I’m not sexist

neugey · 09-12-2018, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

Let us end all this gender bulls1it once and for all.

New announcer model.

IBM Watson gonna do football games. Might as well to go with the commercials.

rezburna · 09-12-2018, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by spkb25

The number one cost of all businesses is their employees. Any business that could slash cost by 20% overnight by simply hiring all women would. They wouldn't think twice.

Which would result in an Affirmative Action lawsuit because that was actually a law put in place to benefit any social group being mistreated. Women have benefitted the most from Affirmative Action. White women in particular.

TheOak · 09-12-2018, 10:45 AM

This is similar to the global warming (please don’t start on this, it’s just a reference).

The lie being pushed is that somehow the stats are because of employer bias and that something can be done to change it.

Poll a thousand males and a thousand females and ask them.. Given a conflict between family/Home responsibility’s and career which one do you gravitate to? You’ll find that females have a much higher propensity to focus on the home and family while males gravitate towards work.

So two lawyers are married and have a child, the majority of the time the female will be the one who’s career gets put on hold.

If you need a study to believe that you are pretty clueless in regards to human nature.

burningmetal · 09-12-2018, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

Ignore the facts. Fine. There is clearly pay gap. Employers for the most part are driven by the bottom line. Given all other factors the average employer would hire the employee willing to work for less. This is a major factor of the very real pay gap. The demographics willing to working for less are unfortunately both women and minorities. And why are they willing to work for less? Because that is the best avenue for getting and sustaining employment. It is a Catch 22 that has taken half a century to improve and most likely another half century to be eliminated. Other factors, although, do include varying degrees of discrimination.

This pay disparagement exists at every level from hocking burgers to the corporate ladder rungs.

No one is ignoring facts. You have only shown a chart showing wages of women vs. men in various places. From there you just say things. You make statements without hard facts.

You claim discrimination, and you pretend to know the mind of every employer, yet you have nothing but hearsay to demonstrate these things.

ANYONE who is willing to take less, is going to make less. If you aren't going to fight for yourself, you get what you get. You know what companies REALLY like? Productivity. If you are good at what you do, they won't be looking to short change you.

The people who tend to make the least, are illegal immigrants, because, well, they aren't actually entitled to make ANY money in this country. Do companies look to benefit from that? You bet. But do you know what causes some businesses to look for cheap labor? Suffocating regulations. Cheap labor is the norm in places like Mexico, and that is why so many businesses have, are were ready to leave this country.

Trump has lifted these regulations, companies are coming back, they are raising their wages, black unemployment is at it's lowest rate ever, and women have their highest employment numbers in a long time.

It's funny what happens when the government gets out of the way of businesses. Those businesses tend to have a lot more freedom to pay all of their employees. In the kind of suffocating economy that we've endured for decades, you either hire only the utmost qualified applicants and go with a short staff, or you just hire the most desperate people who you can pay the least. Again, women simply do not accumulate the same level of experience as men do, on average, and this naturally means that their pay scale is going to be lower.

Yet, when a women, or black person, shows a unique set of skills, they unsurprisingly find themselves doing just fine. That woudn't be so, if employers made decisions based on prejudice.

burningmetal · 09-12-2018, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

This is similar to the global warming (please don’t start on this, it’s just a reference).

The lie being pushed is that somehow the stats are because of employer bias and that something can be done to change it.

Poll a thousand males and a thousand females and ask them.. Given a conflict between family/Home responsibility’s and career which one do you gravitate to? You’ll find that females have a much higher propensity to focus on the home and family while males gravitate towards work.

So two lawyers are married and have a child, the majority of the time the female will be the one who’s career gets put on hold.

If you need a study to believe that you are pretty clueless in regards to human nature.

Yes, exactly.

AsylumGuido · 09-12-2018, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

This is similar to the global warming (please don’t start on this, it’s just a reference).

The lie being pushed is that somehow the stats are because of employer bias and that something can be done to change it.

