How To Close the Gender Pay Gap By 2044 (fastcompany.com) 421
An anonymous reader shares an article on FastCompany: The wage gap in developing countries could be reduced by 35% by 2030 and eliminated by 2044, according to a new report from consultancy Accenture. But in order achieve pay parity, women need to be more involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, the report notes. But, workplaces will have to change too. One of the biggest barriers to women attaining equal pay is that many women don't work full-time. They take part-time jobs in order to balance responsibilities at home or within a family -- work that is generally unpaid. If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time.
Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Studies showing the pay gap don't account for reduced hours, child birth, different professions, different career path, etc.
Re:Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary title is certainly inviting of knee-jerk retorts of the gender wage gap -- retorts that exist for good reason -- but the summary itself is actually a fairly reasonable assessment of the wage gap, noting things like:
in order achieve pay parity, women need to be more involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields
and
One of the biggest barriers to women attaining equal pay is that many women don't work full-time
Both of these statements are true, and represent a departure from the typical "OMG!! PATRIARCHYYYY!!" bullshit. Moreover, the central contention is, I think, fair and warranted:
If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time.
Think about your own job... How much of it truly requires a physical presence at an office at a set time of day? If you're like me, the actual work requires almost no physical office presence, and certainly doesn't require a set time frame (I'm working with India half the time anyway), yet the company I work for still mandates a work-at-the-office policy. Why? There's really no good reason for it aside from that it makes the CEO feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Now thing of all the penalties associated with requiring work at the office. Aside from inflexible scheduling that arbitrarily penalizes mothers (or stay-at-home dads), it also requires unnecessary transportation (costing gasoline and emitting CO2 -- if that matters to you), unnecessary heating/cooling/maintenance (for office infrastructure), wasted time spent commuting, etc.
Requiring work at a specific work-site and time makes sense if you're doing some sort of manufacturing/construction/physical maintenance/etc., but for straight office work, it's pretty unreasonably pointless. It's pointless, and it imposes completely unnecessary and arbitrary costs. Rather than reject the article because it's attached to some (mildly) feminist rhetoric, maybe consider that there may actually be a good point underlying it -- a point which applies to, and would benefit, more than just women.
Re:Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not a "pay gap". That is a skill, and time and effort invested in education and work gap. It seems to indicate that women have it easier to be lazy in the workplace. (No difference in laziness in men and women in general, but whether you actually can be lazy if you want to be depends on opportunities.)
Re:Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yesterday, I quit my job. This has caused an employment gap when compared with my neighbor. We must fight this injustice.
The point is, once we all agree that the outcome difference is almost entirely explained by people making choices with their lives, we need to stop calling it any name that implies injustice or even unnatural outcome.
Re:Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not quite, but almost. If you look at competently done studies, you find that there is a gender pay-gap of around 5% or so. That is mostly attributed to women generally negotiating worse than men do. But even that is shrinking, because you can actually negotiate the salary in less and less jobs. Were you cannot, no gender pay gap exists.
So there really is nothing that needs doing, except to stop listening to these idiots that cannot read statistics (or are intentionally lying).
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, a gap of about 5% exists, at least in the US. However that has to do with the fact that men are more aggressive on average and thus better at wage negotiation.
Re:Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:5, Insightful)
The poster is correct: A pay gap does not exist if men and women are receiving equal pay for similar work. Studies starting as early as 1973 show that women without children, continuously employed for 17 or more years, in the USA, actually made MORE than men with the same criteria.
What creates the gap in income is that women make choices about taking time off for their kids, having children, spending more family time, and preferring less stressful or demanding jobs. Women seem to respond to quality-of-life enhancement over income enhancement.
Pay is generally given (in the jobs market) based on the perceived contribution. A woman who has been out of her field for 4 or 5 years cannot usually contribute as much as another employee (man or woman) who has been continuously engaged and is up-to-date. That woman will re-enter the job market at a lower rate, which then becomes the new starting point for future increased pay.
OK, one of the criteria is "in the USA". Conditions are different outside the USA, and the report may be correct for those countries.
