"Working fathers get 21% 'wage bonus"

[Invrlose]

This is what happens when art majors try to interpret statistics

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's the kicker, of course....the anecdotes are all that's relevant to the individual.

Seriously, I've got a guy in my branch that works about 20 hours a week total right now (While paid for 40) because of, "muh children need meh". I've got a guy that got a FIFTY FUCKING PERCENT raise because his wife lost her job and, "Muh childrens gunna go hungry."

(Yes, my job sucks)

Is he on salary or hourly wage? Because no fucking employer is going to overpay an employee by 100% in the case of the guy working 20 hours a week

[May90]

As for gender roles, did anyone stop to think that maybe traditional gender roles are a reflection of our DNA? I am not knocking anyone that goes the non traditional route, it just seems the gender roles evolved similarly in most cultures despite that many of these cultures were separated by distance, oceans, etc. You could believe it was coincidence (I guess...) or maybe most of us are just "wired" that way.

See, one could argue that everything that has happened in our history is a reflection of our DNA. Our DNA makes us behave the way we do. Does it mean though that everything we have done in history of humanity is fine, is right, is logical?

Traditional gender roles came naturally in evolution, and they worked well for the time being. Nowadays though we live in a completely different world, where physical power is no longer a definite characteristic of one's worth. Sure, women still are the ones giving birth, but that's about the only significant difference, and it hardly reflects the whooping difference in gender roles. So, as much as we might be wired this way, it doesn't work well in the modern world, it doesn't reflect our reality.

Ultimately, I think every person should choose their own role, regardless of such things as their gender, race, ethnicity, body complexion, etc. Just choose what you think is right for you. Once all people start doing that, we will finally have equality and live in the 21st century (or 22nd, 23rd, etc., depending on when this mentality becomes dominant).

[Invrlose]

See, one could argue that everything that has happened in our history is a reflection of our DNA. Our DNA makes us behave the way we do. Does it mean though that everything we have done in history of humanity is fine, is right, is logical?

Traditional gender roles came naturally in evolution, and they worked well for the time being. Nowadays though we live in a completely different world, where physical power is no longer a definite characteristic of one's worth. Sure, women still are the ones giving birth, but that's about the only significant difference, and it hardly reflects the whooping difference in gender roles. So, as much as we might be wired this way, it doesn't work well in the modern world, it doesn't reflect our reality.

Ultimately, I think every person should choose their own role, regardless of such things as their gender, race, ethnicity, body complexion, etc. Just choose what you think is right for you. Once all people start doing that, we will finally have equality and live in the 21st century (or 22nd, 23rd, etc., depending on when this mentality becomes dominant).

Sociology 101 textbook excerpts are really getting annoying

[Deleted]

See, one could argue that everything that has happened in our history is a reflection of our DNA. Our DNA makes us behave the way we do. Does it mean though that everything we have done in history of humanity is fine, is right, is logical?

Traditional gender roles came naturally in evolution, and they worked well for the time being. Nowadays though we live in a completely different world, where physical power is no longer a definite characteristic of one's worth. Sure, women still are the ones giving birth, but that's about the only significant difference, and it hardly reflects the whooping difference in gender roles. So, as much as we might be wired this way, it doesn't work well in the modern world, it doesn't reflect our reality.

Ultimately, I think every person should choose their own role, regardless of such things as their gender, race, ethnicity, body complexion, etc. Just choose what you think is right for you. Once all people start doing that, we will finally have equality and live in the 21st century (or 22nd, 23rd, etc., depending on when this mentality becomes dominant).

Great, I chose to be a horse racing jockey named Pablo then.
But wait, with my 2 meters in length and a slight weight issue I will never be able to.

Just like some people can't work in construction or can't do a desk job because they are to stupid to do so.

Choosing to do something and being able to are 2 differences.

If I could choose whatever I wanted I would sit on the couch all day eating Cheetos's, but for some reason people need to work.

[Ornerybear]

i've noticed this in my own work place and my boss has even accidentally slipped in pay discussions that because i don't have kids i dont need to be paid as much.

I've always attributed it to two things. ONE being the employer thinking they deserve more because they have kids and TWO a man with kids is probably going to be a harder sell without compensation because more mouths to feed, so if the employer doesn't offer enough money, he'll walk, whereas a man without kids arguably doesn't need as much money and is willing to take less pay.

I feel the only things that should be considering when evaluating pay should be; performance, experience, and knowledge.

[Deleted]

i've noticed this in my own work place and my boss has even accidentally slipped in pay discussions that because i don't have kids i dont need to be paid as much.

I've always attributed it to two things. ONE being the employer thinking they deserve more because they have kids and TWO a man with kids is probably going to be a harder sell without compensation because more mouths to feed, so if the employer doesn't offer enough money, he'll walk, whereas a man without kids arguably doesn't need as much money and is willing to take less pay.

I feel the only things that should be considering when evaluating pay should be; performance, experience, and knowledge.

What a bigot, can't believe hes such a racist, xenophobe & misogynist.
You should sue your boss for every cent he has.

[Invrlose]

i've noticed this in my own work place and my boss has even accidentally slipped in pay discussions that because i don't have kids i dont need to be paid as much.

I've always attributed it to two things. ONE being the employer thinking they deserve more because they have kids and TWO a man with kids is probably going to be a harder sell without compensation because more mouths to feed, so if the employer doesn't offer enough money, he'll walk, whereas a man without kids arguably doesn't need as much money and is willing to take less pay.

I feel the only things that should be considering when evaluating pay should be; performance, experience, and knowledge.

Um. Your boss probably said "as someone without kids you don't need as much money to live" or something like that. I guarantee you are misconstruing words. Employers aren't going to pay an employee more money because of his personal life. That's how you kill profits and run a company in to the ground.

