bltserv_IHB
New member
WINEX said:
Read the Wiki article.
"Syria was working closely with the United States on the War on Terror"
Typical Winex. Insults when he lacks substance or is on the short end
of a lame position.
President Barack Obama
- Thread starter Nude_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Read the Wiki article.
"Syria was working closely with the United States on the War on Terror"
Typical Winex. Insults when he lacks substance or is on the short end
of a lame position.
Sorry for interjecting, but I just couldn't resist.
(embedded video no longer available)
Snarky, but an over-simplification there, Oscar.
Ugh. Too many comments on this one...in no particular order:
1) Sexism does suck. Earlier in my career I used to have to prove, in a mathematical and/or scientific sense, that I was right most of the time in a group where I was the only woman. My pay also sucked for what I was doing. I do also think ageism came into play, as I'm sure being the young, (then) blond girl wasn't helping matters. Eventually I didn't have to prove myself anymore. I showed my worth to my (male) superior and he ended up fighting for me to get my first big raise. He even asked me what number I wanted so he could go tell the powers that be what to offer me. To those women who either didn't have the opportunity or the drive to prove themselves: you have my sympathies or my eyerolls, whichever applies.
2) I have posted about the article I read many years ago already, but I'll bring it up again. Some (again...SOME) of the pay gap between men and women is due to womens' tendency to take what they are given in an effort to be liked and meet approval. Men, however, tend see it as all business and negotiate for a higher salary or for more perks. (Neither applies to all people of either gender, so don't get your panties in a twist.) The person with the higher starting salary will end up with a much higher salary after many years of equal percentage-based salary adjustments. I always took this to heart. I negotiate. It's business. Don't smile at your boss and say "thank you" and then go home and cry to your SO that the jerk didn't give you what you wanted if you didn't at least ask.
3) For the women who are "stuck" and have no other options than the job and the sexist boss that they have, I'm glad that you have a law to back you up.
4) Taking time off from your career to raise a family is likely going to cause a hit to your career. Just as not paying attention to your family to focus on your career is likely going to cause a hit to your family. Am I really annoyed that men rarely have to think about the choice between the two? Yep, I sure am.
5) Don't expect to be treated as an equal if you don't act like one.
I think most important thing you said is "don't expect to be treated as an equal if you don't act like one"....how can one expected the same career promotion path and rate if one takes 6 months off in 4 years (two babies), and need to come to work late (need to drop off kids), or leave early ( pickup kids), or can't travel unless far advance notice is given?
At the firm I work, yes it is true more men are on the executive ranks, but then again, very few women are willing to travel constantly, and relocate often at company's request. For the ones willing to do that, they are promoted as fast as men.
This issue is more complicated then one president order can resolve.
Maybe not if you just average it across those on UI ...
As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?hp
Maybe if men were sharing equally in the responsibility for picking up and dropping off kids, women wouldn't need so much time off to do these things. Granted, a man can't have the babies, but all too often it is both the woman's responsibility to work and deal with the majority of the childcare that requires some time during the beginning or end of the day. For some reason, there is still an attitude that a man's job is more important than a woman's and it is assumed that she will make the sacrifices when it comes to career advancement. Before anyone jumps all over me for saying this, yes, I realize there are plenty of exceptions, but the way this last comment was worded somehow implies that it is an automatic assumption that a woman will be doing these things and not sharing them with her children's father.
Tmare, I don't think many will disagree with what you just have said. But that is all between a man and a woman, and mostly a family decision. I don't see how government can play an effective role.
To come back to the subject of wage, there are many many factors play into why ones' wage is lower or higher. It will be interesting to see how BO's rule can be implemented effectively. A male or female executive hired or promoted today in many companies will likely get paid less then a similar position they would have paid two years ago. I guess this female exe. can claim pay discrimination in two or three years that she is underpaid comparing with a same rank male executive who was promoted before the recession. I hope you will get my point.
Corporations up to today still have rules for diversification both in the board room, and in the sr. executive ranks. I don't think it is effective, and I have seen plenty of people get head or get selected not bc of their ability, but because of their gender or race. As you might know, some CEO's bonus pays are based on achieving certain set diversification% in the sr. exe. ranks.
Michelle Obama is a perfect example of how this isn't as black and white as it sounds. She earned more then her husband but has now put her career on "hold". I am sure at the end of his term Barak will earn more then his wife and doubt she will return to her previous line of work.
So here you have a woman that is willing to give up her career to support her husband. Assume another woman takes her place she obviously won't be paid as much as Michelle was with the economy the way it is.
Should Michelle's replacement be given the same Salary as Michelle?
The other thing that may not be represented is that most of the time hiring managers have a starting salary range. When I hire I usually start at the lower end of the range and if someone asks for more I can offer them a higher amount in that range without senior management approval. I find that more men then women negotiate a higher salary. If you then take that higher salary today and compound yearly raises the disparity becomes bigger.
Would someone be in violation if they offer a male a 50k starting salary and a woman a 50k starting salary and the male negotiates a 55k salary while the female was fine with the 50k?