Poll a thousand males and a thousand females and ask them.. Given a conflict between family/Home responsibility’s and career which one do you gravitate to? You’ll find that females have a much higher propensity to focus on the home and family while males gravitate towards work.

So two lawyers are married and have a child, the majority of the time the female will be the one who’s career gets put on hold.

If you need a study to believe that you are pretty clueless in regards to human nature.

I guess you missed the part about the numbers being based upon US Census Bureau data on males and females working similar full-time, year-round jobs.

TheOak · 09-12-2018, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

I guess you missed the part about the numbers being based upon US Census Bureau data on males and females working similar full-time, year-round jobs.

FFS Guido I didn’t mis any parts. I’ll spell it out for you.

Dick and Jane work for Boeing both on the assembly line and started the same date 20 years ago. Bob has 20 years in that job, Judy has has two children in the last 20 years and too two years of for each. Judy missed 4 years with of pay raises.

Same full-time job, same company, same start date.

burningmetal · 09-12-2018, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

I guess you missed the part about the numbers being based upon US Census Bureau data on males and females working similar full-time, year-round jobs.

You're going to have to define "similar". Are you aware that there are actually no laws constituting what a "full time" job is? Employers decide what is full time, in order to determine certain benefits they might provide to those who qualify under THEIR terms.

People generally tend to think of 40 hours a week as being full time. But then you will have other full-timers who might be working 60, or 70, or even 80 hours. And those who provide the most value based upon their output, will receive those hours and pay raises.

And, yet again, women tend to be more inclined to ask for less so that they can be home with their children, while their husbands provide the bulk of the income. That is just life. Progressivism has tried desperately to eliminate traditional family values, and tells us that women shouldn't HAVE to be stay at home moms. But, someone has to be home with the kids, and most women accept that that is their role. It is not demeaning or devaluing women. It is their natural role, just as men are providers and protectors. You think it's convenient for men to take that on? No. It's just the way it is.

rezburna · 09-12-2018, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

FFS Guido I didn’t mis any parts. I’ll spell it out for you.

Dick and Jane work for Boeing both on the assembly line and started the same date 20 years ago. Bob has 20 years in that job, Judy has has two children in the last 20 years and too two years of for each. Judy missed 4 years with of pay raises.

Same full-time job, same company, same start date.

If she took two years off for each wouldn't that mean she only has 16 years in the company? Because if the company miraculously kept her own and let her have two years of maternity leave for each child instead of her leaving the company all together and then coming back she still would have gotten the raises just like everybody else right? I know maternity leave doesn't stop anybody from getting raises here in the hospital.

AsylumGuido · 09-12-2018, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

FFS Guido I didn’t mis any parts. I’ll spell it out for you.

Dick and Jane work for Boeing both on the assembly line and started the same date 20 years ago. Bob has 20 years in that job, Judy has has two children in the last 20 years and too two years of for each. Judy missed 4 years with of pay raises.

Same full-time job, same company, same start date.

That is understood and a factor, of course. Yet, it is not enough to account for the 30% discrepancy in Louisiana (unsurprisingly the greatest of all fifty states) and the 20% nationally.

John and Susan, both unmarried and freshly out of college holding degrees in accounting, apply for employment at the same corporation. With all qualifications being equal Susan is offered a position starting at $35K per year. John is offered an equal position starting at $40K per year. The employer, from past experience, was correct in assuming that this would be acceptable salaries to the new applicants.

Tim and June, both with two school age children and a working spouse apply for jobs with the same corporation. Same qualifications. June has two less years of total work experience, but still has ample experience and is otherwise completely qualified for the required position. John is given a level three position while June is offered a position classified at level two. The difference between the two pay levels is $12K per year. Tim and Jane do the exact same work on a day to day basis.

09-12-2018, 10:26 AM	#51
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,879 Blog Entries: 13	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by TheOak Let us end all this gender bulls1it once and for all. New announcer model. IBM Watson gonna do football games. Might as well to go with the commercials.

