How does /pol/ rationalize this away? That women are all in cahoots with each other to lie individually? I look forward to hearing the Alex Jones-tier paranoia and crazy-talk-bullshit. Thanks!
https://www.glassdoor.com/research/studies/gender-pay-gap/
>>68639855
>what is sorting income by profession
Women work as secretaries.
Being a biological document handler simply isn't as valuable as being an engineer.
>>68639855
Hard work pays better.
Women don't work hard.
Work is the value of work, not money.
>>68639967
>Further, comparing workers with the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to 5.4 percent (94.6 cents per dollar).
Please read the study.
>>68640210
>Let me just wipe my hands of this evidence with my bullshit explanation that doesn't actually explain anything other than I think women are lazy.
I can tell your a hard worker. Maybe not a smart one, but definitely a hard one.
>>68640383
>you're*
Also you'd think /pol/ would like this, as it shows the pay gap is actually much tighter than what politicians say.
>>68640383
>5.4 percent (94.6 cents per dollar).
And this can easily be explained with things like male predominance in the field in question and seniority.
5% is a meme argument and not worth bothering with.
>>68639855
Women do not work as hard or as well and ask for more in exchange for less.
Why do you deny biological differences?
How would we remedy this? Force employers to pay 5.4% more for 5.4% less work?
In a free market, you are paid exactly what you are worth. There is zero incentive to pay women for less work.
>>68640493
Again, read the study
>comparing workers with similar age, education and years of experience
>>68640619
>Women do not work as hard or as well and ask for more in exchange for less.
citation needed
I try to be patient with you, /pol/. But sometimes it's the most basic shit you can't seem to grasp. I'm not talking beliefs, but entry level shit like reading comprehension.
Also this isn't an all women thing I've worked many a job where the women and me are on the same pay, this stuff only matters in high end jobs and desu it shows they can't negotiate a contract for shit
the freakonomics episode on the gender pay gap is pretty good
>>68640873
>Again, read the study
the gender pay gap is a retarded myth
Also find me the excerpt of
"comparing workers with similar age, education and years of experience"
>>68641077
Shhh you can't bring economical facts into it, she only needs this document as it has 'the facts' to prove her argument
>>68641144
It's literally the third paragraph. Jesus Christ Austria, get it together man.
>>68641144
Try comparing the same not similar ....
If the pay gap was real some gimp on tumblr would have the proof. Wage slip before he had his cock cut off and wage slip after
>>68641335
>" Further, comparing workers with
the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to
5.4 percent (94.6 cents per dollar)."
At 5% it becomes a meme.
Just not worth expending money and thought over. This just ends up in retarded womens quotas and other garbage that strangles the economy.
How would I explain the 5% gap here?
Productivity.
I'm not sure if many studies exist comparing the productivity of men vs. women in such constraints as this paragraph mentions:
>"Further, comparing workers with
the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to
5.4 percent (94.6 cents per dollar)."
The "best measure" of productivity would be the worker salary, because the bosses will generally have a good "intuition" of which worker works harder and which worker slacks off. If you just straight up ask workers about "how productive you think you are", most of them will start hamstering and lying.
If we were to dive into this yet again, I suppose we could discover that because a large part of bosses/managers are older men they may have the archaic belief of "well men just work harder and thats how I was raised because my mom was a housewife".
Even if we accept that as fact, what will we do about it?
Waste money like I mentioned previously?
Or lets just leave those 5% alone.
>>68640383
I'm a lazy fuck on a pension.
Rather than focus on the cash problem (I have no idea what "adjusted" means - doing the same job?) have a look at the health effects of men vs womens jobs. Men are MUCH more likely to be injured or killed on the job. Their jobs are more dangerous, and they are paid more accordingly.
Even when a man and a women have the exact same job, a man will often be tasked with the hard parts, it will be his fingers that go into the machine to disassemble it. it will be his life on the line at the top of the power pole. he will be doing the underwater welding. If some women want they can take steroids to keep up and do ALL THE MAN JOBS. but it's simply impossible in our current culture.
