Not bait, genuinely looking to hold a discussion about this issue

the studies where they found the 79C myth did not incorperate things like overtime into it, where a men are significantly more likley to put in overtime when women arent

>>722890145
If a women and a man have 100 pieces of paperwork they need to work on and sign.The man does all 100 in one day, the women takes 3 days to do 75.
Who is the better valued worker? The man.
Women do less work then men do in the professional world. Men are executives and women are secretaries,because they decided that amount of work was acceptable to them,so of course they are going to get paid less

You want EQUITY not EQUALITY.

File: 1453575265763.jpg (257KB, 816x1056px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 816x1056px

>>722890145

>>722890370
CLEARLY did not read everything I said. Please re-read and re-evaluate your comment.

File: 1453172066798.jpg (78KB, 788x960px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 788x960px

>>722890409

File: 1453503636023.jpg (57KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 540x960px

>>722890501

>>722890145
if women did the same work for less pay why would men even be allowed to work?

In the winter, how many women are out front shoveling snow?

In the summer, how many women are out in the yard, mowing grass?

Equal pay for equal work.

File: 1453575520800.png (126KB, 1257x1774px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1257x1774px

>>722890556

>>722890145
The only time Ive seen a pay gap is where wages are negotiated.
Women are less likely to ask for a raise/not as strong negotiators or choose a more flexible work roster in lieu of a pay cut.
Men are more likely to put the hours in and rarely take a sick day - and are paid accordingly.

>>722890409
Of course men spend more time at work, women have to take a year off to push us out of their vaginas you dumb fuck. That would take the average down a LOT.

>>722890478
It's women who hold other women down on the workplace.

I work in an office which is 90% women, you should hear how they talk about eachother and conspire against eachother.

Dudes, generally, do not do this. We go to work and get shit done.

If you actually have any proof of systemic sexism resulting in low pay for women, as opposed to women simply picking low paid or part time jobs, pls show.

>>722890145
>Here to state, not to debate :-)
Then you agree your argument doesn't have enough merit to stand up to criticism on it's own, and is without value. Have a nice day.

>>722890849
Maternity leave not factored in

>>722890758
Wow, thanks for proving my point...
'women are not as strong negotiators' and apparently they are more likely to take sick days off? This is society's way of engendering false ideas and concepts into our brains. You have no proof of this shit!

>>722890849
No one says women have to have kids. Starting a family is a choice, and in an overpopulated world it is a selfish choice.

I'm sure there are plenty of men who would jump at the chance to be a stay at home dad.

>>722890972
No, in fact I believe my argument has so much merit that it cannot be argued against. Trying to do so is wasting your time. As you can see im pwning these faggots who try to do so.

>>722890993
you have no proof of it not happening.

>>722890145
It baffles me that people don't understand that WOMEN GET PREGNANT! They then CHOOSE easier jobs (if any) to raise their kids. This is not rocket science, it's basic biology.

>>722890145
"Not bait, genuinely looking to hold a discussion about this issue
...
Here to state, not to debate :-)"

Now thats just bad form

>>722890993
Eh, it's only anecdotal evidence, but i've personally found women are terrible at negotiating pay.

I've been involved in more pay reviews than i can remember, and women tend to sit there expecting you to just give them a raise without asking, whereas men typicall state what they want and why they deserve it.

Men make more money, not because of high-paying white color jobs like CEO's and shit, but because of the middle-of-the-road, blue-collar jobs. Guy on a construction crew, doing shit nigger work, will probably make 30k-40k in a year. No job experience or college necessary. Couple of years, they might want him to run loader or dozer, and he'll be making 50k-60k a year. A few years doing that, and maybe they move him into a supervisor position, or training new hires.

Or, maybe he gets into the skilled trades, like electrician. Goes to school for two years, and he's an apprentice. A couple years later, he's a journeyman. If he really knows his shit, he can become a master, and set up his own shop, or get hired to do nothing, just because he's a master. (A lot of states require electrical contractors to have a master on staff, so they'll put one on the payroll, but he does fuck-all.)

Women will not do jobs like that. They just won't. They'll either work for barely above minimum jobs like waitress or receptionist, or they think they need to be the boss at whatever job they have. When the find out they can't get a leadership position on their pussy alone, they'll fucking quit.

And don't say that manual labor jobs won't hire women, because they fucking will. They'll give anyone a shot. Just show up and do your work, that's what they are looking for.

