and then blame men for all work-related problems. Some even had the audacity to say that men got better benefits than women.
I don’t know what to do after this, but I am going to give my fucking presentation regardless of what my boss tells me. I’ll only work there for less than a month more anyway.
>Equal pay for equal work is required by law under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 >Sex-based wage discrimination is banned under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
So, one would imagine that lawyers would be banking off of class action law suits if the gender-gap is as pervasive as some claim it to be.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972”. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1972. <http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eeo_1972.html> U.S. House. 88th Congress. “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1963. <http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm> U.S. House. 88th Congress. H.R. 7152. “Civil Rights Act of 1964”. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1964. <http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm>
>>541787878 The fact of the matter is, that women being paid near equal wages to men, they are just less prevalent in higher paying jobs.
The 75% was first proposed in a study called "Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being". The statistic was retrieved by taking the average salary of all women in the country and dividing it by the average salary of all men in the country.
Now, in 2014, the same study tells us that the gap is actually closer to 82%.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (March 2011) “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being”. White House Council on Women and Girls <www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/Women_in_America.pdf>
A study by June and David O’Neil controlled for these components in a study published in 2012 and found that the actual percentage was closer to 98%.
This is probably one of the most scrutinized studies in recent history, but has been confirmed by virtually every PhD economist in the country and multiple economists have conducted their own studies and found similar results.
So, now, it seems more reasonable: >Women in a job will make the same as men in the same job >Women with the certain credentials and education will make the same as men with those same credentials >Women who have worked X years will make the same as men who have worked X years
O'Neill, June, and David M. O'Neill. The Declining Importance of Race and Gender in the Labor Market: The Role of Employment Discrimination Policies. Washington, D.C.: AEI, 2012. Print.
>>541789160 Starting with the fact that they're simply not qualified, for example. If I had a company (and I will soon), I would move away from a country that forces me to hire women. You can't run a company like that.
>>541788960 >Finding the average earnings yields the following for both men and women: >Men = 10(50) + 5(10) = $550/hour >Women = 5(50) + 10(10) = $350/hour You kinda messed up there... That's not the average, that's the total per gender. Your point is still valid, because, dividing by 15 wouldnt affect the percent, just noting so you dont get femiazis thinking you're a dumbass from one messup.
>>541789340 >How exactly did this 75% stat materialize?
Women in America is skewed because a larger amount of men are in higher paying jobs than women...
>Is this because of gender segregation and discrimination in hiring policy? >Is it because of cultural norms such as ‘stay-at home moms’ and ‘head of the household husbands’?
Absolutely. We have developed a culture in which men are less likely to hire women because of many stigmas, some of which are unfair and even inaccurate. For instance, pregnancy leave being accounted for in hiring policies when the woman in question has no desire to have children. But as I will cover in a moment, these are mostly social issues that cannot be accounted for by regulation and legislation.
So, what else?
>One of the biggest factors in where workers end up is worker choice
>>541789968 The following is the biggest hang up of my presentation:
Reasons regarding individual choice that contribute to the fact that men dominate higher paying positions:
>Women are more likely to value personal safety over income, and therefore take less dangerous jobs which pay less
The top 10 most dangerous jobs in the country are dominated by men, and in 2009, 92.6% of work-related fatalities were men.
Greenhouse, Steven. Aug 2010. The Most Dangerous Jobs in America. The New York Times. <http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=2>
I will admit. Some of my sources beyond this point are a little sketchy. Some are legit though. I'm still tracking down better sources. I have to go through a lot of journals and articles I read in my Economies of Poverty and Discrimination class I took two years ago to find more concrete evidence. But it's there, I assure you.
Upper management and executives are overwhelmingly male.
In the consulting company I once worked at, I saw skilled women paid less because of the false perception that women aren't as technical. They had to fight to get any sort of equality with males, who had to do nothing but show up.
>Women, as a matter of subject preference, choose lower paying fields of study than men
7% of female professionals have degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics fields, as opposed to 38% of male graduates. Women are far more likely to study education, liberal arts, and social science occupations by choice.
This comes straight out of "Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being", the study responsible for the 75% stat.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (March 2011) “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being”. White House Council on Women and Girls <www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/Women_in_America.pdf>
>>541790790 Controlled for credentials, they do. Dangerous jobs that do not require a degree are higher paying than safe jobs that do not require a degree.
>>541790569 That was just my surface thought when reading it. Regardless, parking jobs pay higher because of demand. The amount of people who need parking in urban areas is greater than the amount of parents that need child care. Everyone has a car, about half have kids.
>>541790790 >Upper management and executives are overwhelmingly male. Because the only way females can manage any company or country, or family, or relationship, is to burn all resources and live in their own dirt, crying about how it's everyone else's fault.
