Slashdot Mirror
Even On eBay, Women Get Paid Less For Their Labor (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing the same job. But at least gender melts away in the digital economy of the Internet, right? Nope. A study of more than 1 million auctions on the online commerce site eBay finds that women receive consistently less money than men for selling the very same products. T: The oft-cited "cents on the dollar" claims, though, ought perhaps be taken with a grain of salt; it depends who's counting, and what.
New owner, same third wave feminist bull.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Obviously, people check the gender of the merchant before buying from them.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Why are we not done with this SJW tripe?
For one, how do you know the sex of an ebay seller?
For two, are we sure it's a significant difference?
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Hillary pays her male staff more than her female staff. Or does hypocrisy count?
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Looking at median salaries among full-time, year-round employees, the Free Beacon concluded that women working in Clinton’s Senate office were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.
I am sure that you'll be happy to make excuses or quote methodology (as did HuffPo), but when you're UNWILLING to do the same for studies you agree with then that too is Hypocrisy.
The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Let me try and understand this - are they suggesting that bidders go 'Gosh, that stuff is being sold by ILIKEPINKKITTENS who is probably female so therefore I'll bid less as I'm a pig and hate women'?
Reads article: Hmmm, apparently they're not sure why, but think it's something to do with how men and women describe things.
Damn those Mansellers and their unfair use of words.
Just looking at raw ebay data doesn't cut it. You would need a controlled test using the exact same product description, the exact same seller feedback for both the man and woman sellers, exact same reserve price, etc. with the only difference being the name of the seller (male or female sounding).
Otherwise the discrepancy could just be something as simple as a difference in how men and women describe their product.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The summary doesn't really reflect the articles findings. Yes female identified sellers received less money that sellers identified as male but once it was corrected for various things the difference was down to 97c per dollar. So the difference is no where near the level the summary, or even the opening part of the article claims.
There are also huge windows of error in their statistical sampling. They analysed 1.1m records but only had 400 sellers names assessed for expected gender. From those 35% couldn't be guessed an 9% got it wrong. So to apply that level of inaccuracy and then claim 3% as a significant difference is a bit of a stretch.
This study is offensive and neglects legal persons .
This is a new low in ridiculousness. There are so many holes in this "study" that is is not even funny.
The women are setting their own prices here with things like Buy It Now. So I guess women are intentionally setting their starting prices lower to earn less money?
Also a billion factors could account for this "result" such as how the pages look, what is the appeal of the color scheme, how is it written, how are the photos taken, what language is used to describe it, etc, etc. I am guessing that if you found every buyer here and asked them if the thought "that's a woman, I won't buy from her and/or I will bid less because she is a woman" was not considered even ONE TIME by ANY of the buyers in this "study."
I don't see the margin of error cited.
For used items, it was within 3%. For new items, it was 20% on apples-to-apples item comparisons -- same as the purported wage gap. Even on gift cards, which have a real exact value.
Their first guess was that it came down to men describing things in a better light, and they do, but not by enough to really move the numbers, so that's not it. Nobody knows more specifically why this would happen, when raw capitalism suggests you would bid up the cheaper thing that women were selling.
There, I summarized the article because you clicked through and still didn't read it.
All of those surveys they keep touting do NOT compare same (or even similar) jobs and experience. They usually compare anything BUT the same job, with the same hours. Sure, the headlines claim that, but when you look at the surveys, it's just not true.
When they do get around to comparing similar jobs, women get the same pay (or even slightly more), right up until they start having children. Then, they either leave the job market completely (not as common nowadays) or work fewer hours. I have never worked at any place where the women generally worked more hours than the men. I've worked a lot at places where the men worked many, many more hours than the women.
Here's the kicker: if women really were paid 20% less for the same work, who would hire men? Any company that hired only women at that rate would have a huge price differential over their competitors.
What about the 20% difference observed for new items?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The gender pay gap in today advance societies can largely be attributed to men generally being more aggressive when it comes to negotiations, be it the pricing of wares on ebay or negotiations on salary, raises or contracts. Aggressive tactics do come with risk and women seems to be more averse to risk then men. Youtube videos of people hurting themselves with ill-advised acts are largely men. As the saying goes No Guts, No Glory, thou much of the time the quest for Glory end with a rather painful punch to the gut
Attitudes control perceived value. A sex change can either increase or decrease your perceived value and pay depending on the direction.
Male-to-female transsexuals experience an average 30% drop in income. It's not like they are going to get pregnant and take time off raising the children they gave birth to, two confounding factors that the wage-gap-deniers cite, so it's a pretty good control. Female-to-male transsexuals, on the other hand, see a slight rise in income.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.