Spending gap.

The wage gap is a myth.

Say I was a company manager and I discover that I can pay women for 21 cents less than men for the same quality of work. I'd sure as hell hire a full female workforce and save a bunch. But that doesn't happen because people are paid for what they bring to the company and their quality of work, which is clearly the dividing factor.

>>722891087
Holy shit the amount of ignorance in this reply is too much, is this bait??
1)'No one says women have to have kids' - society builds into our heads that the routine way of doing things is settling down with a woman and starting a family. society says women have to have kids; otherwise they don't live up to their maternal expectations. you don't agree with society's bs? good, neither do i, but instead of slurring ignorant shit on 4chan maybe you could be a little bit more like me and actually try and do something about it.

2)'Starting a family...is a selfish choice' - How fucking dare you son. Did you really have that bad of an upbringing that, in your tainted eyes, starting a family is a negative thing? Many people LONG to start a family, to see the joy of their little ones running around the house. This comment is wayyyy past ignorance to women. It's ignorance in general.

>>722891316
Can't you see that the oppression is in the fact that employers are paying less in industries that women prefer?

>>722891135
Because it's a completely subjective comment!! It CANNOT be proved by factual means. SOCIETY (phew, im typing that world a lot tonight..) has moulded into your brain the idea that such subjective beliefs are in fact true. Don't you realise this? I didn't at first. All you need to do is look in your pants and see the privilege.

>>722891174
Does discussion=debate in your mind? Oh dear, educate yourself. *throws dictionary*

>>722891355
No, you're wrong. They don't hire women because they perceive them as worth less than men, even with the advantage of lower pay. Society has taught us to devalue women, even below what they earn now which is why they don't hire them. It's literally oppression.

>>722891737
THISSSSS

I can't believe it's 2017 and people still can't see the white male supremacy in our society.

Not bait, genuinely looking to hold a discussion about this issue
I used to think the whole wage gap thing was just a bullshit myth, but it's really got me thinking the past month..
In an equal world, shouldn't McDonalds workers and movie stars be paid the exact same on average?

>>722891582
>SOCIETY has moulded into your brain the idea that such subjective beliefs are in fact true.
Where's your proof for this comment then?

File: dimorphism.jpg (27KB, 330x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 330x400px

obviously females will make less than males because we are not the fucking same. women are mostly for children + less intensive labour, men are mostly for hunting, warfare, and more physical/skilled labour.

>also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of taxes are payed by men and the vast majority of public (men's) $$$ go to women

File: Giger Hind.jpg (110KB, 800x529px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x529px

>>722890145
>In an equal world, shouldn't men and women be paid the exact same on average?
The answer is no, you get paid according to the quality and risk of your work. This thread is now about kickass helicopters.

>>722890145
a companies bottom line is profits, if they could pay women to do the same work a man could for less, they absolutely would fucking do it. There would be no point in hiring a man at all if that were true

>>722891966
I think McDonalds workers should actually be paid more then movie stars since they're actually helping with world hunger.

>>722890145
>asks for a discussion on the subject at the start of its post
>by the end it's already decided it's write and everyone else is wrong
Kill yourself faggot

>>722891966
op here, was this supposed to poke fun at me? i don't get it

>>722891966
>In an equal world, shouldn't McDonalds workers and movie stars be paid the exact same on average?
governments can only set minimum pay
exactly how much one gets paid depends on the employer

>>722892071
That's really oppressive. Obviously women can't do well in those fields when they're constantly bombarded with hateful comments about how inferior they are to MEN.

>>722890145
The US isn't as great as they tell you. There are several other countries that are much better to be a woman in if not a citizen in general.

>>722892093
Society has taught us to perceive that they can't do as good a job.

>>722890849
Choosing pregnancy over work is a personal choice. It is not mandatory for any person to have kids.

>>722892416
Society should help pay for it since if women don't do it society disappears.

>>722890145
Women can obviously be the main money maker with the father looking after the children you fucking dolt.
It's just that on average more women WANT to stay home and look after their children.
No one is forcing them to do this. They are making their own CHOICE.

File: IMG_8485.jpg (135KB, 749x906px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 749x906px

A little old but it's not like much has changed on the matter

>>722892513
:-) now there's some facts

>>722892483
This
The US is one of only three countries that don't have paid maternity

>>722892324
And some women in the workforce prove that they can't do as good a job, so they get paid less. They ones that do a good job get paid well.

