|
Harry posted:Are you saying women should be paid more overall due to the damage maternity leave does to their career and future earnings, or do you actually believe women make 30% less than men at the same job? Everyone in professions that are female dominated should get paid more, and maternity leave should be paid, mandatory, and have threat of legal action behind any retribution.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Women are actually being paid 21% less in jobs in Seattle city government with equal time put in and reviews taken into account. It's pretty hosed. A friend of mine at a big architectural firm also found out that women were being paid around 10,000 less per year and they just quietly fixed the glitch when an HR person discovered the disparity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I agree, far too many people don't want to grant maternity leave and increase pay for women. No matter what, there will always be some vocal idiots who oppose it. My company started offering paid leave for both mothers and fathers. Some people have griped that it's unfair to people without kids, because when do they get to take their free vacation?  "It's feminism gone mad!" Some also complained about a diversity in hiring/retention effort in the industry, and that it's "reverse racism" and that these poor white males are going to be pushed out of the 95%+ white male industry. Some also made the mistake of sharing their stupid opinions on their internal company blogs, which had real life consequences for their careers. Bad with money: saying racist/sexist things at work and leaving behind evidence of it
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Women are actually being paid 21% less in jobs in Seattle city government with equal time put in and reviews taken into account. It's pretty hosed. A friend of mine at a big architectural firm also found out that women were being paid around 10,000 less per year and they just quietly fixed the glitch when an HR person discovered the disparity. I mean, that's not right, but have fun. quote:The data shows, however, that more men are employed in higher-wage positions in the City’s three largest departments which comprise 43% of all City employees: the Seattle Police Department, Seattle Fire Department, and Seattle City Light. After removing these departments from the Citywide analysis, the City found that the unadjusted gender pay gap narrows to 98.2%. I had no idea people outside of gender's studies still believed in the pay gap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
I'm suspect of any claim that women are disadvantaged towards men in any way because it's not like it's women have been disadvantaged for thousands of years of human existence or anything. Really, the burden of proof is on the ladies to prove it. Women. Ha. Can't live with em, can't live without em. Really though, BWM is investing in your country's culture or quality of life regardless of an individual's income or production. If there's no threat of poverty forever looming around the population, the good ones might be a little lazy or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Some people have griped that it's unfair to people without kids, because when do they get to take their free vacation? edit: random fact, I read in the Economist a little while ago that offering significant parental leave doesn't actually induce more births, but it does have the effect of making guys better fathers. Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:I'm suspect of any claim that women are disadvantaged towards men in any way because it's not like it's women have been disadvantaged for thousands of years of human existence or anything. Really, the burden of proof is on the ladies to prove it. Women. Ha. Can't live with em, can't live without em. I'm sure The Patriarchy™ will offer you a reparations check ASAP. EDIT: I heard the best GWM thing earlier today. A company I consult with is based in the Bay Area. The CTO was getting tired of the grind, and he told them he was going to be quitting to move to New Zealand. They countered with letting him move and work out of the countryside in New Zealand while still paying him a Bay Area tech wage. Comrade Flynn fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Wait, don't New Zealand housing prices put SF to shame?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Wait, don't New Zealand housing prices put SF to shame? Nothing puts SF prices to shame, but this guy lived way out in the loving Shire. Bought this huge ranch. God, I've been jealous all day. EDIT: Look at this poo poo: http://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-2290-8ygexn/10-elizabeth-road-bluff-hill-napier-napier-ha-4130 http://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-496-kpc5ss/lot-5-te-kauae-rise-other-auckland-au I am Doing It Wrong. Cicero posted:That would be rather challenging these days, since SF median rent is now 20% higher than New Zealand's per capita GDP: I'd be surprised if that rent wasn't above the per capita Bay Area GDP too. SF is just loving crazy. Comrade Flynn fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Sep 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Wait, don't New Zealand housing prices put SF to shame? quote:We already knew the rent was too drat high, even before we published a report this February showing not only that the median for a one bedroom apartment in the city had jumped to $3,460, but that even formerly cheaper neighborhoods were now among the pricey. (To check out a map of the city’s crazy rents by ‘nabe, go here.) quote:GDP (nominal) 2015 estimate