... And your point would be?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Of course they're not going to get much for their labor there. They should be posting on eBaby, obviously.
Yup, men and women and all the various races have things they are inherently better at than others. Maybe due to group think, cultural factors, genetic predisposition, etc. but it's good we're all different...now if we could just live together and accept the fact the world won't be perfectly even, we'll all be better off and we'll all be more prosperous.
And your point would be?
if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men
I am pretty sure my point was clear. Capitalism doesn't care if you're man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, KKK or BLM. It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They are making the same invalid assumption as the Github study, namely that sellers that identify their gender are statistically the same as those that don't. In fact, the Github study itself showed that they don't. The difference is probably something harmless; for example, it is possible (even likely) that older people tend to use their first names more frequently, and are more likely to have first names that can be classified by gender.
Not this tired old meme again.
They don't get paid less for "The same job", they get paid less because they take different jobs and, on average, work less hours than men.
It's like people forgot about the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
But hey, controversy sells and gets ad revenue. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.
Now if only we could find rational actors to implement it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I hear this kind of stuff being said all the time like it is some sort of general rule but the reality it seems that this is not actually happening in most companies. With most places, any pay discrepancies that might exist between two people of any gender who work for the same employer can almost always be accounted for by the fact that the people whose salaries are being compared are doing different jobs, or have else have differing responsibilities at work.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.
Indeed. Some studies have found that women are paid MORE than men, once you factor in job field, experience, hours worked, seniority, etc...
I've heard that women tend to be valued less in the work center because of:
1. Heavier use of benefits vs straight pay
2. Tend to take more time off, and work fewer hours(means less seniority as well)
3. Select more flexible, but lower paying, employment options.
4. Choose more for stability over pay (Men buy stocks, Women buy bonds.)
I don't read AC A human right
(One thing I wonder about is whether there is also a trend in sex of the purchasers -- i.e. do women buy more from women and less from men?)
Quite likely, however that should have been controlled for in the study if they were comparing auctions of identical items. You can't draw any conclusions about gender gaps by comparing men buying computer parts and power tools from other men to women buying dresses and shoes from other women.
But yes, I imagine there is definitely such a trend; men aren't likely to buy a lot of women's clothes and shoes on Ebay, for instance, for obvious reasons, and it's reasonable to assume that most of that stuff is also being sold by women.
Reads article: Hmmm, apparently they're not sure why, but think it's something to do with how men and women describe things.
The researchers determined that 44% of the user names could be easily determined, and that 9% of the user names where usually guessed wrong. So what I would like to see is the results for user names that looked male but were actually run by a female, and vice versa. That should have been done long before running imperfect sentiment analysis.
If the user name Mike1923 was actually a woman, did that seller also make 80% of what the actually male user Tom8463 made? If not, the study might be on to something with their SJW claims. Otherwise the research just shows their sentiment analysis isn't good enough., or they didn't do a good enough job controlling for other factors.
Considering they missed this obvious method of determining if the results were valid, I'm voting they didn't do a good enough job controlling factors.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If women are selling products for lower cost it may be because this is right price to earn the most money. On e-bay commonly the lowest priced item is the dominant seller. For hihg volume sellers the e-bay fees can become fixed costs. As a result the more you sell the lower your overhead and the higher the profit margin. So women may be higher volume sellers, getting more revenue and likely more profits as well.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
But they are also greedy and will do anything for profit, except hire all women and raise profits significantly.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Women, on average, do earn less money, that is a fact. Women are paid the same or slightly more for the same work though. Also a fact. Several several recent studies found that, go look them up. If women seek employment conditions that pay less, than that is not any discrimination, it is them using their freedoms in a different way than men. Again, on average. And there is certainly nothing here that needs fixing if they earn the same for the same work. Which they do.
As to Ebay, it is not possible to identify the gender of a seller, unless they advertise it. Hence maybe the problem is again that this is not the same thing being sold or that making it about gender and not the product decreases the profit?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I was looking at the 34 most embarrassing photos on the internet.
The link under #8 said a woman near where I live was earning $430/day online. The link under #19 said that a man nearby was earning $590/day.
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
That makes sense because they lost their male anatomy which any man will tell you is at least 30% of their worth.
Little boy pulls down his shorts and says to the little girl "I've got one of these and you don't ha ha!"
Little girl pulls down her shorts and says "I've got one of these and my mommy says with one of these I can get as many of those as I want!"