>>722890145
>Women are at a disadvantage going into the world of work, and world all together
Proof?
>Shouldn't men and women be paid the exact same on average?
Averages are shit. Yes if 10 women work as secretary's and 10 men work as doctors than we should average their pay and pay them equally. Makes sense.
>Natural privilege as a white male
Fuck off faggot and get a clue. Either a shill, troll or living off daddies money. Anyone who says white privilege is a thing should never be allowed to vote or speak in public.
>Here to state, not to debate
>Genuinely looking to hold a discussion
Yeah fuck off cunt

>Bonus
>In an equal world
Kek try the next one

>>722892684
So you're admitting that women can do a good job. SO they should be paid as well, if not BETTER than men.

>>722892684
The comparison is for a man and a woman doing the same fucking job. If you feel you're doing more work than your coworker at the same paygrade you go demand a promotion or bitch to the boss but it's wrong to pay women less based on gender alone.

>>722892483
>planet suffering overpopulation
>"b-but guys. My wife needs to have her boyfriends kid."
>"o-or else life will just stop. The world when end unless every women has a child. Over 7 billion people isn't enough."
Seriously, 6/10 b8
It's shit but I'm obviously replying

File: 1485314601861.png (247KB, 750x671px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 750x671px

>>722890145
It doesn't exist tho. As a company who would hire men if they're more expensive than women? They want profit and not gender.

You still need to prove that there is societal pressure and that it has a real effect on people's choices.

How do you explain that in less free countries (indonesia for example), more women go into STEM, but in western countries where they are freer to chose, they are less likely to do so?

>>722892608
Anon the planet is overpopulated. No one can justify having children aside from selfish reasons. Society should not be forced to financially support one person's selfish choice.

>>722892238
What is... biology for 500?

>>722890145
>Not bait
>discussion
>white male natural privelage
>patriarchy
Yes of course. No bait.
SAGE

>>722893260
I'm not talking about solving overpopulation. I agree it's a problem but threating women with the lack of money or job as a consequence for a kid is dumb af. I'm simply talking about basic human rights that most of the other world has yet is missing in the land of the free

>>722890145
If you work less hours, you get less money. How is that so difficult for some people to accept. Your infographic is wrong btw. It doesn't even take into account hours worked. That's the single biggest (of many) flaws in this statistic.

File: japans-age-distribution.png (239KB, 873x410px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 873x410px

>>722893260
If you don't want people to keep breeding you better also help kill off the elderly. This graph is the biggest danger to society, period.

>>722892513
The HUFFpost is a shit site. One of the most biased of all "news" outlets.

File: Bait_a628eb_5907668.jpg (28KB, 900x495px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 900x495px

>>722890145

>>722893581
It also doesn't take into account the job itself. They literally just took the average of all of men's earnings against all of women's earnings.

>>722893019
But they don't get payed less based on gender....

If a male and women did the same work but you could pay the women less, a company would hire all women and save money.

>>722893785
And then they would be thrown in jail because it's illegal. How can there be institutional oppression if the institution literally defines it as being illegal to be oppressive?

>>722893573
Anon, you are brain damaged and I'm done trying to educate you.
>>722893591
Same with you anon, your brain is mush. Good luck you special snowflakes.

File: cb-yellow.jpg (81KB, 700x452px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 700x452px

If this were true wouldn't all company's hire women exclusively to cut costs by 20%?

This is just another liberal myth that panders to people who need to feel better about themselves. There are so many initiatives, scholarships and HR resources dedicated to promoting minorities and women in education and work. I work for one of the world's biggest IT consultancies and I see it all the time. Then when they still manage to underperform relative to men/whites/whoever the political left come to the rescue to reassure them "it's not your fault for failing, it's the other people's fault for doing better than you!". Then of course they all line up to vote for the party that'll absolve them of all personal responsibility

>>722894098
Society wants to oppress women so badly that they're willing to take a financial hit just to satisfy their ideology. We might as well be ruled by Hitler.

>>722890145
>Here to state, not to debate :-)
you're a fucking retard

>>722894188
>world's biggest IT consultancies
you're a fuckin recruiter, you have no knowledge of anything, at all.

>>722893943
Because its not true. The people going on about the wage gap are the same type of people that find reasons why they are the victim and won't admit there own faults.