09-12-2018, 10:26 AM	#52
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 8,126	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by spkb25 The number one cost of all businesses is their employees. Any business that could slash cost by 20% overnight by simply hiring all women would. They wouldn't think twice. Which would result in an Affirmative Action lawsuit because that was actually a law put in place to benefit any social group being mistreated. Women have benefitted the most from Affirmative Action. White women in particular. WHODATINCA likes this.

09-12-2018, 10:45 AM	#53
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,056	Re: I’m not sexist This is similar to the global warming (please don’t start on this, it’s just a reference). The lie being pushed is that somehow the stats are because of employer bias and that something can be done to change it. Poll a thousand males and a thousand females and ask them.. Given a conflict between family/Home responsibility’s and career which one do you gravitate to? You’ll find that females have a much higher propensity to focus on the home and family while males gravitate towards work. So two lawyers are married and have a child, the majority of the time the female will be the one who’s career gets put on hold. If you need a study to believe that you are pretty clueless in regards to human nature. CharityMike, dam1953 and burningmetal like this.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

09-12-2018, 10:48 AM	#54
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by AsylumGuido Ignore the facts. Fine. There is clearly pay gap. Employers for the most part are driven by the bottom line. Given all other factors the average employer would hire the employee willing to work for less. This is a major factor of the very real pay gap. The demographics willing to working for less are unfortunately both women and minorities. And why are they willing to work for less? Because that is the best avenue for getting and sustaining employment. It is a Catch 22 that has taken half a century to improve and most likely another half century to be eliminated. Other factors, although, do include varying degrees of discrimination. This pay disparagement exists at every level from hocking burgers to the corporate ladder rungs. No one is ignoring facts. You have only shown a chart showing wages of women vs. men in various places. From there you just say things. You make statements without hard facts. You claim discrimination, and you pretend to know the mind of every employer, yet you have nothing but hearsay to demonstrate these things. ANYONE who is willing to take less, is going to make less. If you aren't going to fight for yourself, you get what you get. You know what companies REALLY like? Productivity. If you are good at what you do, they won't be looking to short change you. The people who tend to make the least, are illegal immigrants, because, well, they aren't actually entitled to make ANY money in this country. Do companies look to benefit from that? You bet. But do you know what causes some businesses to look for cheap labor? Suffocating regulations. Cheap labor is the norm in places like Mexico, and that is why so many businesses have, are were ready to leave this country. Trump has lifted these regulations, companies are coming back, they are raising their wages, black unemployment is at it's lowest rate ever, and women have their highest employment numbers in a long time. It's funny what happens when the government gets out of the way of businesses. Those businesses tend to have a lot more freedom to pay all of their employees. In the kind of suffocating economy that we've endured for decades, you either hire only the utmost qualified applicants and go with a short staff, or you just hire the most desperate people who you can pay the least. Again, women simply do not accumulate the same level of experience as men do, on average, and this naturally means that their pay scale is going to be lower. Yet, when a women, or black person, shows a unique set of skills, they unsurprisingly find themselves doing just fine. That woudn't be so, if employers made decisions based on prejudice. spkb25 and Thirty3 like this.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

09-12-2018, 10:49 AM	#55
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by TheOak This is similar to the global warming (please don’t start on this, it’s just a reference). The lie being pushed is that somehow the stats are because of employer bias and that something can be done to change it. Poll a thousand males and a thousand females and ask them.. Given a conflict between family/Home responsibility’s and career which one do you gravitate to? You’ll find that females have a much higher propensity to focus on the home and family while males gravitate towards work. So two lawyers are married and have a child, the majority of the time the female will be the one who’s career gets put on hold. If you need a study to believe that you are pretty clueless in regards to human nature. Yes, exactly.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

09-12-2018, 10:53 AM	#56
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,801	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by TheOak This is similar to the global warming (please don’t start on this, it’s just a reference). The lie being pushed is that somehow the stats are because of employer bias and that something can be done to change it. Poll a thousand males and a thousand females and ask them.. Given a conflict between family/Home responsibility’s and career which one do you gravitate to? You’ll find that females have a much higher propensity to focus on the home and family while males gravitate towards work. So two lawyers are married and have a child, the majority of the time the female will be the one who’s career gets put on hold. If you need a study to believe that you are pretty clueless in regards to human nature. I guess you missed the part about the numbers being based upon US Census Bureau data on males and females working similar full-time, year-round jobs. rezburna likes this.