And remember: "Women" don't earn income; "individual women" earn income. Statistics based on averages can be skewed in many different ways, and maany of these create useless results.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What creates the gap in income is that women make choices
Are they really free choices though? Given the opportunity a lot of women would like to work more if flexible hours were available. If both the mother and father had flexible working hours they could likely both do 40 hours a week and still look after the kids. Affordable childcare also helps a lot.
If we broke the rigid 9-5 business hours when everyone is expected to be working we could also fix a lot of the traffic congestion problems and improve general health levels.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:5, Interesting)
If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time
It's worse because they demand that we change working hours to cater to the needs of women. In other words, by virtue of being a woman, work hours get shifted to meet your needs. I would argue that in environments where this would work, it's already happening (regardless of gender).
That's just a reasonable accommodation. Something that employers are required to provide under the ADA.
;)
Re:Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So being females is a disability now?
On a serious note, if you make employers legally responsible for the personal problems of their employees, they will seek to hire employees with the fewest personal problems.
Re:Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Making everyone work weird crazy hours dependant on when volleyball practice ends for timmy is a reasonable accommodation?
Also the entire premise seems retarded. They expect women to look after the kids, and then come in after they go in sleep to put in 8 hours of office work? Not because the women are struggling, not because they are poor, but because the people with the spreadsheets think that the statistics would look nicer if women put in an average of 3 more hours of work a day.
Re: (Score:3)
If both parents had some flexibility they could take a few hours a week each to cover childcare needs. As soon as you dump the full responsibility on one parent it becomes much harder.
Affordable childcare really helps too. All children have to attend school, and often the schools around here offer after school activities so that parents can keep working for a few more hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahahah
Re: Get rid of it by tomorrow. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is this comment an article on The Onion? What exactly are you suggesting? Great paying jobs are systematically given pay cuts on a real basis once the patriarchy sees a critical mass of women joining the field?
Frist pocporn psot (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to get the popcorn, methinks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
UK budget tomorrow. I'll be developing a yellow tinge by the end of the week.
Re: (Score:3)
encourage men to abandon high paying STEM fields and opt for lower paying fields like primary education and service jobs, [...]
You jest, but this is a serious problem. Men who work in early childhood education face a lot of discrimination.
It's getting better for stay-at-home dads, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are great jobs for people who don't have degrees, pretty good pay, regular hours, overtime paid at penal rates, but it's demanding physical labour, and as far as I'm aware not one woman has ever applied.
bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can close the gender pay gap only one way. You create a governing body which defines all salaries for all labour, government and private and ban private salary negotiations. You can then arrange salaries to your hearts content. For lower paid workers and excellent solution and a fair and reasonable one ensuring a living wage. For higher paid workers, some will hate it and some will appreciate not have to sweat it out with negotiations (for employers the second group are far more reliable and loyal and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Women also need to equally represented in the NBA, NFL and baseball leagues. They need to be equally represented in infantry operations where they put their lives at risk.
Men need to be equally represented as kindergarten teachers, nursing and other "traditionally female" professions as you mention.
(tongue in cheek)
My son's calculus class has about 10% women. Chemistry is a little higher.
How can we expect equal pay in the same professions if women are STILL choosing to avoid math and technology?
Re:bah (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to work as a male nurse.
I'm in IT now.
Not because the pay is better. It's not. I was pulling down HUGE money. Not "rock star programmer" pay or anything. But I was pulling in well over 100K a year.
It's because the institutional environment can be a ridiculously hostile environment for men.
Bitchy co-workers who think they're going to unload their work on you and you'll do it because they have a vagina.
Lazy co-workers who want to ignore proper, safe patient movement procedure because you happen to have a penis, therefore you're Superman and can benchpress an aircraft carrier. So that 600 lb guy in a steel reinforced "big boy" bed who just had both hips replaced is no problem for you.
The fucking closet druggies.
The golddiggers whoring themselves at doctors and medical students...
I got sick of it, and went to do something else.
Sorry, the business world runs 9-5 (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, the business world runs 9-5 (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to be part of it, then choose to be part of it like the rest of us business world men and women do. You aren't so special that the whole world is gonna rearrange itself for your schedule.
