It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox does it again..women should not ruin the oscars by asking for equal rights.

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: buster2010
What a air headed bimbo. Patricia Arquette didn't say women doesn't have any rights she was talking about wage equality. On average women make 78 cents for the dollar a man makes for doing the same job. Now Dash just needs to dye her hair blonde so she will fit in with the rest of the bleach blonde air headed bimbo's at FOX.

Debunked

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.

It goes on and on to discuss the differences, along with the wording never specifying anything of relevance.
Slate source

Its a good read. We cannot address equality problems in our nation (arguably not many left) unless we first stop talking about things that simply aren't true. the only one that benefits from those discussions are the few propaganda celebs riding the victim train to success.

Sorry not debunked.
Barack Obama, in State of the Union, says women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns


The basic federal data comes from two agencies -- the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the two agencies’ numbers don’t exactly agree. The Census Bureau, which tracks annual wages, found women who worked full-time, year-round in 2012 made 77 cents for every dollar men earned across the country -- a percentage in line with what it’s been for the last few years. This comparison includes all male and female workers regardless of occupation. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses a different measures to analyze the pay gap, including weekly wages. BLS found that women who worked full time in wage and salary jobs had median usual weekly earnings of $669 in 2012, which was 82 percent of men’s median weekly earnings. This, too, was in line with the ratio in recent years.

What’s the difference? Unlike the measure of annual wages by the Census Bureau, the weekly wage analysis does not account for people who are self-employed. It does include people left out of the year-round wage measure, such as some teachers, construction workers and seasonal workers.



The Institute for Women’s Policy research looked at pay parity for the top 20 occupations for women in 2011 using median weekly earnings. The center found the pay gap varied depending on the sector, though women lag in nearly every category. Nurses (96 cents for every dollar) and cashiers (90 cents) were closer than most; accountants (77 cents) and financial advisers (66 cents) were more divergent than most.



Our ruling Obama said women "make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns." It's worth noting that the entire 77-cent gap is not necessarily due to discrimination -- a conclusion some listeners might have drawn when hearing Obama mention "equal pay for equal work" shortly after citing the 77-cent figure. And there are alternative calculations that show a smaller overall gap. Still, the 77-cent ratio is a credible figure from a credible agency. We rate the claim Mostly True.

Even the idiot that wrote that article for Slate admits in the article that women make less than men but for some braindead reason she said that Obama's statement was not true.




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Onslaught2996

there is no issue the president done made it a law my wife makes more on the hr than me lol
what more do you want it was done 50 yrs ago

Yes it was made into law but that law is constantly ignored. Dash is just another idiot that FOX hired so she could whine about Obama and to act as eye candy for the old men that watches FOX "news". I guess she finally ran out of T&A movies to star in.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: buster2010
What a air headed bimbo. Patricia Arquette didn't say women doesn't have any rights she was talking about wage equality. On average women make 78 cents for the dollar a man makes for doing the same job. Now Dash just needs to dye her hair blonde so she will fit in with the rest of the bleach blonde air headed bimbo's at FOX.

Debunked

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.

It goes on and on to discuss the differences, along with the wording never specifying anything of relevance.
Slate source

Its a good read. We cannot address equality problems in our nation (arguably not many left) unless we first stop talking about things that simply aren't true. the only one that benefits from those discussions are the few propaganda celebs riding the victim train to success.

Sorry not debunked.
Barack Obama, in State of the Union, says women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns


The basic federal data comes from two agencies -- the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the two agencies’ numbers don’t exactly agree. The Census Bureau, which tracks annual wages, found women who worked full-time, year-round in 2012 made 77 cents for every dollar men earned across the country -- a percentage in line with what it’s been for the last few years. This comparison includes all male and female workers regardless of occupation. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses a different measures to analyze the pay gap, including weekly wages. BLS found that women who worked full time in wage and salary jobs had median usual weekly earnings of $669 in 2012, which was 82 percent of men’s median weekly earnings. This, too, was in line with the ratio in recent years.

What’s the difference? Unlike the measure of annual wages by the Census Bureau, the weekly wage analysis does not account for people who are self-employed. It does include people left out of the year-round wage measure, such as some teachers, construction workers and seasonal workers.



The Institute for Women’s Policy research looked at pay parity for the top 20 occupations for women in 2011 using median weekly earnings. The center found the pay gap varied depending on the sector, though women lag in nearly every category. Nurses (96 cents for every dollar) and cashiers (90 cents) were closer than most; accountants (77 cents) and financial advisers (66 cents) were more divergent than most.