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Cicero posted:That would be rather challenging these days, since SF median rent is now 20% higher than New Zealand's per capita GDP: Google says per capita GDP for the U.S. is ballpark 53k so... Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Comrade Flynn posted:I mean, that's not right, but have fun. Excuse me? http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/gender-justice-project A study released in 2013 by the National Partnership for Women and Families revealed that across the nation, women earn just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In the Seattle metro area that number drops to 73 cents for every dollar – the worst pay gap in the nation. At the City of Seattle, the pay gap among City employees is significantly smaller, with women earning 90.5 cents for every dollar a man earns. This gap widens when race is taken into account. While white women earn an average of 92 cents for every dollar a white man earns at the City of Seattle, Asian and Pacific Islander women earn 85 cents, Latina women earn 83 cents, African American women earn 79 cents and Native American women earn 74 cents How about you actually cite some correct sources there buddy. Jesus, this is definitely the wrong thread in the wrong forum for this but being born a woman can really loving suck when people contantly poo poo on those of us who point out the obvious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Wait, don't New Zealand housing prices put SF to shame? Auckland and Northshore prices break the bank. However there's not reason to live there if you don't have to. House prices are more reasonable in the remainder of the country. Of course working remotely and being paid in USD is good with money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Excuse me? Sure have fun: http://murray.seattle.gov/category/economy/gender-pay-gap/#sthash.ELUmDHI9.dpbs A follow up to that study. Looked into the numbers, and just like every other time this idiotic argument is brought it up turns out the biggest contributor to the wage gap is seniority and job choice. No capitalistic society will actually pay someone 70 cents on the dollar for the same work because of The Patriarchy. There's not some big misogynistic conspiracy at work here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Comrade Flynn posted:No capitalistic society will actually pay someone 70 cents on the dollar for the same work because of The Patriarchy. There's not some big misogynistic conspiracy at work here. There absolutely is, it just comes in the form of forcing women to work "lady jobs" that allow them to have and raise the next generation of people. I agree that there isn't a shadowy cabal of people paying women less for exactly the same job in most situations. I don't plan on having kids but I'm pro maternity leave because I don't hate my mom, nor would I have wanted her to suffer more when she raised me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Google says per capita GDP for the U.S. is ballpark 53k so... Yeah. quote:Wait, don't New Zealand housing prices put SF to shame?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Now they're forced to work lady jobs. Okay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Excuse me? The wage gap is because women work in jobs that get paid less than the jobs men work, not because they're working the same jobs and getting paid less. It is disingenuous to argue the latter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Harry posted:Now they're forced to work lady jobs. Okay. Yes, except that I wouldn't really blame maternity leave. Lots of tech companies have maternity leave with devs actually able to take it, and lots of poo poo jobs are ones where you can't take it
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Goddammit post more idiots from Reddit. This is not the entertainment I look for whilst pooping at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Comrade Flynn posted:Sure have fun: http://murray.seattle.gov/category/economy/gender-pay-gap/#sthash.ELUmDHI9.dpbs
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
movax posted:Goddammit post more idiots from Reddit. This is not the entertainment I look for whilst pooping at work. at least it's related to money - that same discussion could have happened verbatim in the thread about disney vacations, or the cocaine/crack megathread
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:The wage gap is because women work in jobs that get paid less than the jobs men work, not because they're working the same jobs and getting paid less. It is disingenuous to argue the latter. Except in academia where I've literally sat on search committees for new hires and watched the female applicants get their pay negotiated down below the levels the male applicants asked for. When I say literally, I really mean literally. I literally watched male applicants (notice I am using the plural here) ask for a pay level that the committee choose not to negotiate to a lower level, while female applicants (plural again) asking for the same level were being given lower counter-offers. The committee choose to hire a woman and her starting salary was roughly 10% below the starting salary of the male hire who came on 2 months earlier. The pay gap is absolutely real, and people absolutely do intentionally underpay women for the same job (because many women have been socialised to accept the lower offer).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Except in academia where I've literally sat on search committees for new hires and watched the female applicants get their pay negotiated down below the levels the male applicants asked for. When I say literally, I really mean literally. I literally watched male applicants (notice I am using the plural here) ask for a pay level that the committee choose not to negotiate to a lower level, while female applicants (plural again) asking for the same level were being given lower counter-offers. The committee choose to hire a woman and her starting salary was roughly 10% below the starting salary of the male hire who came on 2 months earlier. I think that there's a significant problem identified here but that using a mandated pay equity scale ultimately may lead to salary structures where the only variable that alters pay is seniority. Women do need better wages and do need help in achieving them and I certainly think that providing counseling in negotiations and asserting oneself should be made available to women (and everyone in general) and that it is a viable way to get to the desired goal without embracing all the costs attendant to governmentally structured compensation packages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Women absolutely do get paid less for performing the same jobs as men. Not sure what you guys are smoking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Women absolutely do get paid less for performing the same jobs as men. Not sure what you guys are smoking. http://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2015/09/gender-bias-academic-science-new-studies.html It's also not just getting paid less, female researchers receive much less grant money and are promoted at a significantly lower rate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Women absolutely do get paid less for performing the same jobs as men. Not sure what you guys are smoking. Multiple studies and personal anecdotes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Women absolutely do get paid less for performing the same jobs as men. Not sure what you guys are smoking. There's a lot of data that contradicts that, unfortunately when you present it along with "mandatory maternity leave for all jobs, with threat of tribunal, and increase pay in all female-dominated jobs (for both men and women)" you're painted as an MRA. Being forced into crap jobs because you're a woman is a bad, real problem that is way, WAY more prevalent than doing exactly the same job, with the same tenure, at less pay. It does happen, but it's demonstrably less harmful than the former.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