What utter bullshit.
I'll believe the business world runs "9-5" when you shut down your corporate website promptly at 5PM local time every weekday, and keep it shut down all weekend.
From the creation of an entire digital world to 24-hour Walmarts, along with helping resolve the issues related to "business hours" traffic congestion, this world needs to fucking learn to adapt and operate to accommodate all.
Re: (Score:2)
Never gonna happen, sorry. Not for most salaried jobs anyway. The boss wants employees under control and visibly working in the office, not working odd hours at home. And most people need that sort of regimented schedule anyway. Nope unless you're a superstar, a prima donna, or work for yourself it's 8-5 M-F.
Then I hope that mentality of needing to physically oversee the workforce enslaved in a building dies with the aging generation of old-fashioned bosses who refuse to adapt.
non-issue then (Score:5, Insightful)
if the main reason is women not working full time 40 hours but that's what employers want, the discussion is over and nothing need be done. Cue the twitter SJW and their neckbeard manlette supporters, I've written something offensive.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not offensive, but short-sighted. If I found stupid and short-sighted comments offensive, I couldn't stand Slashdot.
If the main reason is women raising kids, we've got a problem and the discussion is not over. That work is vital for the future of society, and should not come with a big financial penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
What about men raising kids? They don't count?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they do, but I'm sure you understand that it's not a true equivalency.
When it comes to reproduction, men are actually irrelevant, at least as far as numbers go. I can prove it with a simple thought experiment:
You have 100 men and 1 woman. They can fuck as much as they want. At the end of nine months, how many babies are likely to be born? How about 1000 men and 1 woman? A million? Unless she happens to be Octomom or Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon, the answer is very likely to be 1, maybe 2 if they hap
Re: (Score:2)
Part time work is lower pay because it is lower value. If there are 100 toilets to clean, then I can hire two people and they can each clean 50. If there is a circuit board to design, then it is much harder to split that work between two people. High paying jobs require skills and knowledge that can't just be handed over to someone else at the end of a shift.
Re:non-issue then (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about raising kids IS a huge financial penalty, you have to cloth feed, provide accommodation ...
You choose to raise children you should have to bare some of burden yourself. We do not have as shortage of people.
If you are raising children in a couple then it all evens out since your income are combined. If you are single then isn't that what child support is for? Or at least should be.
I do not see how somebodies children should be the responsibility the employer. We all make choices in our lives some will effect how much we earn, what is wrong with allowing people to make those choices and live with the consequences.
I think too many these studies take a dollar amount and say look life is unfair, but really money is only a tool to maximize happiness. If someone decides to take a lower paying job that maximizes there happiness what is wrong with that? Why as a society do we need to "correct" the problem.
A much more accurate measure would who is more happy. Given the men commit suicide 3 times more than women in the US, I would say that they are not living it up on their charmed life as a man.
Re: (Score:3)
Most ladies do not want to actually kill themselves; it is a cry for help - not because they choose a method that is less reliable. That is not my opinion, although I have seen it first hand (and hope never to see it again) - it is the opinion of all the research I was forced to read and comprehend.
Interestingly enough in the last couple of decades certain societies closed the gap between the male/female " successful" suicides. You know where that is - in Scandinavia, the most emancipated society on Earth
Re:non-issue then (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly enough in the last couple of decades certain societies closed the gap between the male/female " successful" suicides. You know where that is - in Scandinavia, the most emancipated society on Earth. Bottom line - once society starts treating women as men, the women kill themselves. So much for the privileged male...
