Gender pay myth debunked

[martybegan]

Employers get less value from employing women than males. They invest the same time and money in training and education, yet women have shorter work terms because they get pregnant. Also, women have too many moving parts and thing-a-ma-bobs. They have to take more time off for health reasons. Then after they have kids many do not come back to work, thereby requiring the employer to start over and loose on the learning curve afforded the replacement employee.

The reality is that if you pay a woman the same exact dollar amount you pay a man for the same job, then you are overpaying the woman. Her contribution is not worth as much as the man because she has diminished longevity.

Boy you sure told him! I like the part when you dismantled his argument with facts and logic.

I'm not going to bother. His post is patently stupid.

I believe there are valid reasons why one person makes more or less than another. His post is just dumb. My ex wife has been on her job for near 30 years. She has missed less work than half the men I've hired in that same time COMBINED.

Stereotyping is dumb

The only validity for the child rearing argument is the effective experience of the person in question. If a woman takes off 2-3 years total for having and raising kids, you have to take that into account when comparing rates in professions that are based on experience, i.e if you have a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman that both started working at 20, but the woman took of 3 years to raise some kids, then their experience becomes 20 for the man, and 17 for the woman, and you can no longer compare them "as equal" when it comes to pay in professions that are experienced based. You would have to compare her to a man with the same 17 years.

 

[thanatos144]

Employers get less value from employing women than males. They invest the same time and money in training and education, yet women have shorter work terms because they get pregnant. Also, women have too many moving parts and thing-a-ma-bobs. They have to take more time off for health reasons. Then after they have kids many do not come back to work, thereby requiring the employer to start over and loose on the learning curve afforded the replacement employee.

The reality is that if you pay a woman the same exact dollar amount you pay a man for the same job, then you are overpaying the woman. Her contribution is not worth as much as the man because she has diminished longevity.

Boy you sure told him! I like the part when you dismantled his argument with facts and logic.

I'm not going to bother. His post is patently stupid.

I believe there are valid reasons why one person makes more or less than another. His post is just dumb. My ex wife has been on her job for near 30 years. She has missed less work than half the men I've hired in that same time COMBINED.

Stereotyping is dumb

The only validity for the child rearing argument is the effective experience of the person in question. If a woman takes off 2-3 years total for having and raising kids, you have to take that into account when comparing rates in professions that are based on experience, i.e if you have a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman that both started working at 20, but the woman took of 3 years to raise some kids, then their experience becomes 20 for the man, and 17 for the woman, and you can no longer compare them "as equal" when it comes to pay in professions that are experienced based. You would have to compare her to a man with the same 17 years.

Now Now Common sense and logic be darned! Because she is a woman we are suppose to ignore the fact she took 3 years off!

That is ow they want us to think. Sadly many a woman buy this nonsense.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Employers get less value from employing women than males. They invest the same time and money in training and education, yet women have shorter work terms because they get pregnant. Also, women have too many moving parts and thing-a-ma-bobs. They have to take more time off for health reasons. Then after they have kids many do not come back to work, thereby requiring the employer to start over and loose on the learning curve afforded the replacement employee.

The reality is that if you pay a woman the same exact dollar amount you pay a man for the same job, then you are overpaying the woman. Her contribution is not worth as much as the man because she has diminished longevity.

Boy you sure told him! I like the part when you dismantled his argument with facts and logic.

I'm not going to bother. His post is patently stupid.

I believe there are valid reasons why one person makes more or less than another. His post is just dumb. My ex wife has been on her job for near 30 years. She has missed less work than half the men I've hired in that same time COMBINED.

Stereotyping is dumb

The only validity for the child rearing argument is the effective experience of the person in question. If a woman takes off 2-3 years total for having and raising kids, you have to take that into account when comparing rates in professions that are based on experience, i.e if you have a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman that both started working at 20, but the woman took of 3 years to raise some kids, then their experience becomes 20 for the man, and 17 for the woman, and you can no longer compare them "as equal" when it comes to pay in professions that are experienced based. You would have to compare her to a man with the same 17 years.

Now Now Common sense and logic be darned! Because she is a woman we are suppose to ignore the fact she took 3 years off!

That is ow they want us to think. Sadly many a woman buy this nonsense.

Experience is not determined so much by time on the job as it is the ability to actually do the job effectively & efficiently.
I've hired people with far more years "experience" that can't come close to some of my short time employees.

 

[martybegan]

Boy you sure told him! I like the part when you dismantled his argument with facts and logic.

I'm not going to bother. His post is patently stupid.

I believe there are valid reasons why one person makes more or less than another. His post is just dumb. My ex wife has been on her job for near 30 years. She has missed less work than half the men I've hired in that same time COMBINED.

Stereotyping is dumb

The only validity for the child rearing argument is the effective experience of the person in question. If a woman takes off 2-3 years total for having and raising kids, you have to take that into account when comparing rates in professions that are based on experience, i.e if you have a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman that both started working at 20, but the woman took of 3 years to raise some kids, then their experience becomes 20 for the man, and 17 for the woman, and you can no longer compare them "as equal" when it comes to pay in professions that are experienced based. You would have to compare her to a man with the same 17 years.

Now Now Common sense and logic be darned! Because she is a woman we are suppose to ignore the fact she took 3 years off!

That is ow they want us to think. Sadly many a woman buy this nonsense.

