This study has great flaws as regards projecting equity …. or equality, whatever is the current SJW term these days.
I believe that the gender pay gap will never merge to zero, but will approach it asymptotically far into the future. There is likely a fairly constant minimum gap that will be realized in a few decades. The reason is ‘family dynamics’, especially in regard to raising children.
More thorough researchers would divide their study by age bands, preferably, but by age & marital status, ideally.
There is no charge for my brilliant idea above. Thank me later when you realize the frustration caused by SJWs was unnecessary. Let the down-voting… by those unable to respond with meaningful and insult-free replies…. begin!
Please clarify: are you saying a 25 year old single woman with no kids could get paid (made up numbers) $20/hr for a position but a 35 year old mother of two would only get paid $18/hr?
Sorry for misunderstanding, but that’s why I was asking for clarification.
Can you explain what you meant when you said “family dynamics” is one reason the gender pay gap will never merge to zero? I clearly do not understand the point you were trying to make and am hoping you can explain it a little better so I can comprehend why and how you think “family dynamics” plays into the gender pay gap.
The reason women in finance and insurance industries get paid far less than men is sexism. The “women have families” excuse is b.s.because the pay and promotion extreme favoritism shown to men regardless of whether the comparable female employee has no children or has children who are grown, etc. Any reason given to pay women less is just an excuse to uphold male favoritism.
And correct me if I’m wrong (I haven’t been involved in hiring for years now), but isn’t it illegal to ask a prospective employee “do you have any kids? how old are they? do they live at home?”
Yes, that is illegal. But, you’re trolling, er, barking up the wrong tree. You should consider determinants of compensation, as I did in arriving at my position above.
Wrong. I never wrote such. Your wrong guess is based on your bias, driven by SJWs.
I expected to see erroneous interpretations of my remark driven by that bias.
This study has great flaws as regards projecting equity …. or equality, whatever is the current SJW term these days.
I believe that the gender pay gap will never merge to zero, but will approach it asymptotically far into the future. There is likely a fairly constant minimum gap that will be realized in a few decades. The reason is ‘family dynamics’, especially in regard to raising children.
More thorough researchers would divide their study by age bands, preferably, but by age & marital status, ideally.
There is no charge for my brilliant idea above. Thank me later when you realize the frustration caused by SJWs was unnecessary. Let the down-voting… by those unable to respond with meaningful and insult-free replies…. begin!
Please clarify: are you saying a 25 year old single woman with no kids could get paid (made up numbers) $20/hr for a position but a 35 year old mother of two would only get paid $18/hr?
No.
Sorry for misunderstanding, but that’s why I was asking for clarification.
Can you explain what you meant when you said “family dynamics” is one reason the gender pay gap will never merge to zero? I clearly do not understand the point you were trying to make and am hoping you can explain it a little better so I can comprehend why and how you think “family dynamics” plays into the gender pay gap.
The reason women in finance and insurance industries get paid far less than men is sexism. The “women have families” excuse is b.s.because the pay and promotion extreme favoritism shown to men regardless of whether the comparable female employee has no children or has children who are grown, etc. Any reason given to pay women less is just an excuse to uphold male favoritism.
And correct me if I’m wrong (I haven’t been involved in hiring for years now), but isn’t it illegal to ask a prospective employee “do you have any kids? how old are they? do they live at home?”
Yes, that is illegal. But, you’re trolling, er, barking up the wrong tree. You should consider determinants of compensation, as I did in arriving at my position above.
Apparently you still do not understand what “trolling” means.
It should be illegal to ask prior salary. That’s how it perpetuates year over year.
Wrong. I never wrote such. Your wrong guess is based on your bias, driven by SJWs.
I expected to see erroneous interpretations of my remark driven by that bias.
Is she doing the same job that he is? If so, pay her the same wage. What is so hard about that?