09-12-2018, 11:04 AM	#57
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,056	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by AsylumGuido I guess you missed the part about the numbers being based upon US Census Bureau data on males and females working similar full-time, year-round jobs. FFS Guido I didn’t mis any parts. I’ll spell it out for you. Dick and Jane work for Boeing both on the assembly line and started the same date 20 years ago. Bob has 20 years in that job, Judy has has two children in the last 20 years and too two years of for each. Judy missed 4 years with of pay raises. Same full-time job, same company, same start date.

09-12-2018, 11:07 AM	#58
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by AsylumGuido I guess you missed the part about the numbers being based upon US Census Bureau data on males and females working similar full-time, year-round jobs. You're going to have to define "similar". Are you aware that there are actually no laws constituting what a "full time" job is? Employers decide what is full time, in order to determine certain benefits they might provide to those who qualify under THEIR terms. People generally tend to think of 40 hours a week as being full time. But then you will have other full-timers who might be working 60, or 70, or even 80 hours. And those who provide the most value based upon their output, will receive those hours and pay raises. And, yet again, women tend to be more inclined to ask for less so that they can be home with their children, while their husbands provide the bulk of the income. That is just life. Progressivism has tried desperately to eliminate traditional family values, and tells us that women shouldn't HAVE to be stay at home moms. But, someone has to be home with the kids, and most women accept that that is their role. It is not demeaning or devaluing women. It is their natural role, just as men are providers and protectors. You think it's convenient for men to take that on? No. It's just the way it is.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

09-12-2018, 11:08 AM	#59
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 8,126	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by TheOak FFS Guido I didn’t mis any parts. I’ll spell it out for you. Dick and Jane work for Boeing both on the assembly line and started the same date 20 years ago. Bob has 20 years in that job, Judy has has two children in the last 20 years and too two years of for each. Judy missed 4 years with of pay raises. Same full-time job, same company, same start date. If she took two years off for each wouldn't that mean she only has 16 years in the company? Because if the company miraculously kept her own and let her have two years of maternity leave for each child instead of her leaving the company all together and then coming back she still would have gotten the raises just like everybody else right? I know maternity leave doesn't stop anybody from getting raises here in the hospital.

09-12-2018, 11:19 AM	#60
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,801	Re: I’m not sexist Originally Posted by TheOak FFS Guido I didn’t mis any parts. I’ll spell it out for you. Dick and Jane work for Boeing both on the assembly line and started the same date 20 years ago. Bob has 20 years in that job, Judy has has two children in the last 20 years and too two years of for each. Judy missed 4 years with of pay raises. Same full-time job, same company, same start date. That is understood and a factor, of course. Yet, it is not enough to account for the 30% discrepancy in Louisiana (unsurprisingly the greatest of all fifty states) and the 20% nationally. John and Susan, both unmarried and freshly out of college holding degrees in accounting, apply for employment at the same corporation. With all qualifications being equal Susan is offered a position starting at $35K per year. John is offered an equal position starting at $40K per year. The employer, from past experience, was correct in assuming that this would be acceptable salaries to the new applicants. Tim and June, both with two school age children and a working spouse apply for jobs with the same corporation. Same qualifications. June has two less years of total work experience, but still has ample experience and is otherwise completely qualified for the required position. John is given a level three position while June is offered a position classified at level two. The difference between the two pay levels is $12K per year. Tim and Jane do the exact same work on a day to day basis.
	“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” — Winston Churchill