I really don't know quite how to wrap my mind around this and what it means, but it's an interesting quote.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/15/magazines/fortune/greenspan_book.fortune/index.htm
(Fortune Magazine) -- If you want to know the mind of Alan Greenspan, you might start with this: Before he entered public life in the 1970s, all his top deputies at his flourishing economic consulting firm were women.
"It just made great business sense," he writes with the unexpectedly sunny wonkiness that pervades much of his memoir, "The Age of Turbulence."
"I valued men and women equally, and found that because other employers did not, good women economists were less expensive than men."
Now, a feminist, a socialist, or a churl might take issue with this sort of thinking. But Greenspan says there was an ancillary benefit to his self- interest: His hiring practices, he points out, "marginally raised the market value" of female economists
Read the Wiki article.
"Syria was working closely with the United States on the War on Terror"
Typical Winex. Insults when he lacks substance or is on the short end
of a lame position.
SoCal78_IHB
New member
bltserv said:
Sorry for interjecting, but I just couldn't resist.
(embedded video no longer available)
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
Is he not aware that we've cut them off from all funding for the last 7+ years? Forget China and Russia for a moment. The people in Zim are already starving, suffering from a rampant HIV outbreak, and living under martial law. WTF are more sanctions going to do but cause even more suffering?skek said:
bltserv_IHB
New member
Again Winex
Your such a pleasure to debate.
You go potty mouth instantly. No wonder half this board has you on Ignore.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453895.0854166667.html
Your such a pleasure to debate.
You go potty mouth instantly. No wonder half this board has you on Ignore.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453895.0854166667.html
profette_IHB
New member
Thank-you, Mr. President!
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signed an equal-pay bill into law Thursday before cheering labor and women leaders who fought hard for it and the woman whose history-making lawsuit gave impetus to the cause.
Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, called it a "wonderful day" and declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers. Linky
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signed an equal-pay bill into law Thursday before cheering labor and women leaders who fought hard for it and the woman whose history-making lawsuit gave impetus to the cause.
Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, called it a "wonderful day" and declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers. Linky
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
So, what are the odds on all men recieving a pay cut so companies can meet parity versus all women getting a pay raise?profette said:
profette_IHB
New member
Oscar said:
Snarky, but an over-simplification there, Oscar.
caycifish_IHB
New member
profette said:
Ugh. Too many comments on this one...in no particular order:
1) Sexism does suck. Earlier in my career I used to have to prove, in a mathematical and/or scientific sense, that I was right most of the time in a group where I was the only woman. My pay also sucked for what I was doing. I do also think ageism came into play, as I'm sure being the young, (then) blond girl wasn't helping matters. Eventually I didn't have to prove myself anymore. I showed my worth to my (male) superior and he ended up fighting for me to get my first big raise. He even asked me what number I wanted so he could go tell the powers that be what to offer me. To those women who either didn't have the opportunity or the drive to prove themselves: you have my sympathies or my eyerolls, whichever applies.
2) I have posted about the article I read many years ago already, but I'll bring it up again. Some (again...SOME) of the pay gap between men and women is due to womens' tendency to take what they are given in an effort to be liked and meet approval. Men, however, tend see it as all business and negotiate for a higher salary or for more perks. (Neither applies to all people of either gender, so don't get your panties in a twist.) The person with the higher starting salary will end up with a much higher salary after many years of equal percentage-based salary adjustments. I always took this to heart. I negotiate. It's business. Don't smile at your boss and say "thank you" and then go home and cry to your SO that the jerk didn't give you what you wanted if you didn't at least ask.
3) For the women who are "stuck" and have no other options than the job and the sexist boss that they have, I'm glad that you have a law to back you up.
4) Taking time off from your career to raise a family is likely going to cause a hit to your career. Just as not paying attention to your family to focus on your career is likely going to cause a hit to your family. Am I really annoyed that men rarely have to think about the choice between the two? Yep, I sure am.
5) Don't expect to be treated as an equal if you don't act like one.
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
So much for greatness. Apparently current defense spending equals fiscal irresponsibility but nationalizing healthcare during the "worst financial crisis of our lifetime", bailing out AIG, CITIgroup, Bank of America, and running TRILLION dollar deficits is the epitome of fiscal responsibility. I love how he was going to randomly bomb Pakistan prior to winning the election and now he's going to court the Taliban, consult with Iran, and completely undercut the Afghan government that have been our only consistent allies in the region because he says we are losing the war. Hey... here's a wacky idea: cutting the defense budget might not be the best thing to do if you want any shot at winning in Afghanistan. You want to know why our forces are currently stretched so thin, Mr. President? Because Clinton gutted the defense budget and left us a technologically superior, manpower inferior military force. Bin Laden himself has pointed to Clinton's use of the military in response to attacks as evidence that the US was primed for attack and yet we are returning to the Clinton foreign strategy of lobbing Tomahawks and depending on CIA for rendition or capture.
On the question of socialism, President Obama called the NYT *back* to add this:
"I didn't start it... it was broke when I got here. Yeah, I'm going to continue to do the EXACT same thing, but don't call it socialism because that makes me sound like bad. Sure I'm President now, but don't you think I have any control... I HAD to spend the money because Bush did it."
