State of the Union

Trollface_sl said:

You are a fucking moron. In an ideal world, everybody gets paid equal amount to the same job for the same experience. We don't live in an ideal world, dipshit. "Discrepancy" you speak of is so fucking tiny that it's importance is diminished so significantly from 77 cents per fucking dollar. Fuck gender. I'd like to see race as well. You know, just to be a fucking moron like you.

Click to expand...

Eat shit retard - if I read my followup I do acknowledge the White House figure is flawed by about 6% from the last figures I saw on the matter. I dealt with such figures on a pretty frequent basis because of my career and being a common periodical mention I've kept up on it during retirement for most years.

Hell, it's getting much better, I remember when I started my career it was closer to 40%. [And note, being geared towards MBAs and MSHRMs they are hardly liberal - they tend to be politically critical overall since so much effects the hiring fields - but overall much more conservative friendly)

But the stack is decked against women for any type of figure that includes things like "tenure" - since many women sunset on careers earlier either because of kids or their older husbands retiring before they do (remember average wife is substantially younger than her husband - also women are more likely to retire when grandkids come into the picture).

Fanaskin: What have I said about the Trayvon remarks exactly? Pretty sure I didn't even say one word on that recent nonsense - it's a stupid line of discussion on either side. (Not to mention the methodology of comparing statistics versus an offhand comment that a hypothetical child could've looked like someone is.... bizarrely Garglechimpy of a comparison to make)

The Gender Pay Gap Got Worse, Not Better, In 2012--And It's Great For Women - Forbes

Forbes seems to mirror the number I recall from a year ago - theirs is 82% on the dollar during the timeframe I remember. 1% off of my memory.

Keep on Chimpin'.

PS - Took seconds to find that, thanks for taking the effort to look on your own rather than just eliciting doubt mindlessly.

But lets pick up on stupid extrapolation rather than trusting the BLS that has been doing this for decades under criteria agreed upon by both parties and hasn't been changed my career lifetime in methodology. Perhaps you don't like the criteria they use, but that's a separate argument to make - but it's been an identical method used for years. [And note, the current formula was started during Nixon's timeframe from what I can tell]

PSS - HR and hiring figures including salary data are a pretty big deal, do you think hiring professionals don't share and consult data on how much a given career averages in the market when working on setting up hiring? Seriously? HR's value in some things might be debatable, but in salary discussions it's an absolute fucking trump card, neanderthal.

Vaclav_sl said:

The Gender Pay Gap Got Worse, Not Better, In 2012--And It's Great For Women - Forbes

Forbes seems to mirror the number I recall from a year ago - theirs is 82% on the dollar during the timeframe I remember. 1% off of my memory.

Keep on Chimpin'.

PS - Took seconds to find that, thanks for taking the effort to look on your own rather than just eliciting doubt mindlessly.

But lets pick up on stupid extrapolation rather than trusting the BLS that has been doing this for decades under criteria agreed upon by both parties and hasn't been changed my career lifetime in methodology. Perhaps you don't like the criteria they use, but that's a separate argument to make - but it's been an identical method used for years. [And note, the current formula was started during Nixon's timeframe from what I can tell]

PSS - HR and hiring figures including salary data are a pretty big deal, do you think hiring professionals don't share and consult data on how much a given career averages in the market when working on setting up hiring? Seriously? HR's value in some things might be debatable, but in salary discussions it's an absolute fucking trump card, neanderthal.

Click to expand...

You should note that he claims you should cite things in some way and not in a credible way because then he would be fucked with all the bullshit crazy shit he links.

fanaskin_sl said:

Listen when I go off the handle, people rightly call me out and make me explain and or prove myself and that's the way it should be.

Click to expand...

Dude, that's total bullshit. You better cite some sources before you just say things like they're true.

fanaskin_sl said:

In this thread I learn I don't link articles (lol)

Click to expand...

You link articles that have holes big enough to drive a semi through - he didn't say you didn't post link articles, he said you don't post reputable ones. LEARN HOW TO READ. (And on that note, technically I'd say there's two ways you post links though, disreputable ones and others that have cool headlines but that you clearly didn't read because besides the title they really don't support the argument you use them in)

Tuco_sl said:

fanaskin why are you always in the middle of this weird ass, go no where debates?

Click to expand...

Dude, that's total bullshit. You better cite some sources before you just say things like they're true.

fanaskin_sl said:

You say right after linking an article that didn't explain how it got it's numbers or came to it's conclusion it just presents it as a vague matter of fact. You have holes in your arguments, you're also willing to throw up a gigantic wall of text which drags debates on far longer than they should which shows your penchant as a bureaucrat but also makes it exhausting to communicate with.

I know the articles I link aren't vetted like a nbc or something but there's no corporate news agency that's going to give me the dirt information I'm interested in, and that's just the fact of life.

Click to expand...

It quotes the fucking BLS report numbers that are the ironclad data for the figures in question - WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING?

Tuco_sl said:

fanaskin why are you always in the middle of this weird ass, go no where debates?

Click to expand...

Because he has a compulsion to play devil's advocate no matter what the argument is. He thinks it adds value to the discussion. He's wrong.

fanaskin seems upset.

Confirmed.

fanaskin_sl said:

No you posted an INTERPRETATION of the BLS and even then those numbers are up for INTERPRETATION based on methodology used. The problem with statistically driven information like that is all in how the numbers are compiled and how they are interpreted.

Click to expand...

I was posting it for the raw data you fucking retard, if you actually read the article she considers it a positive sign that the BLS's figure is that high. You clearly didn't even read the article because it says a very similar message to your own while having the raw figures there. I could care less about her interpretation of them, in fact, I disagree with her take on them entirely - the raw numbers is what I was quoting.

And sorry, but things like women being forced into leaving careers because their job is hostile to them because of having a child or planning to have children IS AN ACTUAL THING THAT SHOULD NOT BE DISCOUNTED UNLESS YOU'RE RETARDED. (Which is what "tenure" and "length of service" in such discussions is code for)

Man wants to have a kid, no impact on his career - women take a substantial hit - often leaving their career permanently because of the hostile environment to working mothers in any type of field with real earnings.

BLS figures are going to be the ones with the least spin since they've been controlled by both sides removing the spin from the others side into something both agree upon and have agreed upon for around 40 years. New formulae adding in or removing extra factors are going to be suspect. (i.e. Obama's 23% is a bit suspect being 5% off the BLS's and these lunatics quoting 5% are even more suspect)

Additionally when you factor in things like "tenure" you almost entirely ignore the "glass ceiling" effect which is well documented to still be commonplace - even though in many recent years there's been nearly as many MBAs and the like going to women in many schools. (I'm not sure if they overtook or not, it was close when I last heard it quoted and they were "on track to pass men" if the trend continued)

Also these days as your article quotes women tend to be educating MORE THAN MEN - more educated should at least counterbalance things to be even if it was just a "small deficit" shouldn't it? Does more educated earning less make much sense to you?

Incoming retarded "logic" and/or a gish-gallop of irrelevant or poorly sourced links.