I looked at the stats, taking the suicide rates by country from wikipedia and the list of OCED and Scandinavian countries and did some analysis. ( better formatted here http://pastebin.com/dyAYAmJz [pastebin.com] )
Columns are suicide rate, then by males and females:
southkorea 28.9 41.7 18.0
hungary 19.1 32.4 7.4
japan 18.5 26.9 10.1
poland 16.6 30.5 3.8
latvia 16.2 30.7 4.3
finland 14.8 22.2 7.5
belgium 14.2 21.0 7.7
iceland 14.0 21.0 6.7
estonia 13.6 24.9 3.8
czechrepublic 12.5 21.5 3.9
slovenia 12.4 20.8 4.4
france 12.3 19.3 6.0
chile 12.2 19.0 5.8
unitedstates 12.1 19.4 5.2
austria 11.5 18.2 5.4
sweden 11.1 16.2 6.1
ireland 11.0 16.9 5.2
australia 10.6 16.1 5.2
slovakia 10.1 18.5 2.5
canada 9.8 14.9 4.8
newzealand 9.6 14.4 5.0
switzerland 9.2 13.6 5.1
germany 9.2 14.5 4.1
norway 9.1 13.0 5.2
denmark 8.8 13.6 4.1
luxembourg 8.7 13.0 4.4
portugal 8.2 13.6 3.5
netherlands 8.2 11.7 4.8
turkey 7.9 11.8 4.2
unitedkingdom 6.2 9.8 2.6
israel 5.9 9.8 2.3
spain 5.1 8.2 2.2
italy 4.7 7.6 1.9
mexico 4.2 7.1 1.7
greece 3.8 6.3 1.3
mean = 11.1514
mean ratio = 3.85731
mean male = 17.7171
mean female = 5.03429
scandi mean = 11.56
scandi mean ratio = 2.91343
scandi mean male = 17.2
scandi mean female = 5.92
End result is that Scandinavia is pretty much in the middle of OCED. The female suicide rate is slightly elevated compared to the OCED average, but not very far out. The numbers certainly don't support the hyperbole of your claims.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm, maybe that woman should partner with someone to share the bills and burden, like say the man that made her pregnant, what a novel thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if the main reason is women not working full time 40 hours but that's what employers want, the discussion is over and nothing need be done.
In the United States, the 40 hour work week did not come into legal effect until 1940. Before the 1930s, six-day work weeks were the norm.
"What employers want" is irrelevant. If we went by "what employers want" we'd still have child labor and being paid in scrip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are your own boss, you can work as much or as little as you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid assertion, of course it is relevant when they can fire a person hired for a full time job who doesn't work the time. When the employer wants a full time employee, they get one and have legal backing to fire anyone who doesn't work full time. That's how the USA works and that will not change any time soon.
Bringing up pre-1940s is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
State laws that make it much more expensive to hire women force companies to pay less to us. I know when, for example, my husband only got two weeks off but I got eight weeks off, that the law made it much more expensive to hire me versus a male.
I think government should subsidize the cost difference to employers.
Legislating equality but leaving extra costs (as in this example) up to the employer will not end well.
Re: (Score:2)
Education gap still WIDE OPEN (Score:5, Interesting)
Boys still behind girls AT EVERY STAGE OF EDUCATION.
But for some reason the feminists talk about EQUALITY while only whining about women choosing the wrong courses, working fewer hours for fewer years and for some reason sometimes getting paid less.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AC here, I have no mod points to give and I know this is a lousy discussion forum, but we are leading ourselves into a huge tragedy by ignoring boys in schools. From what I can see, it is now starting around ages 8-9, the years when the curriculum starts to include more science and social studies, the years when boys develop a lifelong interest in the world around them, including computers. The years where we now start to encourage girls to get into math and technology. The boys get left to themselves, so t
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't make sense. (Score:4, Informative)
[quote]One of the biggest barriers to women attaining equal pay is that many women don't work full-time. They take part-time jobs in order to balance responsibilities at home or within a family -- work that is generally unpaid. If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time.[/quote]
Review the logic of that statement again... we take part time jobs to gain more time at home / with family... and then we should spend more of that time to work more to get 40 hours per week...
How about understanding that there's nothing wrong with not working full-time.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... (Score:2)
How about we start by getting countries to stop forcing women to get "circumcised", forcing them to cover their faces, denied the right to an education, and while we are at it, destroy the caste systems of countries. Seriously.
Women are still brutalized in a lot of places and lack the most basic of rights, and we first worlders focus on paychecks.