People were wrong... the adults aren't in charge now that Bush is gone, the idealistic teenagers are in charge. What a travesty.
On the question of socialism, President Obama called the NYT *back* to add this:
"I didn't start it... it was broke when I got here. Yeah, I'm going to continue to do the EXACT same thing, but don't call it socialism because that makes me sound like bad. Sure I'm President now, but don't you think I have any control... I HAD to spend the money because Bush did it."
People were wrong... the adults aren't in charge now that Bush is gone, the idealistic teenagers are in charge. What a travesty.
usctrojanman29_IHB
New member
I laugh at people who voted for Obama because they thought they were voted for change...the more things say they will change, the more they stay the same. That being said, I didn't vote for McCain either.Oscar said:
irvine123_IHB
New member
caycifish said:
I think most important thing you said is "don't expect to be treated as an equal if you don't act like one"....how can one expected the same career promotion path and rate if one takes 6 months off in 4 years (two babies), and need to come to work late (need to drop off kids), or leave early ( pickup kids), or can't travel unless far advance notice is given?
At the firm I work, yes it is true more men are on the executive ranks, but then again, very few women are willing to travel constantly, and relocate often at company's request. For the ones willing to do that, they are promoted as fast as men.
This issue is more complicated then one president order can resolve.
Anonymous_IHB
New member
profette said:
Maybe not if you just average it across those on UI ...
As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?hp
tmare_IHB
New member
irvine123 said:
Maybe if men were sharing equally in the responsibility for picking up and dropping off kids, women wouldn't need so much time off to do these things. Granted, a man can't have the babies, but all too often it is both the woman's responsibility to work and deal with the majority of the childcare that requires some time during the beginning or end of the day. For some reason, there is still an attitude that a man's job is more important than a woman's and it is assumed that she will make the sacrifices when it comes to career advancement. Before anyone jumps all over me for saying this, yes, I realize there are plenty of exceptions, but the way this last comment was worded somehow implies that it is an automatic assumption that a woman will be doing these things and not sharing them with her children's father.
irvine123_IHB
New member
tmare said:
Tmare, I don't think many will disagree with what you just have said. But that is all between a man and a woman, and mostly a family decision. I don't see how government can play an effective role.
To come back to the subject of wage, there are many many factors play into why ones' wage is lower or higher. It will be interesting to see how BO's rule can be implemented effectively. A male or female executive hired or promoted today in many companies will likely get paid less then a similar position they would have paid two years ago. I guess this female exe. can claim pay discrimination in two or three years that she is underpaid comparing with a same rank male executive who was promoted before the recession. I hope you will get my point.
Corporations up to today still have rules for diversification both in the board room, and in the sr. executive ranks. I don't think it is effective, and I have seen plenty of people get head or get selected not bc of their ability, but because of their gender or race. As you might know, some CEO's bonus pays are based on achieving certain set diversification% in the sr. exe. ranks.
trrenter_IHB
New member
tmare said:
Michelle Obama is a perfect example of how this isn't as black and white as it sounds. She earned more then her husband but has now put her career on "hold". I am sure at the end of his term Barak will earn more then his wife and doubt she will return to her previous line of work.
So here you have a woman that is willing to give up her career to support her husband. Assume another woman takes her place she obviously won't be paid as much as Michelle was with the economy the way it is.
Should Michelle's replacement be given the same Salary as Michelle?
The other thing that may not be represented is that most of the time hiring managers have a starting salary range. When I hire I usually start at the lower end of the range and if someone asks for more I can offer them a higher amount in that range without senior management approval. I find that more men then women negotiate a higher salary. If you then take that higher salary today and compound yearly raises the disparity becomes bigger.
Would someone be in violation if they offer a male a 50k starting salary and a woman a 50k starting salary and the male negotiates a 55k salary while the female was fine with the 50k?
Anonymous_IHB
New member
trrenter said:
I really don't know quite how to wrap my mind around this and what it means, but it's an interesting quote.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/15/magazines/fortune/greenspan_book.fortune/index.htm
(Fortune Magazine) -- If you want to know the mind of Alan Greenspan, you might start with this: Before he entered public life in the 1970s, all his top deputies at his flourishing economic consulting firm were women.
"It just made great business sense," he writes with the unexpectedly sunny wonkiness that pervades much of his memoir, "The Age of Turbulence."
"I valued men and women equally, and found that because other employers did not, good women economists were less expensive than men."
Now, a feminist, a socialist, or a churl might take issue with this sort of thinking. But Greenspan says there was an ancillary benefit to his self- interest: His hiring practices, he points out, "marginally raised the market value" of female economists
no_vaseline_IHB
New member
The Mrs. and I settled this one before it started. If we had kids, whoever made the least quit working and would stay home.
Which quickly put me in the catbirds seat, but I'm okay with that. That was the deal.
And in fairness to Greenspan, he ultimately spun his company off to the women he hired.
Which quickly put me in the catbirds seat, but I'm okay with that. That was the deal.
And in fairness to Greenspan, he ultimately spun his company off to the women he hired.