That's not unusual. You missed that Braverman and Lindsey's figures were six month's pay each, not a full year.
You won't find their dirty laundry advertised as reportable personal income in public filings--that's a fool's errand.
I found it interesting that 8 of 11 top positions were filled by men, who made an average annualized rate of $377,807.13, compared to three women earning an average $184,910 each, or 49 cents on the dollar compared to their male colleagues. From a class-warfare practitioner who was just on national TV decrying unequal pay for women.
Of course her whole narrative is a lie--women do *not* make less at the same work in the U.S. Women make less overall because they choose lower-paying occupations, work fewer hours, etc., not from discrimination against women. Hillary's fibbing. Again.
The female-rate-of-pay campaigners do go out of their way to compare exactly equivalent jobs, and women in the US in full-time year-round work are now getting $0.79 where a man would get $1.00
formatting link
When the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, women only got $0.59 so things have got better, but there is quite a way to go.
Persuading people like James Arthur to be slightly less complacent would help, but since the Federalist Papers don't address the issue, it might be difficult.
same work in the U.S. Women make less overall >because they choose lower-p aying occupations, work fewer >hours, etc., not from discrimination against women. >Hillary's fibbing. Again."
I cannot agree with that. Not about the Hillary fibbing but the reason for the wage discrepancy. My grandfather taught me "Make them pay you". Know wh at that means ? Any company will seek to get its job done at the cheapest p rice possible. From what I've seen Men are better negotiators. My Grandfath er came up with a modification for knitting machines and got an all expense paid trip and lodging to the factory and $500 a day to teach their enginee rs.
You have to know your worth, and what's more to win you have to be willing to lose. You have to be willing to walk out that door. I quit one job eight times and my phone always rang, except for one time I saw their ad in the paper and called, and of course I was back again at more money.
Women do not seem to have that capacity. Well my Mother does but she is the exception, not the rule.
I have been out of work and went and actually applied for jobs now and then , usually I just get the interview when I walk in the door but not always. Well more than once I have called them and said "Tear up my application, I have decided not to work for you". And that is not even when I had any othe r offers. there were certain places, after some thought I decided I would e ither work for myself or not work at all rather than work there. And I'll n ever work for a Woman again, sorry. the paychecks are bouncing and she is i n there sporting a new piece of jewelry. Bullshit. And she gave a refund sh e never should have to a squeaky wheel who was completely wrong. Basically he expected the performance of a brand new unit out of his 15 year old unit . I would have talked him out of it but she caved. And her ex played her li ke a violin. It is interesting how she got that company, she had no right t o it.
Women make less because they are not tough bargainers. Men pay them less be cause Women allow them to pay them less. you have to be willing to walk out that door. That is also why there are very few adept Women poker players. Walk into one of those smoke filled rooms and see how many Women are sittin g at that table.
And I don't mean this as a putdown on Women. It has something to do with ho w their brain is wired or whatever. I have theories on that, well scientifi cally they are only suppositions but are beyond the scope of this text.
Which incidentally has gone on log enough because too much more it will be another TLDR.
Have fun. And notice I am not responding to Slowman anymore so you might lo ok like the target once in a while. But you're not.
Everyone gets the market rate commensurate with their choice of job and capability level. If women are getting paid less than men it's because they're valued less and in a free market there will be perfectly good reasons for that disparity. If you force employers to pay women the same as men you'll price them out of employment altogether.
actly equivalent jobs, and women in the US in full-time year-round work are now getting $0.79 where a man would get $1.00
.21.15.pdf
ible
Sexist morons. There are plenty of them.
In fact, as the book "Why so Slow" takes pains to emphasise, the basic crit erion for hiring someone to do a job is that they should look as much like all the other people doing that job as possible. If most of the people doin g a job have been male, the natural choice for somebody to do that job is s omebody male.
In a perfect free market. Sadly, in real free markets there are all sorts of reasons for the disparity, and they all cost employers money. Not upsetting all the men that thought that they were going to get the job is one of them.
Not what has actually happened. As women's pay has climbed towards equality, more women have joined the work force. Give them enough money and they will even put up with sexist half-wits like Cursitor Doom.
Some but not all. There are some exceptional ones. Know what ? I know a cou ple of very smart and strong Women who are with as much as a Man and can ne gotiate as well and make the same money. Get this - they believe that Women should not be allowed to vote. They are not stupid, but they know other Wo men who are.
But pricing people out of jobs, between upping the minimum wage and the ACA , Women equality in the job market won't be an issue for long. There will b e no jobs.
No they don't. They compute total earnings per capita for each group, ignoring occupation, hours worked, seniority, experience, etc. That means nurses and teachers are being compared against doctors and construction workers.
Exactly wrong--those are not examples of women with the same education, seniority, experience, etc., doing the same job as a man.
When those factors are considered, the gap disappears.
"Many studies have been done over many years -- and they repeatedly show that women and men who work the very same hours in the very same jobs at the very same levels of skill and experience do not have the pay gaps that people like Hillary Clinton loudly denounce.
As far back as 1971, single women in their thirties who had worked continuously since high school earned slightly more than men of the same description. As far back as 1969, academic women who had never married earned more than academic men who had never married."
formatting link
College-educated childless career-women earn more than their male counterparts.
formatting link
This gap nonsense is an idiot's theory. If women were as effective and that much cheaper to hire, no one would hire men.
