So the question might be reversed, should everyone with the same job description be paid exactly the same, regardless of work output or experience?
This is a good question. All people inflate their own sense of worth. Workers who claim to work 80 hours a week are often making very different choices about how to manage their time as someone who claims to work 40. It's one half of the Dunning-Kruger effect (the other half being that people of high capability often underestimate the difficulty of what they do).
Now I'm not saying that you're exaggerating the amount of work you did in comparison to others (especially those tricksy women, amirite?), but it would be consistent with what we know about human nature and the actual data from the workplace of people who claim to work long hours. Studies have shown that the more hours people claim to work over 55, the more they're exaggerating how many hours they actually work. People who claim to work 75-80 hours a week are usually overestimating by at least 20 hours.
Competence is a complicated thing masquerading as a simple thing. No, people who have the same job title as you shouldn't necessarily make the same amount of money. Your pay is based on performance reviews, training, proven competence and a whole slew of other inputs. The problem is, a lot of those so-called metrics have a built-in bias. And in a salaried workforce, those biases can really run rampant. That's why in countries with healthier, more dynamic economies, you will see pay based on seemingly arbitrary measures like job title and seniority. This was an innovation of the labor movement and led to the most productive workforces in the world.
I have no doubt that you're a competent, hard-working guy. That's my built-in bias because I like you, Ol Olsoc. A lot of times, we find agreement around here. We have things in common. If I were overseeing a performance review of you, I'd probably be predisposed to rate you highly. I'd certainly be predisposed to rate you more highly than the woman who's been a bitch to me every since I made that joke about the one-eared elephant at Miller's retirement party.
Sure. Katie Ledecki got gold for swimming 800m about 15s slower than Connor Jaeger did for swimming 800m on the way to 1500m for mere silver. Still think there isn't something inherently different about women, or was Ledecki just sandbagging the way to the world record?
That doesn't answer my question: Do you think Katie Ledecki didn't work as hard as Connor Jaeger? Was she less productive (remember, the "product" is gold medals)?
You are a dipshit,you cited another source. "Bush White House has resulted in restoration of 22 million of the missing messages" Can you read ?
The trick is that you have to read more than just the headline.
"An investigation into e-mails that seemed to have disappeared from the Bush White House has resulted in restoration of 22 million of the missing messages and a deal to uncover what could be millions of other e-mails that allegedly fell through cracks in the archiving system, two nonprofit groups said Monday. However, an untold number of official e-mails from President George W. Bush's era will probably never be recovered because it would be extremely costly to do so, lawyers involved in lawsuits brought by the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said. "While we have not gotten every e-mail, some major gaps have been filled," said Meredith Fuchs, an attorney for the National Security Archive."
You may not have notice when you were copy-pasting those links, the ONE STORY that was actually about the pay gap and had any data was about worldwide pay in developed nations. Women in most European countries have been making the same as men for decades. Hell, even in little countries like Serbia, there's been pay equity for over half a century. The other two stories were op-ed pieces by people who presented evidence, only feelings.
If you look up at the headline of this story, you will notice that it's, "Apple, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft Sign White House Pledge For Equal Pay". Get that? White House pledge. That means US. And brother, there is absolutely a pay gap in the US. Don't believe me, listen to what those filthy SJW Socialists over at the Wall Street Journal had to say:
Professional sports would probably disagree with you on that.
Whoa there. Do you believe that the gold medal winning women olympic gymnasts didn't work as hard to achieve their accomplishments as their male counterparts? Did you see what they did?
Do you realize that the US women took home more medals in this olympics than the men?
And in regard to professional athletics, do you really believe - honestly - that the top male tennis players in the US had to work harder than the women players? The leading US women's tennis player has almost twice as many grand slam wins as the leading US men's tennis player.
I repeat the question, PopeRatzo. Are you rationalizing Clinton's destruction of evidence as ok because the Bush administration deleted a really big number of emails?
Are you asking me for a moral or legal judgement? Morally, I find pretty much everyone who runs for this office is repugnant, with only a handful of exceptions. Currently we have a couple of morally unbalanced people running for president.
However, as a veteran, I have learned that malignant competence is always preferable to incompetent foolishness and moral depravity when it comes to running a big organization. That's why I will vote against Donald Trump in November. It's strictly damage control.
And because of that the laws were changed before she took office and she still did it, because you can't touch a Clinton.
You guys, there you go again. First you say it's a moral issue, but then you say, no, it's a legal issue. Are the two things morally equivalent? Absolutely, except it's thousands of emails as opposed to TWENTY-TWO MILLION EMAILS in the case of George W Bush.
Are the two things legally equivalent? Absolutely, since the law has come down the same in both cases.
So really, your beef with Hillary Clinton is just some partisan cum sock.
We're talking about Drake here. Show of hands: Who cares if Spotify doesn't include Drake in its promoted tracks? If people want to hear Drake (which in itself is a little unsettling), then they can still listen to his music on Spotify.
"Burying" is not the same as "not promoting". The music is there, but there isn't any incentive for Spotify to promote it.
we launched capsules into space with brute force, and crashed them back into the ocean to get them back. Now... we do the same thing. Fantastic.
This is so much more important because instead of the usual military contractors building the capsule, an internet sensation military contractor is building the capsule, and it only took him 60 years to catch up.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good question. All people inflate their own sense of worth. Workers who claim to work 80 hours a week are often making very different choices about how to manage their time as someone who claims to work 40. It's one half of the Dunning-Kruger effect (the other half being that people of high capability often underestimate the difficulty of what they do).
