[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 280x280, ac447c24c7d155d0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3696781 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-kelley/why-women-are-worth-less_b_918215.html

dear /sci/
if you read this above link and many other stories, you will find that women supposedly make 77 cents for every dollar that an equal man makes in the same job, with the same hours, etc.
I was wondering if there is any explanation for that, or whether the entire thing is just exaggerated, etc?

>> No.3696794

>Amurika
>letting your women leave the kitchen

>> No.3696791

Because we're trying to discourage them from leaving the kitchen

>> No.3696803

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392

/thread.

>> No.3696806

Seriously, if women aren't supposed to be in the kitchen, then how come their bodies make milk and eggs? I've yet to hear a women bullshit her way out of that one.

>> No.3696819
File: 21 KB, 300x300, 51UT7gYNn6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_ (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

It's an exaggeration. It has to do with interpreting the data in a way that supports the argument, rather than approaching the issue of "equal pay" from a sociological standpoint (compare the number of women in the sanitation and construction industry, etc.).

Here's a book I was required to buy for statistics class. No joke.

What'll really bake your noodle is when you look up the wiki page on the Equal Rights Amendment and learn that it was the Democrats who shot it down and not the Republicans, who were all for it.

>> No.3696824

With all the women that are in the workplace, why haven't you retards noticed that they are not the go-getters that men are? People who are content to take orders and do the same work for decades, just don't demand raises, don't earn raises, and don't get promoted that often. The end result is that they are lower earners.

>> No.3696833

No, women take 77 cents from every dollar a man makes.

>> No.3696838

I thought that was "For every dollar a man makes, a woman takes 77 cents of it"

>> No.3696872

God damn women, taking jobs away from perfectly capable men.

>> No.3696873

There's some conflicting data, but the last study I read from the government indicated that women's pay is on parity with men's pay. Women tend to value things differently than men, and often take compensation in the form of non-monetary benefits, like lower-stress jobs, less dangerous jobs, jobs that don't require a lot of overtime, etc. Additionally, since many women have children, some parity in pay is the simple result of leaving the workforce. Therefore, in aggregate, it *seems* like women earn less, but when corrected for these kinds of variables, little discrepancy was found.

However, I also read about some businesses that did some kind of forced hiring of women in executive positions, and their profitability increased. This is confusing data, being less-than-analyzed.

Additionally, studies have shown that women are generally expected to be better-performing than men to be considered for the same post. This study was basically done at universities in considering women for various positions. The bias was totally uncorrelated with the sex of the person making the hiring decision, which was surprising (to some).

So, again, the data is somewhat conflicting. Right now it's safe to say that the number you quote, OP, is exaggerated; there may be some small discrepancies to work out, but some discrepancies are (currently) not the result of systematic bias against women.

>> No.3696881

It does not make economic sense to pay a woman as much as a man for equal work, unless she has had a tubal ligation, a hysterectomy, or is past childbearing years. The simple fact is, wages are as much an investment as they are compensation for work. Part of the purpose of high wages is to keep a loyal employee with minimal liabilities. Since women might suddenly need 6 months to two years off just because the rubber broke is a liability, and smart business people won't work as hard (invest as much) to keep workers that bring liabilities with them as they will to keep workers that don't.

tl;dr- Get your tubes tied and then you can be paid as much as a man for the same work.

>> No.3696887

>>3696781
Woman get better educated these days. They will rule the world in 2050.

>> No.3696892

think about it this way

If women really earned ~30% less than males or whatever, then why would companies even bother hiring males at all? Think about it, paying someone $70,000 vs $100,000 to do the same job, with no difference at all. If it were really the case, men would all be unemployed.

>> No.3696903

>>3696892
Because that's gender discrimination

>> No.3696907

>>3696892
That does not follow at all, sorry.

>> No.3696912

Women do not negotiate for higher dollar amounts.
Period.
The end.

>> No.3696914
File: 31 KB, 200x152, giggle.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3696912
>women
>period

>> No.3696918

What are these women you speak of?

>> No.3696931

>>3696907
Sorry you are so stupid that you can't comprehend such a simple idea

let me explain it again so you might actually understand it

Clearly men don't make 30% more than women do for the same job, because if they did, companies wouldn't bother hiring a man for a position, because they would be able to just hire a woman for the same job and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars less.

>> No.3696942

>>3696931
Yup. Women require maternity leave and generally take more days off. On the whole, they are less productive than males.

They work less, they are paid less. Generally, they are paid the exact same for every plate they streak, line of code they write, book they edit, or whatever they do. Taken as a whole however, they do not produce the same amount and are therefor paid less as an aggregate.

>> No.3697006

>>3696931
> Clearly men don't make 30% more than women do for the same job, because if they did, companies wouldn't bother hiring a man for a position, because they would be able to just hire a woman for the same job and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars less.
This assumes there is not a systematic bias against women. But "there is a systematic bias against women" is exactly what is in question.

So, it doesn't follow. Sorry your begged question sucks so bad, lrn2logic, etc.

>> No.3697016

If women are paid so much less, why aren't they worth more? If I ran a business I'd love a discount worker.

>> No.3697022

>>3697006

Systematic bias has never been shown to exist. You may believe it does, and it may in fact exist, but getting from there to showing that it does actually exist is quite the trip.

>> No.3697378

>>3697022
this

>> No.3697405

>>3696819
It very well may be an exaggeration. But you can't just shoot it down on your guess without actually looking at the data that was used to make that assertion.

>> No.3697442

yes, it's because women choose different job positions, and are less likely to stay on a certain job because of child birth+care.

>> No.3697453

>>3697442
>it's because women choose different job positions
>"in the same job, with the same hours, etc."

>> No.3697465

>>3697453
point still stands. you have less incentive to give women equal pay if they're going to have to take many more weeks or months off for child care.

>> No.3697499

Guys this is basic economics.

Women get paid more at jobs they are better at like stripper, prostitute etc.