>>722893091
Sweet graph bro, you make it in mspaint?

>>722894337
Actually I'm a senior software engineer for mostly large enterprise systems. I don't know where recruiter comes into it - what do you think a consultancy is?

>>722890375
>the women takes 3 days to do 75.
and then takes 6 months maternity leave

>>722894612
And then hands her notice in at the end

>>722894403

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=620116007095114074109071072070127067035074090016037034077026126100120005078005086068098110016004116055039007021127029099001076098025029084039108021085026006018096005044018087004011120088026099068087109015120103027066067126025121103115069070075087125&EXT=pdf

>>722890145
Very simple answer
More men have jobs than women, and women's jobs are generally in healthcare, retail, or human resources, none of which pay very well.

>>722894464
Yeah, I'm also an engineer. I use to work for a big tech firm. We were literally told, "If she's even somewhat passable, hire her." i.e. if a guy with the same skills came in, he would be rejected.

>>722894337
kek, thinking all consultancies are recruitment consultants.

how's working in starbucks treatin ya?

>>722895115
Same story here. I actually got one of my ex-gf's a job there because of how easy it was (she had no real relevant experience). I asked a guy I was friendly with in HR to watch out for her application and let me know how she gets on. He basically told me not to worry to much, being a girl she's extremely likely to get the job. She ended up quitting after about 6 months because she couldn't hack it.

>>722895402
Yep it's sad. These are six figure jobs. We have given them to under qualified foreign women over equally qualified American men.

Not that I have anything against foreigners, but really we should invest in Americans first.

Ugh, and I can't say that without sounding racist.

File: screen shot 2015-06-15 at 11.28.56 am.png (330KB, 849x466px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 849x466px

You people are talking about a gender wage gap, when there's this?

>>722890145
Men generally tend to take more high risk, higher intensity work than women, who tend towards more social based employment. The male dominated jobs are paid more because generally they produce more profit - building infrastructure, running companies, producing products etc., verses female dominated caring jobs such as teaching, nursing etc. Where less profit is created and the job is less dangerous, less overtime, etc.
You will also find that a vast number of women when they get into their 30s scale back their work to care for children, whilst their husbands step up their workload to compensate for the reduced wages of the wife, and to provide for the children financially. The reason why it is not generally done the other way around is biological - the mother has the babies feeding mechanism literally stuck to her chest. The father does not, so she stays with the baby as she can naturally feed it. This makes her the more logical choice for the babies primary caregiver and the fathers role naturally becomes providing income for the both of them. This is supported by The fact that the wage gap is actually reversed until you hit 30 years of age (women outearn men up to this point) and there is a sudden jump in females reducing hours and taking up part time work, and males increasing overtime work, creating the so called "wage gap".

Think about it. Wherever you work, wages are most likely calculated threugh pay grades - a system that revolves around experience, time at the company, and work responsibilities. None of those are gendered.

>>722891577
That's not how that works. An employer deems <x> task worth <y> per hour. That's determined in part by supply and demand, not "employers are sexist". If there's less demand, the need to supply is lower, therefore the amount that's worth to the employer is less.

OP here
You all fell for the bait

File: 1390749239923.jpg (125KB, 500x580px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 500x580px

>>722890145
After all is said and done, one thing you've got to give the USA is that there's a very free and (economically) liberal job market, with all the benefits of unobstructed competition - even if a recruiter was biased against women, he'd be the one that suffered in the end. Not everything he said held true in these past decades, but Milton Friedman has done a great talk on this topic, look for it on YouTube.

Basically it's this: if a woman is as good at a particular job as a man, but the company favors the man, for sexist reasons, the woman could still offer to work for a little less. Now the company either accepts that, leaving the man without a job(i.e. shifting the net employment and/or wage balance towards woman), or they don't and therefore will have to pay the higher wage to the man. If they maintain this kind of sexist policy, they will be in a position of disadvantage against those companies, that don't discriminate based on sex or even race, sexuality, religion, etc. for that matter - in the long run the 'sexist pig' companies will suffer economically.

In the end those companies that hire only based on work performance will prevail, as they constantly maintain an edge over their 'asshole' competition.

Now does sexism at the workplace exist? Sure. Let's put it into perspective though: When it comes to workplace nastiness, it is only a competitive means; men will be nasty towards their male and female coworkers. It's serves the purpose of undermining their peers and getting that sweet promition.
They'll simply use a different rhetoric, based on who they're talking to. Men generally have other insecurities and weak spots than women - both suffer equally.

