Check out this fresh, unjustified outrage for the tired annual figure of gender salary "inequity", showing this go-round that last year "full-time working women in the US earned 77% that of men." Does this mean that the broad who works in the cube next to me, performing the same work, at the same level of expertise, with my same credentials and performance rathing, earns 25% less than I do? No, of course not.
When the writer of this article provides details, it undermines her indignation. For example: "Waitresses were paid an average of $46 per week less than waiters." Now, how can this be possible? All waiters at any restaurant earn the same hourly wage, and they all work for tips. Are American consumers -- HALF OF WHOM ARE CHICKS! -- tipping broads less than dudes? Of course not. And consider that some of the best-tipping jobs -- cocktail waitresses -- are off-limits to guys (except at the bars frequented by Nadir's dad). Surely something besides descrimination must explain this discrepancy.
Same for this writer's revelation that last year "Female physicians earned an average $679 per week less than male doctors." Are ho brain surgeons getting paid less? How could this even be possible? Or are chick MDs simply less likely than dude MDs to select the higher-paying specialties?
Afterall, chicks are now out-performing dudes in all areas of academics: a greater fraction graduate high school, attend college, graduate college, and their average test scores and GPAs trump those of fellers. Does this "gender inequality" result from anti-male descrimination? If broads can beat dudes in academics without descrimination, then maybe dudes can beat broads in income for similar reasons: personal choices. Whereas girls are making personal choices that translate into better academic results than dudes, dudes are making personal choices that translate into better salary results than chicks.
I wonder if the broad who wrote this column gets paid less than her fellow fellers who write columns at her paper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Admit it, Paul. You have no idea how much the "broad" who sits in the cube next to you makes. She may very well make 25% less or 25% more than you, but you don't know.
You're speculating. The "broad" who wrote this article did research, because she cites Census bureau info. What stats do you have to back up your assertions?
Nadir: The broad who wrote the article presented her research. None of it supported any claim that men and women with only their gender seperating them get paid differently. If she had such data she would have presented it, surely, because it would have directly proven her assertion. I cannnot assume that she would present irrelevent data and hide relevent data! Presentation of irrelevent data is understandable: she doesn't understand statistics and science! That is proven by the disparity between her assertion and the data that she believes supports her assertion.
Ford and other big companies have rigid pay schedules that govern salaries; gender does not figure into the equation. Explicit laws forbid violations, and armies of attornies await any examples of gender disparity equating to salary disparity. The top to managers in my building are hoes, and it appears that about half of the managers are hoes, and more than half of the people are non-honkey.
I have posted before data presented by Tom Sowell showing that corporate salaries have no bias against gender or race for people with similar credentials, seniority, etc. Unions absoultely ensure that women and non-honkeys earn exaclty the same wages as do cracker dudes. But women who don't learn how to weld can't get jobs as welders! And with black college students disproportionately majoring in social work, education, criminal justice, business, nursing, and respiratory therapy, they cannot get paid as physicians, computer scientists, and engineers!
"Ford and other big companies have rigid pay schedules that govern salaries; gender does not figure into the equation."
Ford and other big companies have pay grades or ranges which have a lot of variation. For example, just pulling numbers out of my ass, if you're a pay grade 8, your salary may be from $70k - $90k depending on where you fall within the grade.
That means that even if the "broad" next to you is the same pay grade, you could make up to $20k more. Right?
Of course, it's illegal to discriminate. That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist, though you would claim there is none at Ford. The people who have filed class action lawsuits and sexual harrassment suits against the company would disagree with you.
Do you believe that because there are laws against it, people don't break the law? Are you one of those people who never speeds?
"But women who don't learn how to weld can't get jobs as welders! And with black college students disproportionately majoring in social work, education, criminal justice, business, nursing, and respiratory therapy, they cannot get paid as physicians, computer scientists, and engineers!"
But you always cite stats saying that women are outperforming men in school. I think because women and other minorities are trying to make up for years of discrimination, there are white dudes at the top end that skew the curve. Because there are so many more white male CEOs than there are female or Black CEOs, the percentages could be off. This is your argument that job for job, salaries are more equal.
I recall seeing data that refuted this, and I think we discussed it here, but I don't remember exactly when and where.
Post a Comment