Support NeoGAF

[Dilbert]

Jinx- he's not advocating unequal pay, he's saying that if it was in fact the case that women are paid less for the same work, then it would make good business sense to just hire women.

It sounds like you're not talking about inequity in pay, but inequity in promotions, etc.

Well, let me repost the original statement which set me off:

Kind of like that bullshit about women getting paid 70 cents to a man's dollar. If I could hire someone for 70% and get the same work (I emphasize same, because if women truly get paid less than men, it is definitely because the work done by women isn't to the level of men. Not being sexist here, I just mean how often does a man get knocked up and have to take a pregnancy leave?) I would hire someone for 70% and get the same work.

So, my response was along these lines:

1) There is no "if" -- average pay for women is less (80% of men's average pay based on 2004 numbers), regardless of occupational field. There is also evidence that a big contributing factor is the "glass ceiling" -- women don't make senior, very high-paying jobs as often as men. At lower levels, there is some evidence that women tend to be paid similarly to men in the same jobs.

2) He explicitly says that if women get paid less than men, the reason why that would be justified is that their work wouldn't be at the same level as men. Well, I'm sorry, but claiming that women as a group aren't as good as men at work is sexist without a shitload of support for that stance. His only "evidence" for that claim is to point to the fact that some women take pregnancy leave. My response: Since when is attendance a primary driver in work performance? And since when can't employees plan ahead for long-term absences such as vacations, medical events (such as surgeries), or professional/personal leaves of absences?

3) If he truly does believe that women do the same work as men but are paid at 80% of their male counterparts, and he would propose to take advantage of that as a corporate leader, how is THAT not just as sexist?

 

[Dilbert]

Look, it all seems pretty clear to me. The problem with women is that they keep having babies all the time. Honestly, they miss more working days having babies than they actually spend in the office, half of the time, and all with no notice. It's like, on Monday they'll be all "Sure, I'll have that report for you by the weekend," but all of a sudden it's Thursday and they're, like, "Sorry, I'm taking another nine months off to have a baby and I haven't done the report because of hormones." It's only reasonable that in those short spaces where they're actually working they should get paid substantially less than their superior male co-workers who only take days off for important things like hangovers.

Obviously in the ideal freakish crypto-communist world jinx inhabits we'd be able to pay women as much as men for doing exactly the same job just as well, or sometimes even better, and maybe even promote them to the level at which they contribute best to the company, but personally I think the only way that could possibly happen would be if they were all spayed before starting work. That would probably be a reasonable way of resolving things, actually. They could earn the same money as men if they agreed to be sterilised for the duration of their employment, or just shut up and accept the lower salary if they want to put the whole office at risk of a bad case of babies.

Now THIS is a man who gets it.

 

[NLB2]

Again, I am simply speechless with why you are so obsessed with attendance. The reasons why someone OUGHT to be promoted are for having demonstrated excellence in his/her current job, capability of handling or learning the functions of a higher-level job, and leadership/management skills. Attendance, if it's a factor at all, is a small bullet point under "excellence in current job."


Feel free to do research on the "glass ceiling" sometime. The reason women aren't being promoted has little to nothing to do with pregnancy or attendance.


Discrimination based on gender is certainly illegal, and as far as I know, military service also has legal protections in the workplace. There are myriad labor laws, and they DO matter.


That is inherently unknowable. Sudden illness or personal conflict is a random event.


No, you PERSONALLY are being sexist. I said that there may be cultural reasons why there is a skew in the "other absences" number. That is far different than claiming that women deserve to be paid less than men because their performance at work is inherently not as good as men.


As I stated before, the evidence seems to show that the difference in AVERAGE pay is due to vastly different levels of advancement within companies. At the same job level, there is some evidence that men and women tend to have similar levels of pay, although not always. So, your idea of "hiring women to do the same work for less" doesn't fly with the numbers.