It's a buyers market. :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
As politically incorrect as this is, I gotta agree. It seems like families lasted longer and were generally happier. The reality today is that even if you wanted to maintain that model, inflation would make it very difficult for one person to carry two people on the average wage while still making enough for stuff like houses, cars, etc. I don't think it was just the family unit that was better off then, it was also the economics of the time meant the dollar went a lot further than it does today.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
... And your point would be?
Let's say that theoretical female and male employees are theoretically identical except for the flag "F" or "M". Let's also treat them as an asset. Like, say, a Bolt. Said Bolts, from company "M" has a "M" embossed on the top. From company "F", it has a "F". The bolts are identical otherwise, delivered at the same cost, speed, etc...
Bolts from M cost $1 each. Bolts from F cost $0.72. If I'm a business, I'd be an idiot to buy Bolt M, bolt F is substantially cheaper. I can offer cheaper products buying from F. Under such a scenario, as a business I'd buy bolt F exclusively if possible. But F can't produce enough, so they're only meeting half of my demand. I'd offer F, say, $0.75 per bolt to ensure my supply. Problem, next thing I know, F has raised their prices, and I'm paying $0.85, and M is offering a sale at $0.85 so it can sell bolts as well.
The conclusion, as an amateur economist, but decent at math and science, is that if M can stay in business at $1 and F still has excess production capacity at $1 each, is that the "M" and "F" aren't actually identical. Maybe bolt F is just as strong as M mechanically, but what if M is stainless and F isn't? Then M will be used exclusively in various tasks - exterior applications, corrosive environments, etc...
Same deal with male and female employees. If the $0.72 cents is hanging around, maybe it's because there actually ARE differences, and businesses aren't actually, on average, paying men more for no good reason. Identifying what those reasons could be is the real trick.
I don't read AC A human right
Indeed. Ignoring reality does not make it go away. There are statistical differences between the genders. Equal opportunity means everybody gets the same chances, but what they make of them is up to the individual. We have that. Women can get into any position in society and in any such position there are examples of women doing just as well as men that are good at it and women doing just as abysmally bad as men that are not good at it.
Now, asking for equality to be enforced, that is just plain stupid. It means placing people into positions they do not want and that cannot fill well. As long as women statistically decide a bit differently than men, enforcing equality oppresses both men and women and is a totalitarian and hence entirely unacceptable idea.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Yes, but my point is that capitalism doesn't make hiring decisions. People do, and people care about things that only an idiot would..
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Doesn't explain why female-to-male transsexuals experience modest increases in income, so your theory kind of falls a bit flat.
Now, since this is a discussion about the earnings of men vs women, let's take a few of your examples, and see how they play out in that context:
Are they perceived as being less "team players" than non-transsexuals?
becomes
Are they perceived as being less "team players" than men?
and
Are they considered to be more litigious?
Are they considered to be more likely to file a lawsuit over sexual harassment?
We know the answers to those questions already.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I am pretty sure my point was clear. Capitalism doesn't care if you're man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, KKK or BLM. It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
Do you actually have any examples of Capitalism doing exactly this?
Oh, yeah. I'm gonna get the old no true Scotsman argument.
I've always wondered why the perfect economic model never survives the first round of successes.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This is a study looking at sale prices by gender. Which turns out to be an utter waste of time as the study notes a less than 3% (well within the margin of error) difference. How did this make Slashdot?
Because........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Testosterone! So obviously people can detect the sex of merchants on ebay via the hormonal fluxes of the interwebs.
Meanwhile in the more vacuous corners of blatherspace some "progressives" have decided that this weeks agenda is that there is really no such thing as male or female and you can't tell from looking at a person's brain. I think they are using the term Sexual Fluidity, or Fluid Sexuality, either way it is some combination of sex and fluids.
It all comes down to personal decisions It has absolutely nothing to do with gender.
Your personal decisions affect your earning potentials. Women typically made different personal decisions than men. And I say this as a stay at home dad that has earned 80% of what my peers have because of my own personal decisions
2) Product choice might also affect it. I could easily see men choosing to only sell something if it is worth it, while women might be making things for the pleasure and thinking, why not sell it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Not trying to be crass, but people can still afford a 1950's lifestyle. People then had way smaller houses, 1 tv (if that), and 1 car. The bottom line is people expect a lot more these days....alot more. Kids at 8 expecting cell phones, everyone has to have there own personal version along with the community stuff.