Experience is not determined so much by time on the job as it is the ability to actually do the job effectively & efficiently.
I've hired people with far more years "experience" that can't come close to some of my short time employees.

True, experience can be variable and not reliant on time in trade, but when you need to compare something like pay between people, years of experience is needed to compare apples to apples. It's the best measure to use when you can't interrogate every person in a survey to figure out how to compare them.

 

[thanatos144]

Boy you sure told him! I like the part when you dismantled his argument with facts and logic.

I'm not going to bother. His post is patently stupid.

I believe there are valid reasons why one person makes more or less than another. His post is just dumb. My ex wife has been on her job for near 30 years. She has missed less work than half the men I've hired in that same time COMBINED.

Stereotyping is dumb

The only validity for the child rearing argument is the effective experience of the person in question. If a woman takes off 2-3 years total for having and raising kids, you have to take that into account when comparing rates in professions that are based on experience, i.e if you have a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman that both started working at 20, but the woman took of 3 years to raise some kids, then their experience becomes 20 for the man, and 17 for the woman, and you can no longer compare them "as equal" when it comes to pay in professions that are experienced based. You would have to compare her to a man with the same 17 years.

Now Now Common sense and logic be darned! Because she is a woman we are suppose to ignore the fact she took 3 years off!

That is ow they want us to think. Sadly many a woman buy this nonsense.

Experience is not determined so much by time on the job as it is the ability to actually do the job effectively & efficiently.
I've hired people with far more years "experience" that can't come close to some of my short time employees.

So because the person is a woman the way you judge experience needs to change? I mean if I put 10 years in a company I would be pissed if someone working 7 year made as much or more them me.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Boy you sure told him! I like the part when you dismantled his argument with facts and logic.

I'm not going to bother. His post is patently stupid.

I believe there are valid reasons why one person makes more or less than another. His post is just dumb. My ex wife has been on her job for near 30 years. She has missed less work than half the men I've hired in that same time COMBINED.

Stereotyping is dumb

The only validity for the child rearing argument is the effective experience of the person in question. If a woman takes off 2-3 years total for having and raising kids, you have to take that into account when comparing rates in professions that are based on experience, i.e if you have a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman that both started working at 20, but the woman took of 3 years to raise some kids, then their experience becomes 20 for the man, and 17 for the woman, and you can no longer compare them "as equal" when it comes to pay in professions that are experienced based. You would have to compare her to a man with the same 17 years.

Now Now Common sense and logic be darned! Because she is a woman we are suppose to ignore the fact she took 3 years off!

That is ow they want us to think. Sadly many a woman buy this nonsense.

Experience is not determined so much by time on the job as it is the ability to actually do the job effectively & efficiently.
I've hired people with far more years "experience" that can't come close to some of my short time employees.

So because the person is a woman the way you judge experience needs to change? I mean if I put 10 years in a company I would be pissed if someone working 7 year made as much or more them me.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're talking like a tenured democrat teacher now lol. I pay based on the value you bring to the table not how long you've sat at the table. Yours is an opinion of entitlement imo

 

[thanatos144]

I'm not going to bother. His post is patently stupid.

I believe there are valid reasons why one person makes more or less than another. His post is just dumb. My ex wife has been on her job for near 30 years. She has missed less work than half the men I've hired in that same time COMBINED.

Stereotyping is dumb

The only validity for the child rearing argument is the effective experience of the person in question. If a woman takes off 2-3 years total for having and raising kids, you have to take that into account when comparing rates in professions that are based on experience, i.e if you have a 40 year old man, and a 40 year old woman that both started working at 20, but the woman took of 3 years to raise some kids, then their experience becomes 20 for the man, and 17 for the woman, and you can no longer compare them "as equal" when it comes to pay in professions that are experienced based. You would have to compare her to a man with the same 17 years.

Now Now Common sense and logic be darned! Because she is a woman we are suppose to ignore the fact she took 3 years off!

That is ow they want us to think. Sadly many a woman buy this nonsense.

Experience is not determined so much by time on the job as it is the ability to actually do the job effectively & efficiently.
I've hired people with far more years "experience" that can't come close to some of my short time employees.

So because the person is a woman the way you judge experience needs to change? I mean if I put 10 years in a company I would be pissed if someone working 7 year made as much or more them me.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're talking like a tenured democrat teacher now lol. I pay based on the value you bring to the table not how long you've sat at the table. Yours is an opinion of entitlement imo

I am talking like a working man not a fool screaming about privilege

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[konradv]

Women coders do better than men in gender-blind study

The article is biased as is the study. How can a study be gender blind when they were already looking for the differences in genders?

It's gender-blind, if the people assessing the work don't know the gender of the creator. If I pick out 10 programs by males and and 10 by females and give them to someone else to evaluate, that's not bias. It's proper scientific method.

 

[thanatos144]

Women coders do better than men in gender-blind study

The article is biased as is the study. How can a study be gender blind when they were already looking for the differences in genders?

It's gender-blind, if the people assessing the work don't know the gender of the creator. If I pick out 10 programs by males and and 10 by females and give them to someone else to evaluate, that's not bias. It's proper scientific method.

except they already had preconceived notions and shaped the study to fit that. Like notice how they dont reference applicants in it? Or whether they work the same hours and took off the same amount of days at work? They already had the conclusion they wanted and manufactured a study around it.