Just look at Merkel. She burnt trillions of euros that not even our kids have earned yet, to "save the economy".
Anon you wonderful son of a bitch, please do a study on why it's a terrible idea to rush women into combat arms MOS in the armed service before they are ready to adhere to the standards already set. They have slowly been degrading how tough combat training is to incorporate women. War is the last place you want to do this, because war isn't politically correct. The next war we get into we're going to see a lot of dead women on the battlefield and a lot of feminazis trying to lobby against enemy forces for 'sexism in a warzone".
According to studies conducted by CBS News (I know; fuck the source--I'm not even going to post the link because I know it's bullshit, but the results are dangerously intuitive):
>Women prefer jobs in pleasant locations and are less likely to be comfortable with relocation for work
Jobs which require relocation and travel (or jobs in dangerous, dirty, uncomfortable, or isolated places) tend to pay higher because of a shortage in labor and compensation for travel and living expenses.
>Women, on average, have shorter work weeks by about 6 hours (15%)
>Men work more night shifts and weekends
>Women choose lower stress jobs within the same career fields
For example, men in the medical profession gravitate toward surgery while women gravitate toward pediatrics.
Feel free to ignore this entire portion of my presentation. I plan on making it perfectly clear from the beginning of the lecture that my information IS subject to criticism, and I encourage my audience to do so.
>>541789371 I run a company. It's small, 24 people. Of those, 5(including myself) are men. They make more on average then we do. Because the other 4 men do less work then all the women but 2, and I don't pay myself anymore then I need to be able to reinvest. Women are just as qualified as men are. They just might not have the same qualifications. But not all men have the same qualifications either. In my situation, more women intervened for jobs with the required qualifications then men did. And for the record, while I've had a few issues with people not getting along, that's common among all businesses.
>>541792547 >Women are just as qualified as men are. They just might not have the same qualifications. This actually makes sense in your shitbrain, doesn't it? You blabla'd a lot but you said nothing, like I am used to, from cunts.
>Women CEOs or women who own their own businesses make less than half what male business owners do
This can be accounted for in three ways: >Women's businesses are just generally less successful because of structure or the product/services they provide >Mass discrimination against female owned businesses > Different priorities
The Rochester Institute of Technology finds that money is the primary motivator for 29% of women versus only 76% of men.
According to career coach, Marty Nemko: Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety
DeMartino, Richard & Barbato, Robert. July, 2002. Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs: exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators. Journal of Business Venturing, Rochester Institute of Technology. <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.318.1347&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
Nemko, Marty. 2013. The Real Reason So Few Women Are in the Boardroom. San Francisco, Bay Guardian. <http://www.martynemko.com/articles/real-reason-so-few-women-are-in-boardroom_id1225>
>>541792839 >The Rochester Institute of Technology finds that money is the primary motivator for 29% of women versus only 76% of men. Good sir, your numbers may be right, but I think you should do a read through oof your whole presentation... >for 29% of women versus only 76% of men. >only 76% of men You keep fuckking up your wording, anon.
>>541789068 This is pitifully true. As someone who attends a super prestigious liberal arts college, I know how impossible it must be to organize an event that portrays women as anything that doesn't glorify them or pose them as victims of society. Any negative light shined on the objective "woman" is immediately declared sexist, while the objective "man" is defined by only negatively. There's no way to have a decent, well-natured argument about gender roles with anyone on this campus unless it frames women as the underdog victims of a patriarchal society. I can't even argue with the MEN on this campus, most of them are just as radically feminist as the women are. Hilarious arguments I've heard from guys I've discussed gender issues with on this campus include: >Misandry is impossible and doesn't exist. Not even talking about it in a societal sense, he was seriously arguing that it was impossible for a woman to hate a man in the same way as a man could hate a woman. >Female privilege is a patriarchal construction created by MRAs and is completely nonexistent whatsoever. As in, women don't have any privileges in society that men lack. (Then again, this guy is literally the most radical feminist I've ever met. He even refuses to masturbate to the thought of a woman because it objectifies them.) The best discussion I've ever had on campus was with one girl while I was waiting in line to order food. She said that she loved being a woman and wouldn't want it any other way, she can get away with whatever she wants because she is, by default, the victim of everything that happens to her. I don't believe that women are "inferior" to men in any sense other than their general lack of physical strength. I see no correlation between intelligence and gender, I've met just as many stupid women as I have stupid men. However, it's my belief that while men evolved to get their way through physical strength, women learned to get their way through emotional manipulation.
77%-- the two best ways to close this gap is to either implement policies which ensure women make more money than men for equal work so it all averages out, or to rob women of their freedom in the economy and employ them in jobs against their own preferences
98%--this gap is truly the result of discrimination in the marketplace and needs to be addressed, but not through legislation. This is a larger difference than people think.