So if you have a family of 4 you have not just 4 tv's, but 5, 1 extra in the living room, 4 cell phones, 4 cars, its not just inflation, people have inflated there "stuff" needs.
That's a good summary, but you've missed a key part that goes to the margin of error: they studied 1.1 million transactions, which is a lot of transactions. The article is silent about how many transactions were for used items and how many were for new; however, a 3% difference in price for used items is probably significant, and the 20% difference is nearly certainly significant.
For an even shorter summary, this study says that if you are buying something new on eBay you should try to buy it from a woman. You will save 20 cents on the dollar.
Since when can you know the gender of a seller on e-bay ? Ah yes : it seems it's possible to advertise your gender (and not lie about it ?). I didn't know. Then again I only care about reputation and the pristine state of what I'm buying. (Is it just me ?)
The title would be reason enough to discard the article.
If it was "Women get less money for their items" it would already have a bad smell.
How do you compare items sold in eBay ? It's either shops, either second hand stuff in various states.
Did the study found sellers for the exact same product in the same general state ?
It suggests (and "found") men would describe the article differently. But, maybe the descriptions are actually accurate ? (yes, I actually read the article)
It says the users seem to be accurate at guessing the sex of the seller from his nickname about 56% of the time! (What ? You mean like if there was 50% chances to guess it wrong ?) And goes on about unconscious gender bias. (And me thinking it was simply basic heads/tails statistics)
And this heap of dung "findings" is presented as "because they are women".
If all the above had the modicum of credibility, one could expect a title in the vein of "on eBay, women suck at sales". Not very politically correct but since when feelings are relevant presenting data ?
But the title starts with "Even", implying a trend. (Do you feel the rot?) And, naturally, it's repeating that old lie about women earning less. Going up to finding a 0.80 on the dollar close to the usual 0.79 (or so) repeated by the lie. This casts yet more doubt on the "study". (If it was still needed)
Who said "bias" ? Who said "doctored numbers" ? Who said "agenda" ?
I just looked-up the first writer (Tamar Kricheli-Katz) on google and was not too surprised it's a woman with a page on "The Clayman institute for gender research" where you can find equally illuminating studies. Still, I thought it was funny (and a bit sad also).
And this gets published in a "science" magazine, then reported on the news for nerds. Is this the worthless "social science" I heard about ?
What's up next ? "We actually use 9% of our brain, not 10 as previously believed (by other morons)" ?
Oh, wait, don't tell me. I know : "Everything is sexist" ?
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
I don't want to be the bearer of bad news but we can't actually have that discussion. I've tried. Oh, it gets voted up here - it gets very few replies. Sometimes I'm called an asshole or told I don't get it, but nobody seems willing to tell me what I'm missing - even when I approach sincerely, openly, and politely.
It has caused me to resort to drawing my own conclusions based on reason, observation, and logic. You could even say that I've approached it scientifically, I've repeated the experiment in multiple ways. So, it's no great thing that I've discovered. It is that some people are not interested in equal opportunities but they're interested in equal outcomes.
The thing is, that doesn't appear to be anything that is open to discussion either. There don't appear to be many proposing rational solutions to anything. There aren't even people willing to articulate what their real concern is. I've even attempted to discuss issues concerning the idea that the lowest-common-denominator is a success. That appears to also be a non-starter.
I'd wager that open conversation, even intellectually honest debate, might be a good starting point but we seem unable to even approach things with a rational mind.
If I may, I'll share a thought. It's related - but may not seem so at first.
The author of To Kill a Mockingbird just died. She was an older lady and her work was actually mandatory for a great many people. She was an asset and gave the world a good thing. Let it be said, they're one of those people who gave more than they took. We owe her our gratitude.
Now, how is that relevant? In her book, you might have noticed a trend. It is in other period works and goes back through history. This is just an observation, correlation is not assured. But, throughout history, the public has often been aware of justice. They visited the court. If you remember, the court was overflowing with regular people. If you look, court was carried out in public - with the approval of the public, as was punishment, or at least sentencing. It still is public and that's my point. My point is, when did anyone here last spend a vacation day observing the courts to ensure justice was being observed and handed down appropriately?
I'll leave it to you to draw the connection. It's there. It should become obvious. It may even seem like victim blaming but it is not - nor is it a gender thing. No, the problem is us. That is us, a collective.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
In theory yes, in practice people do the hiring and bring conscious and subconscious biases to the table. Moneyball is a (racially-neutral) example of biases being brought into the hiring process---sometimes inadvertently.