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
And how dare you give me a ticket for speeding when there are murderers to catch!
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a legitimate complaint if there were more murderers than speeders. And there are more people living in places where women are lacking basic rights than first-world whiners.
Re: (Score:2)
And there are more people living in places where women are lacking basic rights than first-world whiners.
That's only because many women lack basic rights in the first world too.
The number of women living in the sorts of places you're thinking about is lower than you think and on the decline. RIP Hans Rosling.
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's only because many women lack basic rights in the first world too.
How many girls in the first world cannot legally attend school? Or cannot attend for fear of a militia group assaulting the school, overwhelming the police, and kidnapping all the girls into a life of slavery?
How many women in the first world are forbidden from legally driving? How many women in the first world face the threat of vigilante attack and mutilation by the religious police for not being sufficiently conservative in dress or appearance?
How many women in the first world have no say in who they marry?
I could go on and on, but we both know you're full of shit. Women in the first world face such terrors as being criticized on social media, or being paid in a way that still puts them in the top 1% of income worldwide.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you posting bullshit arguments all over slashdot when there are oppressed North Koreans to help?
Re: (Score:2)
To use one of BLM's favorite analogies: when a house is on fire, you devote more attention to that than the house that isn't on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Not. Fucking. Once.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I have, so you're wrong, that just isn't the current topic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Working a 40 hour a week job is abuse? You must be a Millennial.
There is nothing to close. (Score:5, Interesting)
The gender pay gap is a myth. If it really existed, nobody would hire men. Men work longer, and in much more dangerous jobs, and therefore make more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Flex time is not a solution (Score:2)
If a woman can't work the standard 9-5 because of duties at home (raising kids is a more than fulltime job!) flextime just means she'll have two jobs: one paid and one unpaid. She'll be working +80 hours per week and so we'll still see a pay gap. If you want pay parity the only solution is to not have kids!
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the men are also able to get full time pay for part time work and take time off for family and still get their raises.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and if every woman decides not to have kids we're in really deep trouble.
Nope. Rich and educated people will still be able to afford to have kids. It is only the poor that will have to forego reproduction, and that is no problem because they can be replaced by robots.
What does the market say? (Score:5, Insightful)
If women are really being paid less than men for the same work, wouldn't it make sense financially to hire women only? Even a small company of 50 employees can save a million dollars a year just by hiring women instead of men. As the owner it would go directly into my pocket. Who doesn't like to make an extra million dollars a year?
Employers will go to great lengths to hire the cheapest labor for any given task. They will even violate labor laws and risk prison by hiring illegal aliens, that's how much business owners love to save money (admittedly the risk of prison for hiring illegals was very small in the past, prior to Trump). Therefore if the gender gap is as real as the feminists claim, every CEO should be scouring the earth for all the women they could hire.
Re:What does the market say? (Score:5, Informative)
If women are really being paid less than men for the same work, wouldn't it make sense financially to hire women only?
Yes, and this happens. For instance, in Japan women are often paid less than men for cultural reasons that are hard to change. So many American companies with offices in Japan hire mostly women and get a lot of very skilled and capable people for less pay than their Japanese competitors. This also works in India and in Islamic countries. It doesn't work in China, where women have higher status.
Re: (Score:2)
Women. Whereas men make up the kitchen and support staff, who are typically paid minimum wage and given nowhere the deference the female wait staff is. They don't get to request shifts, they're just assigned and they're *always* the ones staying until 3AM to clean the place. They also take home less. I've worked in restaurants.
Re: (Score:2)
Accenture has a plan to close the gender pay gap (Score:2)
Pay male employees 30% less.
Why 30% you say when the gap is closer to 20%. That's just because most executives are male and they don't want their pay to be affected of course.
gender wage gap does not exist (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine what one could accomplish if there was a gender wage gap.
If there really was a gender wage gap, anyone would be free to open a business, hire only female employees, pay them less due to the gender wage gap, use this competitive advantage to grow the business, capture market share, profit.
Same thing applies to the premise that diversity makes us better. If this was true, one could just have a super diverse group of employees, and one would then out compete other less diverse groups/businesses etc.