But if you use Hillary's method for computing wage-fairness, she's one of the most egregious offenders--the Clinton Foundation pays ladies 49 cents on the dollar, and 3/4 of her Foundation's top positions are filled by men.
I didn't mean it as an insult. I just thought it unrealistic to expect the mob to post their innermost dealings in public filings. Or to take their payoffs in the form of huge salaries--that's not how it's done.
Interesting that you inserted your - inaccurate - comment there, just above the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in "full-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
I'm afraid your dishonest habits have caught up with you - it's a flagrant lie, probably driven by your passionate commitment to ignoring inconvenient facts.
Why not look things up first? Women with full-time jobs work fewer hours than men, obviously. Read the BLS stats.
formatting link
You've also ignored that you're quoting comparisons of workers who prefer different occupations. As I already explained (and cited two other explanations), that's a big part the deception.
Yet you persist.
I simply have to assume you're trolling. It's the most charitable assumption.
bove the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in "full
-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
Why is it obvious? Granting that women typically get stuck with more of the house, it might be likely, but women in full-time year-round work might - on the average - make different arrangements.
Moreover, working extra hours at over-time rates was a perk doled out to th e favoured few when I was last close enough to the process to get to hear a bout it, and the males got more of that because the - mostly males - doing the doling out thought that the women should go home early to cook the fami ly dinner, even if they did make other arrangements.
According to that, men over 20 in full-time work work 43.5 hours per week, women over 20 in full time work work 42.3 hours per week.
If hours worked were the crucial difference, women would be getting $0.97 f or every $1.00 their male counter-parts earned. This is a bit more than the $0.79 they are now getting, up from the $0.59 they were getting in 1963 wh en the Equal Pay Act was passed.
The deception is more that the jobs women mostly do are paid less well than the jobs which are mainly done by men. Choice of work is more determined b y social expectation than personal preference.
When the UK got into job evaluation, I was around when the committee at Ken t Instruments evaluated the work the secretaries did, then had to re-evalua te it because the original evaluation would have raised their pay quite a b it vis-a-vis men doing roughly the same kind of work
I do because you are - as usual - rolling out unthinking prejudice as if it is based on sound statistical observation, and cherry-picking the statisti cs you quote to support the result you want.
Charitable to your own self-esteem.
Nice try. Pity about the evidence you thought that you could get away with relying on.
The New York Times doesn't, and they've got a coherent set of arguments to justify that attititude
formatting link
I'm afraid the it's Trump supporters who are posting total rubbish, not to mention the nonsense being spouted by Trump himself, and a the main stream media has got to the point where they regard the appearance impartiality as an abnegation of responsibility.
I was innocently watching Australian TV this evening and the regular Austra lian Media Watch program produced an unexpected report on the American medi a and the way that they'd recently decided that being polite about Trump wa sn't consistent with journalistic ethics.
The Arizona Republic newspaper, got mentioned as did the Dallas News, but i t's the New York Times which was singled out for having been particularly e xplicit in their condemnation.
Trump's a disaster, and if he got elected it would be a total disaster.
above the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in "fu ll-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
rs
he house, it might be likely, but women in full-time year-round work might
- on the average - make different arrangements.
the favoured few when I was last close enough to the process to get to hear about it, and the males got more of that because the - mostly males - doin g the doling out thought that the women should go home early to cook the fa mily dinner, even if they did make other arrangements.
, women over 20 in full time work work 42.3 hours per week.
Nope. You've misread even that elementary page. The table shows 43.5 hours vs. 40.8 for men & women over 20.
(That's not the whole difference, but it's enough to prove the point that your bogus wage figures are comparing unequal situations.)
st above the point where I'd mentioned that the figures were for women in " full-time year-round work" which isn't exactly ignoring hours worked.
ours
the house, it might be likely, but women in full-time year-round work migh t - on the average - make different arrangements.
o the favoured few when I was last close enough to the process to get to he ar about it, and the males got more of that because the - mostly males - do ing the doling out thought that the women should go home early to cook the family dinner, even if they did make other arrangements.
ek, women over 20 in full time work work 42.3 hours per week.
Oops. But 40.8/43.5 is still $0.94 for women versus $1.00 for men, which is still a lot less than the actual difference of $0.79 for women versus %1.0
0 for men, and - as I explained - the difference in hours worked is not ne cessarily a matter of female preference, but more likely one more aspect of the unequal treatment of women in the work force.
And the whole problem is that women get treated badly and paid less. Their situation shouldn't be unequal.
Your reactionary take on this is that it's "natural" while ignoring the fac t that it is unfair, and is almost certainly making the economy as a whole less productive than it might be.
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:29:14 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :
Even the most sickening ultra-liberal can get things wrong by accident, rat her than design.
It didn't make much difference to my argument - the difference in hours wor ked fell well short of the difference in take-home pay, and the fact that w omen get less over-time probably isn't something they choose - as James Art hur wants to argue - but is more likely one more of the ways that employers short-change them.
James Arthur never stops inviting comment. Unlike you, he knows lots of stu ff, but is an expert in seeing what he wants to see. His capacity to misint erpret what a detail means has been honed by years of practice.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.