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb...
Now I'm not saying that you're exaggerating the amount of work you did in comparison to others (especially those tricksy women, amirite?), but it would be consistent with what we know about human nature and the actual data from the workplace of people who claim to work long hours. Studies have shown that the more hours people claim to work over 55, the more they're exaggerating how many hours they actually work. People who claim to work 75-80 hours a week are usually overestimating by at least 20 hours.
https://www.fastcompany.com/30...
Competence is a complicated thing masquerading as a simple thing. No, people who have the same job title as you shouldn't necessarily make the same amount of money. Your pay is based on performance reviews, training, proven competence and a whole slew of other inputs. The problem is, a lot of those so-called metrics have a built-in bias. And in a salaried workforce, those biases can really run rampant. That's why in countries with healthier, more dynamic economies, you will see pay based on seemingly arbitrary measures like job title and seniority. This was an innovation of the labor movement and led to the most productive workforces in the world.
http://www.epi.org/publication...
I have no doubt that you're a competent, hard-working guy. That's my built-in bias because I like you, Ol Olsoc. A lot of times, we find agreement around here. We have things in common. If I were overseeing a performance review of you, I'd probably be predisposed to rate you highly. I'd certainly be predisposed to rate you more highly than the woman who's been a bitch to me every since I made that joke about the one-eared elephant at Miller's retirement party.
Now, get the picture?
I'm working on my Drone Highwayman costume right now. I'll be rolling in pizzas in no time.
You think it was the Left that started the Clinton Death List conspiracy theory?
That doesn't answer my question: Do you think Katie Ledecki didn't work as hard as Connor Jaeger? Was she less productive (remember, the "product" is gold medals)?
Ahem...
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
That's all good, but it still doesn't answer the question of how you suffer if someone else doing the same job makes as much as you.
The trick is that you have to read more than just the headline.
You sound tired. When you get some rest, have another look and see that the article you cited was an op-ed. Opinion. Commentary.
When they WSJ reports the news, there's a wage gap. When they give their feels, there isn't. Do you see a pattern here?
You may not have notice when you were copy-pasting those links, the ONE STORY that was actually about the pay gap and had any data was about worldwide pay in developed nations. Women in most European countries have been making the same as men for decades. Hell, even in little countries like Serbia, there's been pay equity for over half a century. The other two stories were op-ed pieces by people who presented evidence, only feelings.
If you look up at the headline of this story, you will notice that it's, "Apple, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft Sign White House Pledge For Equal Pay". Get that? White House pledge. That means US. And brother, there is absolutely a pay gap in the US. Don't believe me, listen to what those filthy SJW Socialists over at the Wall Street Journal had to say:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/wo...
Come on, man. What was the last time you think someone reading Slashdot "actually performed an objectively measurable feat of strength"?
This story is about Apple, Facebook, IBM and Microsoft. How often do you think the jobs we're talking about require "feats of strength"?
Whoa there. Do you believe that the gold medal winning women olympic gymnasts didn't work as hard to achieve their accomplishments as their male counterparts? Did you see what they did?
Do you realize that the US women took home more medals in this olympics than the men?
And in regard to professional athletics, do you really believe - honestly - that the top male tennis players in the US had to work harder than the women players? The leading US women's tennis player has almost twice as many grand slam wins as the leading US men's tennis player.
I'm curious. Why does it make you "suffer" because someone else gets paid as much as you do?
How does equal pay make you suffer?
I do not excuse evil, I just measure it against a greater evil. As I said, it's about minimizing the harm.
No sir, they were not.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
Are you asking me for a moral or legal judgement? Morally, I find pretty much everyone who runs for this office is repugnant, with only a handful of exceptions. Currently we have a couple of morally unbalanced people running for president.
However, as a veteran, I have learned that malignant competence is always preferable to incompetent foolishness and moral depravity when it comes to running a big organization. That's why I will vote against Donald Trump in November. It's strictly damage control.
You guys, there you go again. First you say it's a moral issue, but then you say, no, it's a legal issue. Are the two things morally equivalent? Absolutely, except it's thousands of emails as opposed to TWENTY-TWO MILLION EMAILS in the case of George W Bush.
Are the two things legally equivalent? Absolutely, since the law has come down the same in both cases.
So really, your beef with Hillary Clinton is just some partisan cum sock.
Twenty-two MILLION emails.
Funny, but I don't remember that being an every night issue on the evening news.
And I never, ever look to politicians for a moral compass. I gave that up when Ronald Reagan became president.
I knew the woman who used to style Joe Pepitone's toupee.
We're talking about Drake here. Show of hands: Who cares if Spotify doesn't include Drake in its promoted tracks? If people want to hear Drake (which in itself is a little unsettling), then they can still listen to his music on Spotify.
"Burying" is not the same as "not promoting". The music is there, but there isn't any incentive for Spotify to promote it.
Plus, it's Drake. I mean, come on...
Twenty-two million emails.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washin...
You might want to think about this a minute. The Bush Administration wiped 22 million emails.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The significance of this is Elon Musk, who is the self-driving Uber of dot.com billionaires and is the hero of our times.
This is so much more important because instead of the usual military contractors building the capsule, an internet sensation military contractor is building the capsule, and it only took him 60 years to catch up.
last time I checked, housing in New York, Miami, Atlanta is not exactly cheap.