I have always wondered if benefits are included in the calculation. Women often get benefits that men do not, for example paid maternity leave, contraceptives, etc. I would be willing to bet that if benefits were included the gap would be a lot closer to equal.
Not all people are sexist or racist, so at some point the non-sexist person would see a female applicant, see them for the quality they were, and see the deal, 72 cents on the dollar, they could even split the difference, save 14% and have a competitive advantage, rinse repeat. This would ultimately create a mostly female, reasonably yet underpaid company with a massive economic advantage. I remember reading once that someone even tried to do it. Staff a chunk of his business with 72 cent on the dollar woman. He couldn't find them. While I believe sexism is still there and there is still some gender based wage discrimination in some businesses and some industries the gap number just isn't a valid apples to apples comparison.
The tech is 'eBay'
I've always wondered why the perfect economic model never survives the first round of successes.
And which one has fared better than capitalism so far?
Let's say that theoretical female and male employees are theoretically identical except for the flag "F" or "M".
You're already falling into the trap.
For the most part, the raw numbers hide the real story, men and women aren't doing the same jobs, or working the same hours.
eg men prefer working in IT, Finance and Mining, the boring, horrible task/big paying jobs, whereas women prefer Teaching, Nursing, care work, the socially satisfying but lower paying roles.
Women also tend to average more time off (maternity leave etc), so even at the exact same salary, their income average is lower.
The whole argument is bunk.
Hillary pays her male staff more than her female staff. Or does hypocrisy count?
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Um your link is an article saying that this is not true? "Data Debunks Claim That Hillary Clinton Paid Women Less Than Men"
Well, speaking as someone who's actually run a business, a lot of the secret of success is actually doing things that any fool would know is the right thing to do. The problem is that what you'd instantly see in a hypothetical case to be the right thing to do is often hard to see in a real one, particularly if it involves making changes. That's because people more often use their powers of reasoning to rationalize the status quo than they do to find a better way of doing things. And it's really, really hard in the moment to tell the difference between reasoning and rationalization.
I absolutely agree that a rationally run company would gain a powerful competitive advantage by not discriminating, but in certain cases biases and cognitive flaws can be so widespread that there isn't enough rational behavior to shift the behavior of the market as a whole. If enough people are acting in a certain stupid way, that stupid way of acting is stable and persistent.
Look around you with open eyes, and you'll see self-defeating behavior everywhere. The idea that economic forces are sufficient to purge most irrational behavior from the world is manifestly counter-factual. I know people who've run successful consultancies telling businesses to do painfully obvious things, like stop pouring money into promoting products that are hard to sell and focus on products customers actually seem to want. The gift these consultant have isn't seeing the obvious, it's getting other people to see the obvious.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
First, "F still has excess production capacity at" should be $0.72, not $1.
You're already falling into the trap.
Nope. You just need to read closer. I think you posted this before reading my entire post. I used a standard logical argument, basically. Assume the negation is true - IE that men and women are identical. If said negation was true, as per my analogy, women's wages should naturally adjust to the men's. They don't though, so men and women aren't actually identical. Yes, I have the same theories you do as to why - women take maternity leave, work less overtime, tend to select jobs that are more stable and heavier on benefits. Men tend to take risks more - riskier but higher paying jobs, work overtime for more money, and aren't as obsessed with benefits.
For the most part, the raw numbers hide the real story, men and women aren't doing the same jobs, or working the same hours.
For example, in my bolt analogy, I said this: "but what if M is stainless and F isn't?"
Indicating that M(en) are doing jobs that W(omen) can't or won't do.
I don't read AC A human right
Right, but also consider that all those things were far more expensive due to being relatively new technologies. You have to adjust for inflation to really get the whole picture comparatively.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
That makes sense because they lost their male anatomy which any man will tell you is at least 30% of their worth.
Little boy pulls down his shorts and says to the little girl "I've got one of these and you don't ha ha!" Little girl pulls down her shorts and says "I've got one of these and my mommy says with one of these I can get as many of those as I want!"
It's a buyers market. :-)
You just pointed out that men have a lifetime experience in marketing, the men that are useless never procreate. This sort of explains things
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Not me. I use my almightyness to save money by purchasing only from women.
Lets boil it down to even lower levels.
Person with mental instabilities based on gender tend to conform to those perceived differences after taking physical actions to address those instabilities.
A guy who thinks they are a girl or girl who thinks they are a guy would want the entire package when they change genders in order to appease the mental process. It is a matter of their own making.
Now if only we could find rational actors to implement it.
The amount of specialization in the economy is so high that even the irrational actors benefit from free trade. There is no reason to wait around for an economy full of rational actors.