[AeneasBK]

Yep. When I brought up my pay - after seeing the other guy in my same position get the 50% raise - I was told point-blank, "Yeah, but you don't have kids. You'll just spend it all on burgers or something."

And that was after doing all kinds of software development work to help with the new system that we migrated to after it became clear that no one actually knew how to USE said system.

You're married right? Or am I confused

[May90]

Yep. When I brought up my pay - after seeing the other guy in my same position get the 50% raise - I was told point-blank, "Yeah, but you don't have kids. You'll just spend it all on burgers or something."

This kind of makes sense, from a certain point of view... On the other hand, such blatant discrimination, regardless of anything, is disgusting. I don't think it should be up to the employer to decide for you how much money you need; they should pay for the work done, regardless of who has done it.

This kind of policies I would call "capitalist socialism".

[AeneasBK]

Why not both?

Fair point

I just meant it's even more unreasonable to expect that you won't "want" kids at some point, if you're married rather than single; even if you may have metioned not wanting them at work... We want to get a mortgage before we start a family in a vague effort to have some stability rather than renting; being denied a pay rise which would help towards that because my kids aren't born yet would frustrate me a fair bit.

[theostrichsays]

Well, there's the "positive discrimination" too. Hell, I see that at work every day, mostly because I'm the only one without kids and, "But muh childrens!" is thrown around constantly as an excuse for needing more time off, more breaks, less workload, more raises, and so on.

My experience with this is somewhat the same. I work in a heavily male dominated job, we had one female who couldn't hack it long term and quit. But some of the big divides are the guys with children, tend to stay there longer as they have families to take care of, or child support checks to write and be a bit more aggressive on pursuing raises then our childless counterparts many of whom seem to drift in and out of the job. Obviously there are people who break the mold as one of my bosses I went to school with and he is a 28 y/o virgin who poured everything into this job from day 1 after school. As far breaks go, smokers far outpaced everyone else on breaks, parent or not lol.

There might be things going on behind the scene above me, that I don't see but from my perspective that is what it looks like among parents and nonparents. Mid management factory worker here who gets other's responsibilities but not their cushy jobs =(

[The Casualty]

I don't think it should be up to the employer to decide for you how much money you need

While it may not be up to them to decide how much you need, they certainly have the ability to decide how much you are going to get. Granted, if they're out and out saying "You are getting this much because of <insert discrimination du jour>" then that's completely different.

I think some of the reasons we are paid "more" is that we are typically older than our colleagues without children, are more established in our careers as a result, and least speaking just for myself, negotiate harder for pay and benefits because I have that extra experience, have more options if I want to walk, and I'm not just worried about providing for myself, but for my children as well, so I won't accept less.

I also work longer hours because even if my pay magically rose by that 21%, I'd still have less spending money than if I was paid lower, single and without children. That and the more I work, the more ETO I accrue, which my children consume the bulk of when getting sick, and I would eventually like to take a vacation.

[Serpha]

I don't understand your conclusion. This statistics essentially explains one of the contributions to the wage gap - and yet you call it mythical. Confused much?

Where am I confused? Mythical because feminists are saying there is a wage gap, there isn't. There is a earning gap, which is not the same. You are confused, not me.

[May90]

Where am I confused? Mythical because feminists are saying there is a wage gap, there isn't. There is a earning gap, which is not the same. You are confused, not me.

Never heard of "earning gap", but "wage gap" and "pay gap" are used interchangeably and mean exactly what you call "earning gap". Read on that here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

Especially, go through the citations; you can see the usage of both terms.

[Deleted]

Never heard of "earning gap", but "wage gap" and "pay gap" are used interchangeably and mean exactly what you call "earning gap". Read on that here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

Especially, go through the citations; you can see the usage of both terms.

And that is what he said .. does not exist.
The gender fucking pay gap.

[May90]

And that is what he said .. does not exist.
The gender fucking pay gap.

How does it not exist, when the very first citation is a study on the reasons behind it?

[Deleted]

How does it not exist, when the very first citation is a study on the reasons behind it?

The European Commission defines the gender pay gap as the average difference between men’s and women’s aggregate hourly earnings.

So it takes all wages from men and compares it to all wages from women.

So that makes it a shit study.

[May90]

The European Commission defines the gender pay gap as the average difference between men’s and women’s aggregate hourly earnings.

So it takes all wages from men and compares it to all wages from women.

So that makes it a shit study.

Lol, okay buddy... "Lalalalala, I am right, and all sources saying otherwise are shit." Read the second paragraph then.

[The Casualty]

And that is what he said .. does not exist.
The gender fucking pay gap.

I think they are arguing around the same thing. There is a gap between genders. It's just that utilizing the largest number (unadjusted pay gap) is a fundamentally dishonest use of statistics to push a specific agenda.

The smaller 3-6ish percent does exist between genders however. Things like the point of this thread might be correlative factors, but the big take away is that there is no evidence that it's a patriarchal conspiracy to pay women less. You did get the invite to the annual patriarchy meeting to discuss oppressing women, didn't you?

[Deleted]

I think they are arguing around the same thing. There is a gap between genders. It's just that utilizing the largest number (unadjusted pay gap) is a fundamentally dishonest use of statistics to push a specific agenda.

The smaller 3-6ish percent does exist between genders however. Things like the point of this thread might be correlative factors, but the big take away is that there is no evidence that it's a patriarchal conspiracy to pay women less. You did get the invite to the annual patriarchy meeting to discuss oppressing women, didn't you?

Yeah I got the invite.. but I can't come this year as I am firing most of my work force and hiring women only.
Its a great way to make another 23% profit on wages.

I will be there next year though, we should go for a drink!