If you are going to claim that there is a reason women DESERVE to be paid less for the same type of job -- other than attendance, which is a bullshit argument -- then I'd love to hear it. Include, as part of your response, why exactly you think that pay inequity for women is a GOOD thing that corporations should exploit.

Quite frankly, the fact that ANYONE would advocate unequal pay for equal work is incredibly disturbing. Fuck the way "the world works now" -- when you see something which is wrong, you try to fix it, not take advantage of it for your personal benefit.

-jinx-, let's assume that you are right and that women and men have exactly equal value to a company (I will never try to argue that women are less valuable then men in any type of labor other than heavy manual labor such as construction, but due to things such as society's gender roles, women have become more constrained in the child rearing roles than men have). Let us also assume, as is shown by the evidence, that women are less likely to get promoted and, in effect, recieve less money than men in their field of work. And let us assume that I am a bussiness owner who is looking to promote one of two of my workers. One is a man and the other is a woman and they both have equally exemplary records. Both of the employees are being paid the same ammount of money at their current job levels, however, because the number of women being promoted to the higher level job is so much less than the number of men and my female employee understands that there is very little oppurtunity for advancement for her compared to her male coworker, it would follow that she would accept less of a pay raise for the promotion than her male coworker. So who do I choose to promote? They have the same track record, gender has no effect on their performance, and I can pay the female employee less money. Of course I will choose the female employee. As will every other person in the same situation as me. This increased demand for female promotion will lead to an increase the number of promotions of female workers while the decrease in demand for male promotions will decrease the number of male promotions. The increased competition for female promotions will also lead to a price increase of female promotions and there will also be a price decrease for male promotions until male and female promotions reach an equilibrium point at whcih both male and female promotions cost the same amount and happen with a ratio equivalent to the ratio of male and female workers in the industry.

However, as you have said and the article has said, this isn't happening. Why isn't it, if not because bussiness leaders feel that men, due to the gender roles society has placed on men and women and rate of abscenses (no matter how much you would like to deny it) can be on average a greater asset to their industries than women?

 

[Dilbert]

#^@%^@%^@%#^#@^^%*$&(*%^%&!@

 

[xsarien]

#^@%^@%^@%#^#@^^%*$&(*%^%&!@

This explains why you posted an image of Q-Bert in the picture thread.

 

[NLB2]

#^@%^@%^@%#^#@^^%*$&(*%^%&!@

I hear ya, man.

 

[cvxfreak]

Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.

HOLY FUCKING CRAP

 

[Azih]

Sorta coming in the middle but

but seldom do I see "Why Europe Sucks" lists emanating from (at least semi-credible) American media outlets

Someone hasn't read any Newsweek International. Man I only read that thing twice a year when I'm waiting at the dentist's office. But EVERYTIME there's a negative article about Europe in there. It's bizzare.

 

[kumanoki]

I think many Americans have to realize that there are other countries in this wide world of ours, with citizens just as devoted and patriotic-- not one of those countries has the slogan, "We're number two!".

 

[sans_pants]

so do we have any idea where these "stats" came from

 

[sans_pants]

* Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).

Stuff like this. Is the Week some magazine, and if so, where did it get its stats

im pretty sure i was never asked this question

 

[FeedMeAStrayCat]

I think many Americans have to realize that there are other countries in this wide world of ours, with citizens just as devoted and patriotic-- not one of those countries has the slogan, "We're number two!".

Hey now.. we recognize other countries.. we uhhh.. just recoginize them for their oil (e.g. Iraq) or potential massive amounts of oil that we currently aren't getting all of (e.g. Canada).

 

[MC Safety]

The United States: It's the feel-bad country of the year!

Two thumbs down! -- Everyone.

 

[Willco]

God, we're on page three?

I thought we had determined that America was the bad shit and nobody fucks with us unless they want the horns. Case closed.

 

[FeedMeAStrayCat]

God, we're on page three?

I thought we had determined that America was the bad shit and nobody fucks with us unless they want the horns. Case closed.