That is not to say that this shit should be condoned, I'm just describing the realities at the workplace.

File: 4L_H9LCwL1V.png (3KB, 698x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 698x1284px

>>722896953
Ok.

>>722890145
Work job, we have a payscale - everyone at that seniority gets paid the same for the job rate.

No wage gap - unless they work more or fewer hours.

Libcucks BTFO

>>722890145
>>722897003

Also, OP, let me add that you're commiting a grave mistake:
>Pay is based on value

Pay is based on perceived and negiotated value. If the company perceives the woman's work as more valuable than her male counterpart's, they'll hire her and pay enough so she will stay with the company.

Our (semi-)free market is far from perfect, but one thing it does beatifully, is treat work as it treats commodities or services. What you earn is based on how strong the arguments are, that you bring to the negotiation table.

>>722890145
The wage gap is a straight up lie.
Canada did a study that looked at differences in work habits, ect. between men and women and decreased that "wage gap" to 0.11 from 0.21. I think the study insinuated that men stay with a job longer to account for that extra dime.

>>722890145
Women don't want to be paid the same for the same work, they want to be paid more for less work. That's how Feminism works, it's not about equality, it's about being "more equal" than everybody else. The bullshit myth of the pay gap is thusly explained: Men are just better at negotiating raises and higher salaries. In general women work in fields that pay less, and are less aggressive with work in general. women are also more likely to stay home and give birth to/raise children. I don't understand what difficulties you people have with this concept. It's not legal to pay women less than men simply because they are women. Doesn't mean that you can't have 2 workers working the same job earning different amounts of money though. Employers like it when people put in extra work/perform their duties above expectations, and will often reward them for doing so.

>>722890145
Divide something in two groups and group A will always get paid more than group B
That's how you get shit like "people above 5'10 get paid more "

>>722890145
You're essentially saying that every employee from every aspect of the workforce should receive the same pay, regardless of the skill, experience and knowledge required to accomplish the different job tasks.

You're advocating communism, since you believe a high school drop out working at Starbucks should get paid the same as a doctor who studied hard in grade school and spent 8 years afterwards learning to become a physician.

>>722890145
Shit bait.

>>722890145
this IS a myth you dipshit, nowhere does any woman in the US make less for doing the same damn job.

>>722890478
>OP said not looking for a fight
>Responds in an arrogant and hateful way
>OP is probably not a bitch Feminist or a cuck

File: FB_IMG_1486794248466.jpg (81KB, 720x768px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 720x768px

Pic related

>>722890556
damn I'd fuck that horse

>>722898798
this.

also works by population density. if we went to an area with less blacks than whites and took a survey, it would say that "blacks make less than whites". its all about manipulating data to say what you want it to.

>>722890145
>Here to state, not to debate :-)
Oh fuck off.

Hey OP, do you realize that everyone here (even you) are not debating the topic, wage gap, referring to the PAYMENT, which is equal for both women and men... What gender studies OP here doesn't get is the fact that the study accounts for ALL WORK AVERAGING, meaning even CEO ARE WORKERS AND GET PAIDS! Therefor OP is an idiot who gets their NEW from leftist media. Please consider using your roof instead of living under it, aka, kill yourself.

The wage gap is a myth because all it does is total compensation. Hour by hour there's no wage gap. The fact is men WORK MORE HOURS and therefore make more money.

>>722890145
have we ever seen two pay checks with the same salary, same hours from a man and a woman before?

>>722891462
However:

1) It *is* a choce. You have said nothing to refute this.

2) It is also a *selfish* choice. Again, you have said nothing to refute this.

"Society makes us." and "People *want* to make these choices." are not compelling arguments. Nobody *forces* anyone to do anything, so it's intellectually dishonest to relieve half of the world's population from their frredom to choose. Likewise, wanting to make a choice, no matter he cost to you or the costs to others, is the sine qua non of selfishness.

I know you were probablytrolling or being sarcastic, but you were also being retarded...and I had to call you out on it.

>>722899639

also I believe the wage gap is fake AND trump is a faggot Russian dick sucker so this is not a republican vs. democrat issue. no politician can actually force companies to pay certain wages (any more than minimum wage) so it's all pandering

>>722890375
>You want EQUITY not EQUALITY.

yes.

women have the wombs. it's a simple fact that things can't be a mirror equal.