This derail loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Bad with money is getting married to a girl you dated for 3 weeks before a nine month deployment when you're an idiot private. Enjoy your long distance divorce and alamony. Source is my previous and current platoon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Grumpo posted:Bad with money is getting married to a girl you dated for 3 weeks before a nine month deployment when you're an idiot private. Enjoy your long distance divorce and alamony. Source is my previous and current platoon. Ouch. At least see if you can make through a deployment before getting married.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
It seems to be the in thing among this current group of joe's. Alternately if you are the spouse this is GWM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Grumpo posted:Bad with money is getting married to a girl you dated for 3 weeks before a nine month deployment when you're an idiot private. Enjoy your long distance divorce and alamony. Source is my previous and current platoon. Seriously, why is the army so so so so full of these morons? That's not even shocking, I've heard that story at least 40 times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Grumpo posted:Bad with money is getting married to a girl you dated for 3 weeks before a nine month deployment when you're an idiot private. Enjoy your long distance divorce and alamony. Source is my previous and current platoon. I can only see doing that if the girl is insanely hot. Still stupid, but understandably stupid if you're young. But in these kinds of cases, the woman is never hot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Seriously, why is the army so so so so full of these morons? That's not even shocking, I've heard that story at least 40 times. It's explicitly incentivized by the military rules. Obviously that doesn't make it a good idea, but service members are definitely encouraged to do it simply due to the nature of the rules. You get a bunch more money to house your dependents if you are married, and spouses get a lot of benefits that girlfriends don't. It sure seems to me like if the military wanted to explicitly serve their members interest, they would extend those benefits to a single partner unconditionally but what do I know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
It seems to be a lifestyle alot of dudes actually like. My husbands parents are actually way way way worse together now that he isn't deployed for 6+ months on a sub. They basically start to fall apart after being around each other frequently for 5 months and so every time his deployment came up it was a godsend. Now that he's retired he is a teacher and they start to eat at each other hardcore when he's on summer vacation so he always volunteers for summer school. He's due to retire from his 2nd career and I fully expect one of them to murder the other or just like live in separate parts of the house with in a year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Grumpo posted:Bad with money is getting married to a girl you dated for 3 weeks before a nine month deployment when you're an idiot private. Enjoy your long distance divorce and alamony. Source is my previous and current platoon. It's not only idiot privates, either. I've got a cousin that has always been very smart and pragmatic, but grew up in a military family. He was always an honors student, ended up going to West Point and graduated and became an intelligence officer in the Army. I forget the exact backstory, but somehow he met this girl in between deployments and they rushed to get married. She was non-military but from a military family and was a spoiled daddy's girl, super controlling of my cousin, and was (surprise) the stereotypical Bridezilla. They had a huge extravagant wedding (if I had to guess, $75-100k but who the gently caress knows... but a lot) with tons of guests, but the whole wedding just felt so forced and was super tacky. The really sad thing was that among my side of the family everyone knew that it wasn't going to last, so much so it was being whispered about at the wedding itself. That marriage was over in 6 months, before he returned from his next deployment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Grumpo posted:Bad with money is getting married to a girl you dated for 3 weeks before a nine month deployment when you're an idiot private. Enjoy your long distance divorce and alamony. Source is my previous and current platoon. Was she loving Jody?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:It seems to be a lifestyle alot of dudes actually like. My husbands parents are actually way way way worse together now that he isn't deployed for 6+ months on a sub. They basically start to fall apart after being around each other frequently for 5 months and so every time his deployment came up it was a godsend. Now that he's retired he is a teacher and they start to eat at each other hardcore when he's on summer vacation so he always volunteers for summer school. He's due to retire from his 2nd career and I fully expect one of them to murder the other or just like live in separate parts of the house with in a year. Your husband's parents sound like they are BWM: bad with marriage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
nickutz posted:Was she loving Jody? Everytime. Jody's a big dude. Most try to do it for family seperation but it never works out. The military incentives for families are way over emphasized and constantly encourage this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:19
|
|