I'm sensing some heavy sarcasm here.. at least I hope that's what I'm sensing. :lol

 

[NLB2]

I'm sensing some heavy sarcasm here.. at least I hope that's what I'm sensing. :lol

Go back to Europe!

 

[sans_pants]

Don't know what The Week is, but obviously they got the stats from a poll.

and who did they poll, 1st graders

 

[BugCatcher]

* Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).

Stuff like this. Is the Week some magazine, and if so, where did it get its stats

im pretty sure i was never asked this question

If it makes you feel any better, Japan sucks at this too.
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=312750

 

[DrLazy]

We're the #1 richest with the #1 military. Thats what matters. Where's Europe's moon rocks?

 

[NLB2]

We're the #1 richest with the #1 military. Thats what matters. Where's Europe's moon rocks?

Yeah man, that's why Europeans always need to try and insult us. They're unsure of themselves and when they all circle together and drink their haterade against America, it makes them feel better about their continent.

 

[Fresh Prince]

I think many Americans have to realize that there are other countries in this wide world of ours, with citizens just as devoted and patriotic-- not one of those countries has the slogan, "We're number two!".

How about, 'Can we suck your cock?'

 

[Willco]

We're the #1 richest with the #1 military. Thats what matters. Where's Europe's moon rocks?

Damn straight. Europe's got nothing except a couple of history books about how they killed themselves for thousands of years.

And we had to bail them out in both World Wars. Especially the second one. All you foriegners would be speaking German if we hadn't gone in there and kicked some Nazi ass.

So go play with your moon ro- OH WAIT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

Yeah man, that's why Europeans always need to try and insult us. They're unsure of themselves and when they all circle together and drink their haterade against America, it makes them feel better about their continent.

Their continent sucks. I mean, just look at the shape of their continent. It's sad and pathetic. Now look at ours (Canada included, Mexico excluded)... it's just fucking awesome. Powerful and big. We rule the goddamn globe.

How about, 'Can we suck your cock?'

Sheeet, I don't want no Eurotrap lips on my piece. I'm an upstanding gentleman.

 

[Azih]

So if you split the pay statistics further by 'job description' rather than field then women and men work out to the same pay? That's pretty nice, the era women getting paid less then men for doing the same job is at least over.

Now the glass ceiling issue is a different matter entirely and should be kept seperate from the issue of 'average pay per field' as it's a misleading statistic in terms of pay (especially since male CEOs completely skew the measure and make it seem like Joe Average is getting paid more than Jane Average when that may not be the case) and there are much better stats that can be used to track female participation in the higher end of the company hierarchy.

 

[Dilbert]

So if you split the pay statistics further by 'job description' rather than field then women and men work out to the same pay? That's pretty nice, the era women getting paid less then men for doing the same job is at least over.

Some of the articles I read made this point, but I haven't seen the numbers. I'd hestitate to say that I entirely believe it at this point.

But yes, the major issue seems to be promotion.

 

[Azih]

Some of the articles I read made this point, but I haven't seen the numbers. I'd hestitate to say that I entirely believe it at this point.

But yes, the major issue seems to be promotion.

Well you gotta admit that even on the face of it splitting by field and not job description as well isn't a nearly fine enough measurement. The huge discrepancy between the compensation at the upper levels compared to everyone else convinces me that what is much more of a Marxist issue is being confused with a feminist one.

I don't know where this came up but in a university class the prof was talking about statistics that showed female engineers got paid significantly less then male ones upon graduation. It seemed really bad until the same statistics were split further by *type* of engineering and there females got paid just as much as men (the different was always within margin of error with females sometimes getting more). It's just that for whatever reason women graviated towards the less well paid engineering fields (chemical etc.) while men were better represented in the higher paying ones (computer etc.). I *think* this was in a management class, it might have been a stats course though.

 

[BlackMage]

Shall we tackle abortion in this thread as well? Might as well get that out of the way, too.