>>722899824
This. Also if you want to close wage gap, change majors from Feminist Dance Therapy to Electrical Engineering.

>>722892075
https://okaydick.com/penis-enlargement-videos/helicopter-shake-video

>>722890145
dumb
women "on average" make less because more women stay at home or work part time jobs then men, who support the family.
If the riches people in the world are men, that throws off the whole average

Next tiem you post something, post actual evidence or a credible referance. A dumbass picture isnt worth a thousand shits

>>722890145
>In an equal world, shouldn't men and women be paid the exact same on average?

shouldn't men technically earn more since they're physically larger than women and need to consume more energy to sustain their bodies?

>>722900620
How much do you think the energy our bodies consume is worth? You must be underage.

>>722890145
Ok, the wage gap is real, but it's not an intentional thing. It's a statistical average. More men do physical jobs than women and these jobs usually have higher starting pay. On average, men work more hours per day than women, which puts them in a position to get raises faster than women. Men take less time off work, which again puts them ahead of women when it comes to getting raises. Now, this is not all men, nor is it all women. This is just the average. Also, there are many many more women than men in the customer service field. These women are paid minimum wage and they don't get raises, The funny thing about that is they get more money than men on average but gratuity is not factored into the wage gap. It's all averages. There is no intent behind it. The wage gap is just how things end up.

>>722900787

from a quick search for an average
$200 - $300 per month for 1 person
http://www.studyincanada.com/AboutCanada/Index.aspx

and another search on the average energy intake
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_patterns/EstimatedCalorieNeedsPerDayTable.pdf
about 15% more for men

so about 30$-45$ more for men per month

>>722890145
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM

/thread

>>722890145
You're talking about equality of outcome, which is the basis for things like 'Affirmative Action'. It's a bad policy. Using education and affirmative outcome as an example:

Premise: maybe black people are subject to systematic racism and thats why they don't score as high or do well in school.

>If you make a colorblind standard (3.9 GPA required to get into this college), blacks do not meet the requirements as often as other races, thus less blacks can get into that college
>This must be racist. Less blacks being allowed in means racism is happening somewhere
>Lets lower the standards for black people since they arent as smart so that we have the same amount of black and white people in the schools. White people need a 3.9, Black people need a 3.6. Also, asians are too smart so they need a 4.1.
>This is now not racist because the populations of minorities in college are balancing out.

Same goes for jobs. I worked for the US department of Defense for 3 years and if you were a veteran, disabled, a women or a minority you got preference over other applicants who were as qualified or slightly more qualified then you. You see two applications that pretty similar, one is from a black man, the other is from a white man, we are supposed to hire the black man. Fuck this society. From an American btw

>>722901568
More or less agreed. What this system really does is reinforce the very qualities you're trying to balance out. For example, blacks with lower GPA's get in and suddenly can't compete with everyone else who is less qualified. Holding asians to a higher standard means that the asians who do get in are intellectual monsters, far and away better than anyone else on campus. White sit right in the middle unaffected while the rest of the world is measured on a scale built entirely around them. Liberals and the schools themselves will tell you this is fair and entirely non-racist.

>>722890145
Just my experience... I work in the STEM field (engineer). I work in an office a couple days a week, but travel onsite to our plant most days. It is challenging work in often unpleasant working conditions (middle of nowhere, dirty trailers for an office). There are 5 women employed out of the 30+ at my office. 2 are secretaries, the other 3 are "engineers"... but they are NEVER expected to travel onsite or complete any sort of difficult and technical problem solving. They all just organize things, maintain documents, create powerpoint slides... east shit. So from my experience I am not surprised the average woman makes less money. I don't think it is unfair.

>>722890145
tits or gtfo femfags

>>722890145
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -Aristotle

>>722890145
no.

you should be paid for the quality of your work, not your gender.

i work in advertising. i come up with the ideas that make other people rich while all the nignogs, faggots and women sit around talking about cat memes.

what's "wrong" is you taking a snippet of data and extrapolating it to the point where it serves your wishes and then whining about how unfair life is.

kys

>>722903249
and that's why I became a woman. easy work for the same pay

>>722890993

Not who you replied to but I'm in Management and deal with this quite a bit. When an employee approaches me asking for a wage increase the male tends to almost always give me reasons why he deserves more pay, he also is generally someone I've been watching for a bit and have seen progress in. More often then not when a female asks me for an increase she will give me no reason as to why, she will get upset and angry when I am honest with her and then she will typically have a reduction in performance after the interaction. Just saying...

