|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I've said elsewhere, women earn less, because they PRODUCE less-- otherwise, a smart employer would just replace all men with women, and cut his employee expenses by 27%.
Seriously, are we supposed to beleve that otherwise-intelligent managers and owners, are inexplicably throwing away 27 cents out of every dollar just to satisfy their "male ego's?" Sounds like someone hasn't done their math-homework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Equitable Survey is missing something on the detail:
No business in any sector (if run prudently) would hire any group of people it felt obliged to pay at a higher rate, and, then elect to hire the more expensive group to fulfill whatever overtime might become available, especially when there is another group that would do it for infinitely less !
Plainly, we are not getting the full story ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was a very biased article pushing the feminist line about anti-female pay discrimination. I suspect that the Institute for Women's Policy Research is a feminist advocacy organization. The people interviewed all seemed to promote the argument that the pay differences are the result of unfairness to women -- women are penalized for taking time off for family reasons, women aren't allowed to work overtime but men are, men are insensitive and don't fix women's problems, etc, etc. I thought it was interesting that toward the end of the article it was noted that some women have earned more than their husbands over fifteen years even though their husbands worked more (at least that's the way I understood it). The article basically is another typical mainstream media piece designed to promote female victimology while ignoring male sacrifice and female options.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