I realize that the progressive way is to only consider the relative gains and as such in their universe people need to be protected from their own free choices.... but really.. progressives have enough autism in them that they can't comprehend value.
"His name was James Damore."
1. Heavier use of benefits vs straight pay
I would hope that these studies are totaling up the entire compensation package (wages, insurance, retirement funding, stock options, etc..) of each person.
Otherwise they are worth less than I imagined....
"His name was James Damore."
Louis CK says it best:
Cell Phones And Flying
Everyone has awesome amazing stuff, but thats not good enough..
"His name was James Damore."
I don't think it was just the family unit that was better off then, it was also the economics of the time meant the dollar went a lot further than it does today.
The time of the robber barons? Yes, everyone did well, contrary to the recent liberal/progressive revisionism of the period.
"His name was James Damore."
> Capitalism doesn't care if you're man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, KKK or BLM. It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
Then we aren't ruled by capitalism after all. Remember "no negros, no jews"? Businesses do care. They have always cared. Because they aren't run by capitalism, but by people. And people are flawed.
You error is to believe that capitalism is efficient. It isn't. It works better than other systems from time to time. Or less worse. Just because the complete failure that is the ultra partisan Republican Congress the US currently has is worse than the Democrats doesn't make the Democrats saints. It just makes them a little less bad.
IMHO big data and the end of privacy could bring us a much more efficient planning economy like the one in the Soviet Union. Though I am neither sure if that is desirable, nor if we have a choice in the matter, considering what the NSA, Google, Facebook and Amazon keep storing. If they would combine their data, I think we could already have pretty good planning of all demand at least a year into the future.
That being said, capitalism is very inefficient and there is much more to business than what an economist thinks there is. The gender gap isn't about capitalism. It just shows that many decisions are neither rational, nor smart or driven by capitalism.
The headline could also read: "Men better at selling stuff than women on eBay."
Because that is what selling stuff is all about: getting the highest revenue out of your products.
It's a headline you could easily be chastised for, but only by those who consider 'selling stuff' a skill of the light side. Personally, I believe trying to sell stuff to people can bring out the worst in people. Bluffing, exaggerating and positively misrepresenting in general are (alas) skills that aid sales. I would not at all be surprised if men on average tend to be more trained in these skills.
I think the answer you are looking for is institutionalised sexism. Lots of posts here on Slashdot have confirmed that women aren't deemed worthy, when customers wanted to talk to someone. Either be it "the boss" or someone who knows stuff. We are living in the service industry. Upwards of 80% of people work in the service industry. It doesn't matter how good your product/service is or how high your labor costs are. If you aren't selling your services your business fails. Because of institutionalised sexism, customers demand is for male services. Thus women get paid less and businesses that pay men more for essentially the same work still thrive.
This would ultimately create a mostly female, reasonably yet underpaid company with a massive economic advantage
Assuming that the women would work well together, yes. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...
I would hope that these studies are totaling up the entire compensation package (wages, insurance, retirement funding, stock options, etc..) of each person.
From what I've seen, the studies that show a much lower number for women don't count the entire benefit package, the studies that come up with women closer to parity against the men do.
I don't read AC A human right
It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
Let's be clear: it only cares what your economic value is, which is your ability and willingness to produce goods or services for trade which are in demand.
Capitalism says nothing about your value as a person or as a living being..
For example: female gender-specific services in the sex business are in extremely high demand, but if I go prostitute myself; while I may generate a lot of cash and economic value for myself, society, culture, and religion, will tell me that I am absolute dirt if I do so, .
So a person generating economic value, or becoming more valuable economically can actually Lower your worth as a human being in your own eyes (or in the eyes of other people)
Thus.... while capitalism might be color blind, it does not derive the one true measure of value.
So you're going for the conclusion that the woman was too stupid to realize she would be reflected on the TV (or see it)?
Actually 'no negroes, no Jews' is a perfectly fine decision for somebody looking to maximize their profits in the system that uses government power to assign classes to people. Black slaves were slaves because under law they could be owned not because capitalism somehow allowed some people to own others. It is a rational decision to put signs like that out if most of your profits come from a class of people that have much more money and power. Catering to the laws (implicit and explicit) and to the sentiment of the majority makes business sense.
Capitalism and search for efficiency, industrialization, automation allowed to eradicate slavery by changing the game of what is more productive, to purchase and feed and cloth and take care of slaves who only work enough not to be beaten and killed and who will not participate in the business, will not offer creativity and any particular interest (nor should they) vs free work force, free as in liberty. People who own themselves and get money and gratitude for work well done are better employees.
