Google looks into their gender pay gap: Finds men are underpaid

[Vikings4ever 496]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-pay-gap.html

 

Quote

When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found that more men than women were receiving less money for doing similar work.

The surprising conclusion to the latest version of the annual study contrasted sharply with the experience of women working in Silicon Valley and in many other industries.

[iam90sbaby 2,121]

It’s not that the women complaining about this want good paying jobs and can’t get them, it’s that they want to make more for the easy sh!t jobs they are doing. 

[edjr 5,547]

On to the next fake news story!

[RLLD 3,455]

When taking life choices into consideration the pay gap actually narrows to be nearly non-existent.

[supermike80 1,285]

First comment from somenone named "Wendy"

 

I wonder if part of the reason some women are making more money than men at a given job level is because they are indeed more qualified than the men at the same level. In other words, maybe these women are in job levels that don't reflect their talent and skill because they haven't been able to access promotions that would push them into a higher level (where they'd probably be underpaid).

 

 

Jesus mary and Joseph...

[nobody 2,032]

21 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

First comment from somenone named "Wendy"

 

I wonder if part of the reason some women are making more money than men at a given job level is because they are indeed more qualified than the men at the same level. In other words, maybe these women are in job levels that don't reflect their talent and skill because they haven't been able to access promotions that would push them into a higher level (where they'd probably be underpaid).

Can't blame Wendy.  I'd never give up victim status if I could access it either.  You'd have to pry it from my cold dead hands for which I would then claim even more victimhood

Edited March 4, 2019 by nobody

[Strike 3,950]

I've never understood this whole discussion.  If a company isn't paying you what you think you're worth, go find someone who will.  If you can't maybe you're overvaluing yourself.  Regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, whatever.  There are so many variables that go in to why someone is paid what they're paid.  Employers shouldn't have to justify why they pay anyone anything.  They're hiring.  They offer you money.  You take it or you leave it.  Seems so focking simple to me but we make it so complicated.

[nobody 2,032]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

I've never understood this whole discussion.  If a company isn't paying you what you think you're worth, go find someone who will.  If you can't maybe you're overvaluing yourself.  Regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, whatever.  There are so many variables that go in to why someone is paid what they're paid.  Employers shouldn't have to justify why they pay anyone anything.  They're hiring.  They offer you money.  You take it or you leave it.  Seems so focking simple to me but we make it so complicated.

That makes sense on an individual level, but if in a whole population, women are paid less than men, that's a systemic issue, no?

 

On average, people doing the same job at the same capability should be paid the same across all victim-states... I mean genders, races, and sexual orientations.

[Strike 3,950]

3 minutes ago, nobody said:

That makes sense on an individual level, but if in a whole population, women are paid less than men, that's a systemic issue, no?

 

On average, people doing the same job at the same capability should be paid the same across all victim-states... I mean genders, races, and sexual orientations.

Disagree on both counts.  There are a lot of factors in to why women may be paid less than men.  We've discussed them ad nauseum in the past.  As far as people doing the same job getting paid the same.  Meh.  You negotiate your salary.  If they offer you something and you take it, that's what you make.  If someone else does a better job at negotiating and is offered more, they get paid more.  The mentality of all people doing the same job get paid the same is union mentality and why our schools are failing.

[nobody 2,032]

I tend to agree that if you don't negotiate, you get paid less.  

But I think you are thinking on an individual level still.  On average, men and women and white and black and Asian and Hispanic should be paid the same for the same performance at the same job ... Again on average.

Or are you saying white males are so much better at negotiating, that they should be paid more?

[nobody 2,032]

By the way when I say "should he paid the same" that's not some moral imperative I'm trying to convey .  I'm saying that, statistically, salaries should be even on average given no bias.

[Strike 3,950]

2 minutes ago, nobody said:

I tend to agree that if you don't negotiate, you get paid less.  

But I think you are thinking on an individual level still.  On average, men and women and white and black and Asian and Hispanic should be paid the same for the same performance at the same job ... Again on average.

Or are you saying white males are so much better at negotiating, that they should be paid more?

I've never worked at a company that I believed discriminated based upon gender, race, or any other factor.  They've always wanted the best person for the job.  I mean, seriously, what's the end game for hiring someone you think is inferior just so you can pay them less?  Does the HR manager get an extra bonus for paying the black guy less?   Every HR person I've ever met has been tasked with finding the best person for the job.  You're going to have to give me a scenario where it makes sense for a company like Google to purposely discriminate to pay women and minorities less.  Especially a company like Google which is run by a bunch of SJW's.  I just don't see it.  And apparently, they were so over compensating not to do it that they were discriminating against men.

[sderk 1,040]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

I've never worked at a company that I believed discriminated based upon gender, race, or any other factor.  

Me neither. All my life. Never.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,498]

12 hours ago, sderk said:

Me neither. All my life. Never.

Same here.

[RLLD 3,455]

My experiences have shown that women and minorities are treated dis proportionally BETTER.  If I wanted to terminate a white make for performance-related concerns, no problem, usually 1 to three months....

A woman or a minority? I cannot think of a single instance where I was able to do it, I had some on performance improvement programs for three and four years, HR was terrified to act.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,596]

41 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

My experiences have shown that women and minorities are treated dis proportionally BETTER.  If I wanted to terminate a white make for performance-related concerns, no problem, usually 1 to three months....

A woman or a minority? I cannot think of a single instance where I was able to do it, I had some on performance improvement programs for three and four years, HR was terrified to act.

Truth. Anyone who has worked in that situation knows the deal. 

[nobody 2,032]

Anyone ever notice that if a particular demographic is put on a position to hire or promote, they always skew to people who are like them?