None of this happens in the real world.
prsdntl
SImple solution, mandatory tansgenderism (Score:2)
Problem solved.
SImple (Score:2)
FORBID them taking time off for their children.
FORBID maternity leave.
FORBID any 'special rules' that benefit women. ....then you'll have companies go "OK, now this staff person is worth investing in, because I can be reasonably certain she won't vanish because her gestational clock is ticking, or her womb-fruit need caring for."
Women have the ability to CREATE LIFE. I love how that's pretty much 'set aside' when we're talking about which gender has inherent advantages.
Re: (Score:2)
Wut? (Score:2)
It'll go away naturally (Score:3)
Most pay inequality can be fixed a lot sooner than (Score:5, Interesting)
2044. Simply make (private sector) corporations publish ALL of their employee salaries publicly.
Public sector places already largely do this. It works pretty well.
People get pissed off when they see someone with the same job title and experience making more money than them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Most pay inequality can be fixed a lot sooner t (Score:5, Insightful)
Publishing everyone's pay doesn't mean dictating a single pay for every job. It means you can see the distribution of pay for each job. If you're being paid less than average, you can then take those statistics to your boss and say "hey, why am I being paid less than average", and he can say "because you perform below average". I guess the obvious next step in negotiations there is to find some kind of performance metrics to compare to.
FWIW you can actually find average pay statistics for all kinds of jobs at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (bls.gov), and I've used that extensively in pay negotiations in recent years to great effect. When the boss is always saying "you're the best person in this position we've ever had" and then you can show him government stats saying average people in this position get paid more than you, that really does something for negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
People get pissed off when they see someone with the same job title and experience making more money than them.
Except that's not why there's a wage gap. Read the fucking summary, at least, which, shockingly, manages to move past the stupid lie that women are paid less than men for doing the same job.
Women need to take more risk? (Score:3)
Of the about 4500 annual workplace fatalities, 92% are men.
http://www.aei.org/publication... [aei.org]
Because women tend to work in safer occupations than men on average, they have the advantage of being able to work for more than a decade longer than men before they experience the same number of male occupational fatalities in a single year.
Economic theory tells us that the “gender occupational fatality gap” explains part of the “gender pay gap” because a disproportionate number of men work in higher-risk, but higher-paid occupations like coal mining (almost 100% male), fire fighters (95% male), police officers (87% male), correctional officers (72% male), farming, fishing, and forestry (77% male), and construction (97.5% male); BLS data here. On the other hand, a disproportionate number of women work in relatively low-risk industries, often with lower pay to partially compensate for the safer, more comfortable indoor office environments in occupations like office and administrative support (73% female), education, training, and library occupations (74% female), and health care (75% female). The higher concentrations of men in riskier occupations with greater occurrences of workplace injuries and fatalities suggest that more men than women are willing to expose themselves to those work-related injuries or death in exchange for higher wages. In contrast, women more than men prefer lower risk occupations with greater workplace safety, and are frequently willing to accept lower wages for the reduced probability of work-related injury or death.
Just... (Score:2)
pass a law that all women have to be paid more than men. I'm sick of hearing about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Part time employees are cheaper for companies as the required benefits are lower, one of my main criticisms of the ACA.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting fantasy on the life style of a single mother.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What colour is the sky in your world? Or do you just not look at the news. Slavery is bigger now than it has ever been. It's just that you don't see a whole large boat load of slaves at a time now. If you think that the race problems are over in the US then where have you been the past couple of years especially.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people (fascists at heart) think that everybody must be forced to be equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. The phrase isn't that straightjacketed.
Re: No subject (Score:2)
Who EXACTLY is telling any woman what their 'role' in society is?
People like you who only consider two categories: 1. Babymakers and 2. Garbage collectors. Also, if no women had babies there would be no humans, so there is an implicit role that women have that men do not.
Re: (Score:2)
a policy that harms all
Could be the real goal here. I know a lot of old people who are miserable (standard old people problems) who want to make sure that everyone around them is equally miserable.