You can't handle the truth.
Do you actually have any examples of Capitalism doing exactly this?
19th and 20th century, western world, immense progress to a degree never seen before in human history.
The claim "Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing the same job." has been dismissed by any number of studies. Women's collective average pay is about 80% of men's collective average pay, but that is a different notion altogether and is explained largely by women's self-selection in traditionally low-paying jobs, albeit jobs with generally higher flexibility.
Men and women with the same experience, education, and job *and* who put in the same number of work hours per week tend to make virtually identical the same earnings. When the former is true, but the later is not, even among same-gender groups, any difference is strongly tied to the fewer number of hours worked. I.e., men who work fewer hours than other men get paid less and those men are paid at commensurate with the wages of similarly situated women.
This is all true even in industries where women outnumber men by large margins and where the barriers are almost all self-imposed. For example, women real-estate brokers running their own business tend to earn less than men in the same situation.
Use your brain for something other than a hat-rack.
/thread for all time
eBay is a digital medium. The sex of the business owner/seller is not known. Ergo, you must assume that it is not a result of society, BUT THE FUCKING PERSON DOING THE WORK.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
I've always wondered why the perfect economic model never survives the first round of successes.
And which one has fared better than capitalism so far?
Capitalism with enough control that it doesn't destroy itself.
The problem - especially with Libertrians - is their child like insistence that if we only completely unfetter business from any regulation, that only good will come from it. That human nature will not ever assert itself, and that all capitalists will somehow use a system based on greed, yet miraculously, all will be altruistic at the same time.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Do you actually have any examples of Capitalism doing exactly this? 19th and 20th century, western world, immense progress to a degree never seen before in human history.
I meant successful. The abuses the capitalists performed are what led to the anti monopoly laws. Also, they pretty much insured a 2 year cycle of boom and bust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And I couldn't find th ecompletely non sexist nature of capitalism, in your uncited words, which is what I asked for.
Try again. The Poster Archangel Michael noted that Capitalism was the only true colorblind system in the world.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
All things adjusted for, women do earn less.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Male-to-female transsexuals often look like dudes in a dress.
Really? I rented out my spare bedroom twice to guys last year, for 4 months at a time. Neither one knew until the last month, when I told them, The first one stayed in denial for a week. We're everywhere, and you often can't tell.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
First, it's "cite", not "site". Learn simple spelling before you criticize someone - it ruins any credibility an AC might have had.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
and if a transexual (sic) has sex with a man without telling them, the tranny should be charged with rape.
Why? They're willingly having sex with someone who is legally a woman.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And I call bullshit. Many people transition but stay in the same field, because that's what they know. If you looked at the bottom of the article, you would have seen one such instance where the f2m was more respected after transition by those who were not in the know, and compared the "two of them."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's a buyers market, and women are the buyers. We're the ones who say yes or no.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I guess you're still not up to speed - being trans is no longer considered a mental disorder. It's also probably going to be removed completely from version 6 of the DSM for that reason.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You error is to believe that capitalism is efficient. It isn't. It works better than other systems from time to time. Or less worse.
There have been businesses in the past that attempted to exploit mostly female work forces. They did well enough, but said industries tended to end up dominated by female workers.
I don't read AC A human right
Waiting a while before repeating the same old bu11$#1+ statistic doesn't make it true.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
You can throw it a ticker tape parade and it won't change anything.
Whether it is seen as a mental illness or not is irrelevant to it being an instability. A person who has a mental process that drives them to alter their bodies in a way to deceive nature for some ideal piece of mind will likely live out that fantasy to its fullest. So if they think men do certain things and women do certain things, it is only logical that they seek out those things to satisfy their mental desires.
Btw, a mental instability is not a mental illness. An upset person or anyone going through emotional situations can very well be mentally unstable and not mentally ill.
Too bad our system is managementism and cronyism. Capital is carefully separated from it's owners and parceled out into tiny increments so no one person can claim real ownership... I wonder why that is?
Cheap storage VM.
There are laws on the books to protect people from discrimination, and more often than not the benefit of the doubt goes to the plaintiff.
Ask me how I know your white and male? (and wrong)
Cheap storage VM.
"Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing the same job"
No. Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing different jobs. For equal work, women are paid equally, within the margin of error, in most categories, and equally overall. The reason they only earn 79% as much is because they only do 79% as much work in the paid economy.
And gay people want to only hire gay people, black people won't hire white people ....