>>722904442

People just want money for nothing these days.

>>722890145
If women were cheaper and just as productive I would hire only women.

Most women are valued higher in our society and that is mostly to relative reproductive capacities.

Males are the randomizing factors in sexually reproducing species. As far as evolutionary needs are concerned there need only be the top 10 percent of men needed.

>>722890145
It IS fake though. You can't just throw together everyone's wages regardless of raises, the jobs, job positions etc.

>>722891135
burden of proof my friend

>>722891087
>starting a family is selfish
>no one wants to be selfish
>no one has kids
>humanity dies in one generation

>>722905874
Go away pol

Can't help but wonder what the M:F ratio is on public assistance, welfare, foodstamps, scholarships, tax credits, grants, charity, etc.

I daresay if there is a "gap" - it falls in women's favor.

File: why there arent enough wimmim in STEM.jpg (58KB, 507x363px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 507x363px

>>722890145
I'm a guard and there are only two people at my site; I work four days and my female colleague works three because she's going to school (we used to work 4 each, which was weird). So she makes less than me. PATRIARCHY. But wait! When we were both working 4 she made more than me because she had hospital training, and I didn't (because hospitals are about the worst place to be a guard). MATRIARCHY. But wait, she had more education than I did, which meant her 'worth' is higher than mine regardless of us doing the same job. OBJECTIARCHY?

>>722890145
>genuinely looking to hold a discussion
>>>/rk9/

>>722890375
And what of the women who puts in the overtime and goes above and beyond what they're job is called for?

Real life example:
For instance, a female hired at a jewelry store to work the Pandora bead counter. Females generally work well in Pandora, so she was hired.

Female then decides to help out the social media advertising for the store, having a background in graphic design and marketing. She puts time in outside of work, photoshopping and creating posts and ads for various platforms, and works her way up to working on billboards and newspaper ads.

Female shows interest in working with fine jewelry/diamonds, and showing interest for doing the business side of the store. Female is immediately shut down by owners because she is not male. Owners run crazy shifts so one is there all day, and doesn't relinquish fine jewelry sales to anyone but other males.

Female has the background training in diamond education and seems to be a savvy salesman. But owners want to hire another male for diamond sales/business/managing.

Is this fair?

>>722892483
>society literally suffering from overpopulation
and by society, you mean males. Considering females are the true benefactors of a system like that

which is inequal as fuck

>>722907027
Except that's not how it works lul. If a woman can do a job at the exact same efficiency as a man, she will get paid the same as a man. People don't get shut down like you're describing, nobody deliberately stunts their business. Just because they have tits doesn't mean they deserve better/worse treatment, and every savvy employer knows this.

>>722907441
Except the owners have stated several times that "they need another guy at the diamond counter"

Why not train the staff you have already to be efficient at diamonds, instead of hiring a new person? I don't know, someone who has a good work ethic, knows how to negotiate (from using on the job training while negotiating with billboard companies/newspaper advertisers), and can communicate effectively with customers on their wants/needs.

Not to scream "he's a sexist pig! ", but the former owner trained the new owners for a combined 62 years, and he's an old Italian who has very traditional viewpoints on women (aka barefoot/pregnant/kitchen viewpoint).

Being trained by someone for that long, one would gain certain mentalities that would mimic the trainer?


(and just because women don't have dicks doesn't mean they can't be ruthless salesmen/businessmen)

>>722908151
There are differences of opinion on everything. Some companies may think that males make better salespeople, but after they notice all the people they're selling to are also male some companies might choose to hire female salespeople, especially in a competitive, commodity market. All else being equal in a sale - product quality, price, terms, delivery - might the male customer be more likely to choose the female salesperson's contract?

Equality doesn't exist, because there are all sorts of complicating factors owing to there being two distinct genders. I'm a software engineer, and I'm amazed how many clueless female sales reps there are. There used to be more male salespeople with "booth babes" at conventions, but now that booth babes are prohibited they've just brought the eye candy on staff, and then refer you to "technical support" early in the sales process for all the technical stuff the salesperson used to do.

Your hypothetical jeweler? Likely out of business in another generation.