When she earns more than him

"High" wages are generally not the result of the job being dangerous or hard but the three factors below:
1. Unionisation - jobs with bigger, more "militant" and more well-resourced unions get paid better. This is why coal miners trapped due to some disaster are left to die in China whereas millions are spent on safety in Australia. They are doing the same job.
2. Regulation - needing a license or some form of registration to do the job.
3. Protectionism - external forces such as controls or restrictions on immigration, especially for work visas for particular jobs/industries, as well as other misc red tape you need to go through to be qualified.

Really? I work in what is generally considered a high wage industry. We get high pay because we generate a lot of revenue for the business. That's what matters.

Man or Woman, makes no difference.
 
Really? I work in what is generally considered a high wage industry. We get high pay because we generate a lot of revenue for the business. That's what matters.

Man or Woman, makes no difference.

Correct!

If this were the case, police officers would be on a million dollars, and accountants would be on $5 per hour

I also don't.think.investment bankers are too risky or dangerous, however afyer watching the Wolf of wall Street, I'm not so sure
 
I'm a bit unsure why this thread has degenerated into personal attacks. Why can't we discuss this like any other topic?

My 2 cents on why men earn more than women, at least in white collar professions is that:
1) Men tend to negotiate harder and more aggresively, and it's easier to give them what they want (or part of it) to avoid ongoing conflict than to say no, whereas women don't push as hard and are less willing to cross social boundaries (for various reasons); and
2) Taking time off to have children, then returning to work while often tired and with children as a higher priority, means those people (male or female) who don't have children draw ahead career-wise for a time, that then becomes more apparent as people funnel up the corporate pyramid. Given than men can't have kids, more of them (on average) make it higher up the tree.

I've always taken the view that men and women are equal, but very different. And this is a good thing.


I don't necessarily disagree with point 1, But there is an issue. In my experience as a woman, when you go in and negotiate hard, you are seem as a ball breaker and this threatens some men, often those in charge of your promotion making the negotiations much harder. Yes
You can move companies if faced with these difficulties and I have, but I think it is a little naive to think that men and women are treated exactly the same in all circumstances. It just doesn't happen.
Tell me no boss has looked at a woman of child bearing age and not thought whether she will leave to have kids.
 
Tell me no boss has looked at a woman of child bearing age and not thought whether she will leave to have kids.

thats not discrimination, thats called smart business.

if it were assessing an old person (male or female) who was near retirement age, any business minded person who had the best interest of the company in mind, wouldnt hire them because chances are they were going to retire soon, especially if the training/start up costs in hiring that person were high.

and yes, if I had to choose between a man of quality 7 vs a woman of quality 8 of the child bearing age and situation, id definitely hire the man, you dont understand how much maternity leave , rehiring, finding contractors and then once they return having them integrate back into the workforce all costs. Plus the likelihood that they will want part time hours, plus leave at 3pm to pick up kids.

Its a no brainer for me
 
thats not discrimination, thats called smart business.

if it were assessing an old person (male or female) who was near retirement age, any business minded person who had the best interest of the company in mind, wouldnt hire them because chances are they were going to retire soon, especially if the training/start up costs in hiring that person were high.

and yes, if I had to choose between a man of quality 7 vs a woman of quality 8 of the child bearing age and situation, id definitely hire the man, you dont understand how much maternity leave , rehiring, finding contractors and then once they return having them integrate back into the workforce all costs. Plus the likelihood that they will want part time hours, plus leave at 3pm to pick up kids.

Its a no brainer for me

Not mention all the sick days. Far more sick days for women.
 
Is it?

Like to see some sources.

This is why the internet is cool - you can just chuck out all sorts of "facts" as Facts
 
Last edited:
Thanks CJ. I didnt know this ( and I admit i was too lazy to google:D ).

I do find the premise of the article interesting - looking at biological reasons for the lack of equality of pay for women in white collar roles, and that this hypothesis might explain some of the difference.

It confirms by quoting many other studies that the pay gap is real which was one of the points under discussion, so thanks for the confirmation there.
 
thats not discrimination, thats called smart business.

and yes, if I had to choose between a man of quality 7 vs a woman of quality 8 of the child bearing age and situation, id definitely hire the man, you dont understand how much maternity leave , rehiring, finding contractors and then once they return having them integrate back into the workforce all costs. Plus the likelihood that they will want part time hours, plus leave at 3pm to pick up kids.

Its a no brainer for me

I employ people so I do understand the costs of all those things, plus the benefits of loyalty when you let any employee, male or female, go and pick the kids up knowing the value they add is not measure in presenteeism but in the quality of the work done.
In my global survey of 1 - I choose the best person for the job regardless of gender. My team is 50:50 at the moment but has been all male and all female at times. I have had 3 of a team of 5 pregnant at one time, - we coped. I have equally had a run of resignations from male employees. Everyone has to be replaced at some point.
 
Here's what I don't get:

1. Population growth is good for the economy
2. Having women in jobs is good for the economy
3. But no one wants to shoulder any of the responsibility for the overlap between these two things.
 
Last edited:
Here's what I don't get:

1. Population growth is good for the economy
2. Having women in jobs is good for the economy
3. But no one wants to shoulder any of the responsibility for the overlap between these two thing.

Yes that may be true, but hiring the best person for the bottom line of the company is far more effective from a business perspective

espeicslly the smaller companies, hiring the wrong person may be the difference between survival or not, you have to domwhats best for your company
 
Yes that may be true, but hiring the best person for the bottom line of the company is far more effective from a business perspective

espeicslly the smaller companies, hiring the wrong person may be the difference between survival or not, you have to domwhats best for your company

I get it, but it's just disappointing that's all. And disappointing that small companies are pushed into that corner.
 
Here's what I don't get:

1. Population growth is good for the economy
2. Having women in jobs is good for the economy
3. But no one wants to shoulder any of the responsibility for the overlap between these two things.

Govt makes a lucrative maternity leave package and gets booed for it
 
I think the booing is because it will be less generous than promised. But I don't think throwing money at maternity leave is the solution anyway.

Your issue from your previous post, as I understand it, is that "population growth" and "women in jobs" can't coincide. I'm just suggesting that allowing them to take time out of work for reproduction duties at a good rate of pay solves issue.
 
I get it, but it's just disappointing that's all. And disappointing that small companies are pushed into that corner.

I agree with you, however noble it may be you have to do what you need to do survive or get ahead

Going to the extreme, you wouldn't own a McDonald's franchise as junk food is bad for society

I doubt many if any people would be thinking about society when having to make these sort of decisions
 
Interesting that the thread started out with numerous happy examples of her earning more than him.

After some kind of storm and unpalatable diatribe, the focus has shifted back to the unpleasant but comfortable rhetoric of women not being able to be treated equally in the workplace.

Quite a bit of investment by some in keeping the rhetoric that way - unable to deal with the realities presented in the original posts.

In the meantime, there are still plenty of women earning more and in happy marriages with happy children.
 
Your issue from your previous post, as I understand it, is that "population growth" and "women in jobs" can't coincide. I'm just suggesting that allowing them to take time out of work for reproduction duties at a good rate of pay solves issue.

No point paying women to take time off to have babies if there's no childcare places to put said babies into once mat leave payments run out and woman has to return to work.
 
Back
Top