The pay gap correlates well with the weight gap between the genders, too. Why pay someone more when they are clearly going to give less output to your company? Of course this has nothing to do with service-sector jobs, where women collect more tips, and single women between 20 and 30 already earn more than single men. My personal opinion is that service sector jobs are forced into existence to give women something to do - nobody NEEDS a waitress to smile at them. Nobody NEEDS a reiki session, and nobody NEEDS a psychic reading.
I would cite some references but your local water cooler or coffee machine and all the clucking standing vaginas around it should be evidence enough.
>>68641359
pic related
>>68641654
>How would I explain the 5% gap here?
>Productivity.
>I'm not sure if many studies exist comparing the productivity of men vs. women in such constraints as this paragraph mentions:
If you know no or few studies exist, why would you believe it? Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds?
>>68641800
Men are MUCH more likely to be injured or killed on the job. Their jobs are more dangerous, and they are paid more accordingly.
The study only compares women working the same job. I.e. women engineers vs men engineers. Your point is invalid. pls lrn2debate
>>68639855
men are more likely to ask for higher salaries when hired and more likely to demand a raise
men are also less likely to take sick days and vacation time, making them more productive, thus meaning their bosses are more likely to give them raises and promotions, because a year of a man working is worth more than woman
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/10660612/Women-are-almost-42-per-cent-more-likely-to-take-sick-days-than-men.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2013/04/25/vacation-travel-study/2110505/
there are better sources than those, im ust too lay to find them right now
>>68641955
seems my backup arrived:
>>68642040
At 5% it deteriorates into a stupid argument.
How do you suggest we fix this 5% "gap"?
By expending lots of government money and raising the taxes, which will effectively hurt the women more than it will benefit them?
Whats your endgame here?
>>68641955
like I said, it's because even with the same job, it's the MAN ENGINEER who puts his hand in the machine. The one who takes on board the risk.
Manufacturing companies in america were floating alright before the weaker sex got involved and now they're tanking. And I'm willing to bet the new factories in china doesn't employ many women either.
Also, considering services slaves to be "gainfully employed" is a fucking joke.
But don't mine me darl, I'm talking with my penis after all :)
>>68642282
>At 5% it deteriorates into a stupid argument.
>How do you suggest we fix this 5% "gap"?
>Whats your endgame here?
did you quote the wrong post? because i said nothing about "fixing" such a nonissue
>people coting studies they have not actually read and attempted to understand because it backs up their preconceived notions
That study was poorly done, most studies are shit and nonscientific. It is only a handful that hold to scrutiny.
>>68642040
You're right, point conceded
>>68642282
>>68642440
No, you don't get "backup" because your posts are borderline retarded. Both of you need to smarten up. Also Australia, you're just regurgitating points you already brought up, and I already shot down. You're right for the wrong reasons, and that makes you fucking stupid.
>>68642516
was talking to the pink ID / white text, not you.
I was just referring to you as the backup on my "productivity" claims, which is nice bro.
>>68642623
>No, you don't get "backup" because your posts are borderline retarded.
>I claim productivity.
>Some other dude rolls up with some proofs.
"you are retarded"
-t. autist
Why don't companies save money by only hiring women then
>>68639855
less ambition
less drive
more emotional
worse negotiators as a result of lower testosterone levels.
all of these differences are biological.
you don't need any more "rationalization" than this, this is the reason women are not paid as much as men in a free market economy. they are less valuable as workers, so they receive less compensation for their efforts. The end.
I still don't know why I click on these b8 threads
>Implying ~5% is statistically significant
>Implying the p value is less than .05
I am eager for a response OP.
>>68639855
The study does not take into account hours worked. Men are more likely to work longer hours/overtime and be more aggressive about getting promotions.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.
>replying "read the study" whenever somebody raises an objection
Yes cunt, I'm going to take the time out of my day to read a 50 page study just so I can be ignored by you when I make a proper rebuttal.
I'll give a fuck about the gender pay gap when the workplace death gap is closed via execution of the appropriate number of females to ensure that we have "equality."
>>68645438
It's a losers argument.
Good to know that we won over the stickler idiot once again.
