Gender Wage Gap

Isn't it only natural for those who take more time off earn less money?

 

Except that doesn't apply. Full-time working women earn 77% of what their male counterparts earn. This means that women have to work approximately 60 extra days, or about three months, to earn what men did by the end of the previous year. Women don't take off 25% of the year.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

• Fifty-six percent of wage and salary workers were able to adjust their work schedules or location of their main jobs instead of taking time off from work in 2011. This includes wage and salary workers who adjusted their work schedules or location instead of taking leave as well as those who did so because they did not have access to leave but needed time off from work.
• Men and women were equally likely to be able to adjust their work schedules or location instead of taking time off from work.
• Parents of a household child under the age of 13 were more likely to adjust their work schedules or location instead of taking time off from work in an average week than workers who were not a parent of a household child under 18--10 percent compared with 6 percent.

 

Found the problem, she's not using the Gregorian calendar

 

ACK listen here buzoo i hecked up but my point stands

 

Why do people keep spouting this nonsense?
Rebuttal A:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wage-gap-myth-that-wont-die-1443654408
Rebuttal B: If women were payed 77% of what men were payed, then the workforce would be almost entirely women, because they're better for the bottom line.
Rebuttal C: Women control a majority of the wealth in this country, and yet, men pay a majority of income taxes. Sexism?
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-now-control-more-than-half-of-us-personal-wealth-2015-4
https://fullfact.org/economy/are-women-paying-60-less-income-tax-men/

Rebuttal D: Men have to pay more for insurance (particularly car insurance).

 

To an extent, but beyond a certain point qualifications would outweigh overhead cost reduction otherwise corporations would not be able to be as competitive in a capitalist marketplace. Also, hard labor that needs a strong build AND sits relatively close to minimum wage would see more men as paying a worker 77% of minimum wage would be blatantly illegal unless such employee is under 20 years of age and such compensation is made for the first 90 days of working for an employer, but that's beyond the point. In any case, it would simply be present in a specific threshold in which the overhead cost cut is too high to outweigh benefits or the benefits of qualification are too low to outweigh cost. However, we still don't see women as the majority of the workforce, even within this threshold, and therefore the point stands.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 7, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 7, 2016 ---

Only problem here is that the first article is for the United States, the second one is data gathered in the U.K.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 7, 2016 ---

Bottom line, if person A is a male, and person B is a female, and;
Person A and B both work 345 days a year,
Person A and B both work 8 hours a day,
Person A and B both do the exact same job, in the exact same setting, doing the same amount of work, take the same breaks, work at the same efficiency, and make their employers the same amount of money, therefore being at the same value to their employers.
If these clauses are satisfied, then it would be illegal to pay person A differently then person B based on gender.
However, countless studies show that in most cases, person A would be the one to work more hours, be more reliable in not taking sudden days off, and work the more dangerous jobs. In these cases, person A would be justified in being paid more.
This is what makes up the gender wage gap. However, it's not anywhere near 77%. The actual wage gap is much closer to 95% and takes these situations into account. Studies that show anywhere near 77% in a gender wage gap is simply a study with a random pool of people, with no regards to any factors other than income and gender. The only reason they've been taken seriously is that many people are prone to see a number and take it as a fact, rather than looking into the reason for achieving that number or seeing that the aggregate data is simply unreliable, if not a predetermined outcome by those participating in the data gathering.

 

oops lol