And the people who care about "Money" will hire the best person to make them the most amount of money. You cannot fix irrational people. Eventually they will fail or succeed.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Sounds like someone who is scared to failure and therefore doesn't even bother to try.
“I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying.” Michael Jordan
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I would postulate that Monopolies are eventually self defeating in pure capitalism. The problem is, we are impatient beings and don't want to wait for that to happen.
Imagine a world where we didn't break up Standard Oil, and some guy invented some sort of means of producing power cheaply and effectively other than Petrol. Say someone like N. Tesla? Imagine the total lack of CO2 problems we have today, because we never had cheap oil!
Oh wait, we can't, because it never happened. Opportunity costs are real, and most people don't have a clue how they work. Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than efficiency and costs. We cannot know what could have been. We only can know what is. And we are too dumb to let things sort themselves out because we get all emotional and do irrational things, rationalizing why we do them.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
All systems have "in theory" and all systems have "in reality". In theory, Socialism sounds fantastic. In reality it sucks because eventually it breaks down at individual, when they realize that working hard doesn't pay nearly as much as sponging off the system as much as you can get.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
reading comprehension 0%
He never said he was in support of slavery. He said it was once a reality, and decisions based on that reality were at that time logical.
In fact, if you read his whole post, he says this ... " People who own themselves and get money and gratitude for work well done are better employees."
Which basically says the opposite of what you think he said.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Where is the liberty in enslaving the working class in the name of Progressive politics?
Taxes in support of progressive social policies are slavery (see 13th Amendment)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Capitalism says nothing about your value as a person or as a living being.
But our founding documents DO say what our value is as human beings. "We hold these truths to be self evident ..." is something Liberals tend to forget, because they only value people by what they can tax them for, or by some other "group" political worth.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I would postulate that Monopolies are eventually self defeating in pure capitalism. The problem is, we are impatient beings and don't want to wait for that to happen.
Yes, in the long run. Problem is what is that long run? It could be hundreds of years. Of course over that time scale, most things fail.
Do you have enough patience that your economic outlook has no benefit for you, but for your grandchildren's grandchildren? As well as putting up with every monopoly that rises in between? Succeed or fail, that soulnds like monopolies all the way down.
Imagine a world where we didn't break up Standard Oil, and some guy invented some sort of means of producing power cheaply and effectively other than Petrol.
We have people doing that already. Opposition to them is quite strong.
Say someone like N. Tesla?
A brilliant man. But much of his fame lies within the History channel Ancient Aliens-o-sphere due to his severe eccentricities.
Imagine the total lack of CO2 problems we have today, because we never had cheap oil!
To attempt to make your story work, you are going to have to go back to the 1700's, and figure out a way that pure capitalism would work it's way around coal.
Oh wait, we can't, because it never happened. Opportunity costs are real, and most people don't have a clue how they work.
Your story fails because aside from that little problem with gases, no one would have ever stepped outside the petrochemical box. The reason? Petrochemicals are an absolutely excellent source of energy - perhaps one of the best we will ever have. Tremendouse energy density, excellent portability.
Your Tesla probably wouldn't have bothered to try to develop an alternative fuel system. And those systems he wrote about were more science fictino than anything actually possible.
Instead, what we have are groups working on alternative energy today, after understanding the problem at the core of petrofuels. And all opposed to the point of sabotage by the Petrochemical and coal interests.
Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than efficiency and costs. We cannot know what could have been. We only can know what is. And we are too dumb to let things sort themselves out because we get all emotional and do irrational things, rationalizing why we do them.
It's because we are human. Capitalism works by harnessing greed, the desire to accumulate wealth beyond survival. We all have some of this in us, to varying degrees. I have a middling amount, I've worked pretty hard to get to where I am, including rising a number of levels "beyond my class".
Some people have almost none, and we see them settle to their level, sometimes to the point of indolence.
But where the system has trouble is at the top. Some people have enough greed that instead of working for good, they have an alomst pathological drive to own it all. These are the people who while they might have a lot of success, they are harmful to the nature of capitalism. Pure Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work for this reason. Because like all other pure isms, it fails by a basic misunderstanding of human nature.
We've tried it, and it didn't work very well. China is trying it now - kinda - but it gives us melamine flavored pet food and poisonous baby formula.
It simply has to be harnessed, because as you yourself note:
Capitalism doesn't care about anything other than efficiency and costs
Which I agree with. But that's exactly why it needs reins, it's completely amoral.
Protect it from itself, and now you have something that can work.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.