In a year, the average person makes about $40,000. A 2% gap means a disparity of $800 a year. In a lifetime, that may mount to more than $40,000. This is the problem we should be looking at. The figures certainly do not indicate a $1,000,000 disparity, though.
>>541793250 Thanks. Sounds really condescending and sarcastic when I read it aloud.
>>541793493 Now that it isn't nearly as easy to get your way through brute force alone, women have the upper hand since their manipulative abilities have remained just as efficient, if not even more so. Therefore, woman has constructed the ultimate societal image for herself and has thrust it into the mainstream: she now has the equality she has always wanted, and is still able to play the victim in every situation. Denying her victim status is social suicide, so she is free to do as she pleases.
To ensure that everybody, regardless of sex, is treated fairly, it is important that everyone understand gender economics to some extent.
Misinterpreting the gender gap can be dangerous for several reasons: >Discouragement--It is important for girls to feel that they are valued equally, or they can incorrectly assume that they are somehow worse than men >Resentment--Women who believe they are disparaged become militant toward men, and men become militant in response >Alienation and Segregation--Wage gap beliefs can cause people to go at it alone and distrust the system, or create pack mentalities where women separate themselves from men >The pursuit of policies which remedy a non-existent problem can create market failures and inefficiencies or a reversal of the problem
>>541793468 I run a Music School. The men teach guitar, and higher levels of piano. The women teach lower piano, voice, musical theater, dance and run the daycare for siblings.
And that's the point I was trying to make. Just because there are less women with X qualifications then men doesn't mean X qualification is less valuable then Y. They are both needed. And there are many jobs where I'd rather hire a woman then a man with the same qualifications. An example being the child care, parents feel safer with 20 year old girls looking after their child then the 40 year old man teaching guitar in the next room.
And I prefer looking at 20 year old girls bent over all day chasing little ones around, rather then 40 year old men.
According to a study by Conor Dougherty: >Single, childless women ages 22-30 were earning 8% more than men on average >In Atlanta, women earned 21% higher than their male counterparts
Warren Farrell, three-time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women New York City showed in his book “Why Men Earn More”: >In occupations requiring bachelor's degrees women's starting salaries exceed men's >Female bankers and dieticians earn 16-30% more than men in the same profession
The Monthly Labor Review reports a widening gap in education: >Women have begun to significantly outnumber men in college >The split of college graduates is roughly 60% women, 40% men >This gap is likely to widen as affirmative action for women becomes more pervasive
Dougherty, Conor. Sep 2010. Young Women’s Pay Exceeds Male Peers’. The Wall Street Journal. <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html> Farrell, Warren. Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth behind the Pay Gap--and What Women Can Do about It. New York: AMACOM, 2005. Print. Spreen, Thomas Luke. Feb 2013. Recent college graduates in the U.S. Labor force: data from the Current Population Survey. Monthly Labor Review, School of Public and Environmental Affairs. <http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/02/art1full.pdf>
>>541794156 A report prepared specifically for the U.S. Department of Labor and the Employment Standards Administration stated the following:
"This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action... The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.“
If this is the case, the persistent wage gap may be an entirely social phenomenon.
CONSAD Research Corporation. Jan 2009. An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration. <http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf>
And I basically end on: "We have the propensity for great love among us. Social fissures can be closed, wounds bound, but not by the persecution of one another or the elevation of one over the other. Cooperation is the most fundamental part of who we are; let us embrace it."
>>541789160 That's bullshit, I happen to have known an executive for my entire life (family member) and that isn't how it happens. They hire the best person for the job, it's as simple as that. They are in the business of making money, so if a man and a woman came along, and the man was less qualified than the woman, they would hire the woman.
>>541793975 I see, everyone was just assuming you're a dumb cunt, because you're not spectacular at articulation.
I get ya bro, you're not a dumbass. I figure what you're saying is very apparent, women have a sort of emotional affinity to deal with children, and generally, they're better at singing from the start because a woman's voice has a greater affect on men, and women alike.
tl;dr Bitches be good at emotions. Men be good at logic and strength.
male: made over 110k , health insurance, 50% Off all merchandise, free transportation paid by employer , bought a new apartment , laughed at me when I had to buy a small soup because I couldn't afford it.
me: $25 an hour doing his job - doing his job and setting up emails while he slept at his desk
I am still doing this job. I haven't received a raise in two years. It doesn't fucking matter anymore because it will be over in June. I don't hate him, I hate the company that makes me work like a goddamn slave. I will now have to cough up over $300 to pay for healthcare. My wallet will be officially closed next month. I will not be purchasing anything. Fuck you economy.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.