I'm not even talking black/white.  Indian, Vietnamese, women, Mexican doesn't matter... Where I work, the second a specific race or ethnicity or gender or whatever gets put up top, a bunch of whatever they are get put in leadership.

I'm in engineering.  70% of the workforce is male, and somehow this one department had a female director, mostly female program managers and mostly female chief engineers.  Of course, the department failed so they had to recruit a bunch of males to come in and try to right the ship and most of those women are gone or demoted now, but the point is that bias works both ways, and it makes me think that white males don't have the market cornered on bias.  It's probably just natural to hire and promote people that you have more in common with.

[bostonlager 2,457]

7 minutes ago, nobody said:

Anyone ever notice that if a particular demographic is put on a position to hire or promote, they always skew to people who are like them?

I'm not even talking black/white.  Indian, Vietnamese, women, Mexican doesn't matter... Where I work, the second a specific race or ethnicity or gender or whatever gets put up top, a bunch of whatever they are get put in leadership.

I'm in engineering.  70% of the workforce is male, and somehow this one department had a female director, mostly female program managers and mostly female chief engineers.  Of course, the department failed so they had to recruit a bunch of males to come in and try to right the ship and most of those women are gone or demoted now, but the point is that bias works both ways, and it makes me think that white males don't have the market cornered on bias.  It's probably just natural to hire and promote people that you have more in common with.

When I was in the insurance business we had 12 sales managers and every year we would snake draft 10 sales reps and that was your team for the year. For 5 consecutive years I was the number 1 sales manager in the company. Was I number one because of my awesome work ethic and stellar motivation? No, I'm pretty lazy and try to work smarter not harder. Was it because I'm amazing with people and have an ability to drive others? No, I'm kind of an a$$hole and would prefer you look else where rather than coming to me if you need help. The reason I finished #1 every year is because I drafted all guys on my team because 1. they miss less work and 2. they do not have emotional baggage that takes away from work. 

[iam90sbaby 2,121]

1 minute ago, bostonlager said:

When I was in the insurance business we had 12 sales managers and every year we would snake draft 10 sales reps and that was your team for the year. 

This sounds fun. 

[bostonlager 2,457]

14 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

This sounds fun. 

It was the only 2 hours of the entire year I would label as fun. The female managers were focking clueless as to how it worked and said it was unfair that so and so gets 2 picks at the turn and I have to wait 18 picks before my next turn. I remember looking at this dumb c*unt bag not only complain the entire time, but sit there and draft 3 pregnant hoes!! There is like 100 weeks of FMLA or whatever that sh1t is. It was like she was trying to finish last. 

[vuduchile 1,940]

4 hours ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

My experiences have shown that women and minorities are treated dis proportionally BETTER.  If I wanted to terminate a white make for performance-related concerns, no problem, usually 1 to three months....

A woman or a minority? I cannot think of a single instance where I was able to do it, I had some on performance improvement programs for three and four years, HR was terrified to act.

This is how the real world actually works.  Anyone who claims differently  is either lying or ignorant. 

[vuduchile 1,940]

34 minutes ago, nobody said:

Anyone ever notice that if a particular demographic is put on a position to hire or promote, they always skew to people who are like them?

I'm not even talking black/white.  Indian, Vietnamese, women, Mexican doesn't matter... Where I work, the second a specific race or ethnicity or gender or whatever gets put up top, a bunch of whatever they are get put in leadership.

I'm in engineering.  70% of the workforce is male, and somehow this one department had a female director, mostly female program managers and mostly female chief engineers.  Of course, the department failed so they had to recruit a bunch of males to come in and try to right the ship and most of those women are gone or demoted now, but the point is that bias works both ways, and it makes me think that white males don't have the market cornered on bias.  It's probably just natural to hire and promote people that you have more in common with.

There some merit to this.  However, I used to go out of my way to hire hot chicks as much as possible.  Qualifications didn't matter all that much to me back then.  Of course, we were just selling suits and ties, not curing AIDS.  

[Thornton Melon 542]

26 minutes ago, bostonlager said:

It was the only 2 hours of the entire year I would label as fun. The female managers were focking clueless as to how it worked and said it was unfair that so and so gets 2 picks at the turn and I have to wait 18 picks before my next turn. I remember looking at this dumb c*unt bag not only complain the entire time, but sit there and draft 3 pregnant hoes!! There is like 100 weeks of FMLA or whatever that sh1t is. It was like she was trying to finish last. 

Maybe she prefers auctions

[Vikings4ever 496]

2 minutes ago, Thornton Melon said:

Maybe she prefers auctions

Yeah, but then the black employees will complain.

[TBayXXXVII 2,107]

I have a cousin who works at an ice cream stand (seasonal/part-time).  He's in charge of hiring.  He said that he only hires really attractive girls who are at least competent.  Hot ones are good, but only if they're grounded and not full of themselves.  The reason?  No, it's not because he's a pervert, but because the customers react more happily with cute girls as their server.  The kicker?  The most significant type of customer are women.  He said out of 100 (adult), customers that come to the window, the person doing the talking is woman most of the time.

 

I told him that he's probably not realizing how many men are doing the ordering.  He showed me an article done by the local Chamber of Commerce that did a study 2 years prior and they listed a stat that his store had women doing the ordering 77% of the time.  With minors, it was 61% male.  Funny how it's the women who are the most judgmental, eh?

[fandandy 3,311]

20 hours ago, supermike80 said:

First comment from somenone named "Wendy"

 

I wonder if part of the reason some women are making more money than men at a given job level is because they are indeed more qualified than the men at the same level. In other words, maybe these women are in job levels that don't reflect their talent and skill because they haven't been able to access promotions that would push them into a higher level (where they'd probably be underpaid).

 

 

Jesus mary and Joseph...

First response to Wendy from someone named Vern

 

Show us your t!ts.