Equal pay law did not close the gender gap

[Spectral]

Everytime I see a politician mention the 77% number I always assume they are playing to a particular demographic. Also I did not have much respect for Obama to begin with.

So they're liars, yes?

[THE Bigzoman]

Everytime I see a politician mention the 77% number I always assume they are playing to a particular demographic. Also I did not have much respect for Obama to begin with.

He's playing to a fucking huge demographic when he says that.

I don't think you know how many people actually believe what we're making fun of here: The idea that a discrepancy is sufficient proof of discrepancies due to discrimination

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

What you've just described is a predatory employment strategy to take advantage of women.

So yes. Sexism.

No, this isn't sexism.

[THE Bigzoman]

What you've just described is a predatory employment strategy to take advantage of women.

So yes. Sexism.

It's not the employers' responsibility to sell themselves on their employee's worth.

[Endus]

So they're liars, yes?

The $0.77 figure isn't a "lie". It's what women, on average, earn, relative to men.

There are mitigating factors that the figure doesn't include, which offset a lot of it (but not all), but that doesn't make that figure a lie. It just means it's a particular data point.

[Spectral]

He's playing to a fucking huge demographic when he says that.

I don't think you know how many people actually believe what we're making fun of here: The idea that a discrepancy is sufficient proof for discrepancies due to discrimination towards women performing the same work

Well, the truest of true believers just arrived, so I think it's about to be some amusing dissembling on the matter.

[xGLxAnubis]

What you've just described is a predatory employment strategy to take advantage of women.

So yes. Sexism.

No, you don't understand what is actually happening:

Men:
Offered 50, counters 60, offered 55, counters 57, offered 56, accepts.

Women:
Offered 50, counters 55, offered 52, accepts.

That's not sexist or predatory. That's called negotiation and business. Why would they offer the woman 56 if she counters 55 and stops at 52 right away? If a man were to counter 55, they would counter 52 as well. It has nothing to do with their gender, just the mannerisms of the person (Which are different between genders, usually)

[NED funded]

what part of just because your resumes is the same doesn't mean people will preserve the same. difference names look speech patterns ect. unless theses studies are just a resume and nothing else there are a shit ton of factors that could effect the outcome and if they are resume only then they are worthless to begin with.

Why? 10/char

- - - Updated - - -

So they're liars, yes?

Sure 10/char.

[THE Bigzoman]

Well, the truest of true believers just arrived, so I think it's about to be some amusing dissembling on the matter.

Fucking right though?

"Taking a bargain when offered it is Sexism"

Holy fucking shit.

[NED funded]

The $0.77 figure isn't a "lie". It's what women, on average, earn, relative to men.

There are mitigating factors that the figure doesn't include, which offset a lot of it (but not all), but that doesn't make that figure a lie. It just means it's a particular data point.

It's misleading though.

[Spectral]

The $0.77 figure isn't a "lie". It's what women, on average, earn, relative to men.

There are mitigating factors that the figure doesn't include, which offset a lot of it (but not all), but that doesn't make that figure a lie. It just means it's a particular data point.

Hours worked isn't a "mitigating factor". Anyone that ignores it is lying or ignorant. Controlling for hours worked is a most obvious, trivial thing to start with. Anyone that can't be bothered to even get that far is basically just being a complete misandrist, tacitly claiming that women should earn more per hour.

Don't be a misandrist Endus.

[Endus]

No, you don't understand what is actually happening:

Men:
Offered 50, counters 60, offered 55, counters 57, offered 56, accepts.

Women:
Offered 50, counters 55, offered 52, accepts.

That's not sexist or predatory. That's called negotiation and business. Why would they offer the woman 56 if she counters 55 and stops at 52 right away? If a man were to counter 55, they would counter 52 as well. It has nothing to do with their gender, just the mannerisms of the person (Which are different between genders, usually)

It's taking advantage of those gender differences. Which is literally what sexism is.

It's not that hard to develop a standardized pay scheme. Canadian government jobs are all fit into such. There's no discrepancies whatsoever.

[Spectral]

Fucking right though?

"Taking a bargain when offered it is Sexism"

Holy fucking shit.

I'll never know fully if it's lying or true belief that leads to zombiesque repetition of "77 percent!". Varies from person to person I suppose, but there sure are a lot of useful idiots for the liars to exploit.

[Endus]

Hours worked isn't a "mitigating factor". Anyone that ignores it is lying or ignorant. Controlling for hours worked is a most obvious, trivial thing to start with. Anyone that can't be bothered to even get that far is basically just being a complete misandrist, tacitly claiming that women should earn more per hour.

Don't be a misandrist Endus.

Oh, get off it. You're acting more ridiculous than those you're taking offense at, in exactly the ways you found offensive in the first place.

[Daneman]

It's taking advantage of those gender differences. Which is literally what sexism is.

It's not that hard to develop a standardized pay scheme. Canadian government jobs are all fit into such. There's no discrepancies whatsoever.

How the fuck is that sexism?

[xGLxAnubis]

It's taking advantage of those gender differences. Which is literally what sexism is.

It's not that hard to develop a standardized pay scheme. Canadian government jobs are all fit into such. There's no discrepancies whatsoever.

It's not taking advantage of them. So what, employers should start with a HIGHER initial offering for women then, to compensate? So you know... Treat women different for being women? There's a word for that.

[Spectral]

Oh, get off it. You're acting more ridiculous than those you're taking offense at.

Retraction accepted.

[Endus]

It's not taking advantage of them. So what, employers should start with a HIGHER initial offering for women then, to compensate? So you know... Treat women different for being women? There's a word for that.

Or maybe pay both employees the same amount? Not sure why that's a difficult concept.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It's taking advantage of those gender differences. Which is literally what sexism is.

It's not that hard to develop a standardized pay scheme. Canadian government jobs are all fit into such. There's no discrepancies whatsoever.

No, its not. Bargaining, is not sexism. Its not some magical white male magical thing; men that don't negotiate well won't get paid as well either. Just like people that don't speak well, don't dress well, etc etc etc. These things aren't sexism or "dressism" ...

[xGLxAnubis]

Or maybe pay both employees the same amount? Not sure why that's a difficult concept.

They had that option, but allow the employee the counter offer instead. So you'd have both men and women only make the initial offering of 50 rather than teach our young women growing up to not accept less than they're worth and learn to negotiate and recognize their worth? One of these options seems empowering.