Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:Why is that the "best"? It's a white paper focusing on the gig economy.

wtf

tragabigzanda wrote:

tree_ wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

--- wrote:What evidence would you accept that might change your mind, tragabigzanda?

What part of my mind are you proposing to change?
That a gender pay gap exists?
Or that, forgetting the legalities, corporations are typically operated to maximize profits?

Of course they want to maximize profits. I don't want to read through all your links. Is there proof in there that low-balling female employees is a point of operation in order to do so?

I don't know, I didn't read those links. But I've been a part of the work force long enough; am married to an exceptionally intelligent and well-paid woman; and have formed my own C-Corp and follow all the legal mumbo jumbo to the letter to know that whenever there's money to be saved, corporations will do it, and that negotiating a lower salary with an employee is one easy way to save pennies (often at the cost of attracting or retaining better team members who would likely yield higher profits).

So why are women more vulnerable to low-ball negotiation than men? I don't know if it is true, but if it were, it could have to do with personality traits; men being more aggressive than women in the negotiating process.

tragabigzanda wrote: Oh I have no opinion on this. I agree that $0.79 is the figure most often cited, but I've not looked at research closely enough to take any sort of stance on this.

Well, let me cut to the chase. If I grant your assumption that corporations are profit-motivated (agreed) and that they run mostly by old white guys (usually true, too) and I even go so far as to grant that they have an interest in protecting the patriarchy and are prejudiced against women I think the "low ball female employees" argument falls apart pretty quickly under inspection.

It comes down to what's their primary interest. If it is indeed to profit, and that's usually the accepted primary motivation, well they would be spiting themselves by underpaying women. If they really are concerned with profit above all else and the market price for an equal female worker is only 80% of their male counterpart, well they'd be absolute fools not to take advantage of this clear inefficiency. They could significantly cut their input costs while not hampering output one bit, giving them a huge advantage in whatever they're doing. This would increase the demand for this equally skilled female labor, driving up their wage while at the same time decreasing the demand for male labor, driving down their wage until the two converge. As long as there remains any gap there exists the opportunity for some ruthless capitalist to profit by employing more women.

The only way a gap this large could persist then would mean that their love for discrimination outstrips their love of profit, which is of course the thing we've all been taught they love the most in this world. And if that were true there'd be amazing opportunities for some woman or non-women-hating man to start a company and exclusively hire women...again fixing this inefficiency before long.

tragabigzanda wrote:

--- wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Why is that the "best"? It's a white paper focusing on the gig economy.

I'm serious. It hasn't been peer reviewed, and it's using a new economic sector with an extremely low barrier of entry as its sample set. I'm not saying their findings aren't sound, just that they are narrowly limited and have not been subject to rigorous review. "Best" seems like a huge overstatement.

I don't understand your brain, tragabigzanda.

tragabigzanda wrote:

tree_ wrote: So why are women more vulnerable to low-ball negotiation than men? I don't know if it is true, but if it were, it could have to do with personality traits; men being more aggressive than women in the negotiating process.

I'm not entirely confident in this, but I suspect it has more to do with the "good old boys club." My wife is easily one of the smartest and most capable people in her organization, yet she misses out on all sorts of opportunities for networking and project-hopping because she doesn't get invited to play golf or hit the slopes with the other executives.

The "lean-in" movement is probably the best thing that has happened to women with careers in recent memory, because it encourages them to disregard whatever social barriers may exist in their workplace and take a more aggressive role in their own career advancement.

Conjecture.

tree_ wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

tree_ wrote: So why are women more vulnerable to low-ball negotiation than men? I don't know if it is true, but if it were, it could have to do with personality traits; men being more aggressive than women in the negotiating process.

I'm not entirely confident in this, but I suspect it has more to do with the "good old boys club." My wife is easily one of the smartest and most capable people in her organization, yet she misses out on all sorts of opportunities for networking and project-hopping because she doesn't get invited to play golf or hit the slopes with the other executives.

The "lean-in" movement is probably the best thing that has happened to women with careers in recent memory, because it encourages them to disregard whatever social barriers may exist in their workplace and take a more aggressive role in their own career advancement.

Conjecture.

No more so than your statement.

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

tree_ wrote: So why are women more vulnerable to low-ball negotiation than men? I don't know if it is true, but if it were, it could have to do with personality traits; men being more aggressive than women in the negotiating process.

I'm not entirely confident in this, but I suspect it has more to do with the "good old boys club." My wife is easily one of the smartest and most capable people in her organization, yet she misses out on all sorts of opportunities for networking and project-hopping because she doesn't get invited to play golf or hit the slopes with the other executives.

The "lean-in" movement is probably the best thing that has happened to women with careers in recent memory, because it encourages them to disregard whatever social barriers may exist in their workplace and take a more aggressive role in their own career advancement.

Conjecture.

No more so than your statement.

I'm not arguing that it exists or doesn't. I don't know. I am arguing that the proof provided isn't sufficient to backing trag's claim that it does exist.

AL

I can't see that image on my work computer. What is it, what is it?

tragabigzanda wrote:

--- wrote:I don't understand your brain, tragabigzanda.

Can you be more specific?

You seem more interested in extraneous details ("Why is that the 'best' [paper]?", going on and on about the legalities of setting up a corporation), but then "have no opinion" on the specifics of the issue that inspired the thread in the first place. Then you admit to not looking closely enough at the research on the gap itself to take a stance. Then you take a stance, based entirely on (again, entirely extraneous) factors you imagine are at play with a single data point, your wife.

I have no idea what broader points you're trying to make.