Our ruling Obama said women "make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns." It's worth noting that the entire 77-cent gap is not necessarily due to discrimination -- a conclusion some listeners might have drawn when hearing Obama mention "equal pay for equal work" shortly after citing the 77-cent figure. And there are alternative calculations that show a smaller overall gap. Still, the 77-cent ratio is a credible figure from a credible agency. We rate the claim Mostly True.

Even the idiot that wrote that article for Slate admits in the article that women make less than men but for some braindead reason she said that Obama's statement was not true.

What this doesn't mention is if the nurses or accountants are working for the same firm. Working at HG Moneyswell at premium as an accountant will net you more than working at bobs accounting and lawn care..
Why does this matter? simple..if it is uncovered that at the same place, for the same position, etc etc..there are laws on the book. a major lawsuit can erupt.
So, more digging is required.

Corporations are in it to make a buck. if they could get away with hiring all females for cheaper than males, they would in a instant and fire every single Y chromosome corporatewide to save a ton. But obviously that isn't happening, because what is being displayed is not accurate information.



The only resolution to make a dollar match a dollar is to tell women to stop doing what they enjoy and instead focus on higher paying careers. Even the Obama administration admitted this when they were asked why their stats are screwy for m v f wages.

I have yet to see an example of like for like specifically (that isn't resolved by a lawsuit)



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: InfinityandBeyond
Where is this unequal pay? Plenty of woman who work at my place of business make more than I do. I always read "woman should make money equally" but where are these places?


It's all over really. My wife makes less than the other "men" in her department. A lot less for equal work and equal experience.


One of my past employers advertised a position and the wage for a female in the same position was $10,000 less yearly.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

but what about time in position?

And how does she know for sure what other people make?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Just because there is a microphone in front of them does not mean people are obligated to use their celebrity to promote an agenda, good or bad notwithstanding.


Here s a crazy thought. Maybe that issue is important to THEM and they WANT to?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
If women stopped having kids and were more competitive, they would earn more than they do. Simple economics.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If women stopped having kids and were more competitive, they would earn more than they do. Simple economics.


If society/employers accommodated women with children in the workplace with on-premises childcare for a nominal sum, this would allow (free) women to blossom in their own special ways (not necessarily competitiveness) and negotiate both areas of their lives.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Special treatment for one gender? That's not how it works.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

Special treatment for one gender? That's not how it works.


The same special treatment can be had for fathers too.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Pushing for gender equality in wages is only furthering the agenda to break up the family unit. Instead of pushing for income equality between workers and executives, we will just pit husband vs wife and get the attention off those who really are enjoying an extremely unfair advantage.

As I look down to the 400k Lamborghini parked in the loading zone all day... like the owner gives a f=%k about that 50 dollar ticket that is half of some of these peoples daily wage and or probably probably what Mr. Lambo os used to paying for a glass of scotch.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I don't think it would be worth it from an employer's standpoint unfortunately. But such accommodation would be nice as long as it didn't affect productivity.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

I don't think it would be worth it from an employer's standpoint unfortunately. But such accommodation would be nice as long as it didn't affect productivity.


That is another societal failing right there, the employer caring only for the bottom line (profits).



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996
Give an example of any company which pays women with same amount of hours worked,same experience,same qualifications and same period of breaks from work less than a man.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Give some evidence to support your claim.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Learn some maths. Using median to show wage gap is stupid as women's working habits generally differ from men....
Barry the moron told you that so it must be true.....lol..
edit on 25-2-2015 by therationalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: amazing

but what about time in position?

And how does she know for sure what other people make?


They talk.... she has more time in position. It's just the way it is. No sour grapes. She just expects it.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: therationalist
a reply to: InTheLight

Give some evidence to support your claim.


I compared the previous male employee's salary to the newly hired woman's salary for the same position when I was asked to perform emergency H.R./Payroll functions (I snooped in the files) when someone did not show up for work.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Then that is a management problem, but not a national issue, and not one that a multi-millionaire actress needs to be whining about while getting an award for doing what makes her millions possible.

Just my thought, but this really is off-topic at this point, so I'll bid you farewell and hope you wife gets what she earns. Maybe she's not making too little, maybe the others are over-compensated. Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: amazing

Then that is a management problem, but not a national issue, and not one that a multi-millionaire actress needs to be whining about while getting an award for doing what makes her millions possible.

Just my thought, but this really is off-topic at this point, so I'll bid you farewell and hope you wife gets what she earns. Maybe she's not making too little, maybe the others are over-compensated. Just a thought.


I respectfully disagree. It's a national, world issue, that is woven in the fabric of our society. My opinion is, that the only way it will change is if people speak out about it. Why not a multi-millionaire actress on the Oscar stage, seen by millions of people?

Will she change anyone's mind? Maybe not, but the positive effect from what she said is that we're having a discussion about it. All over the US and internet, this discussion is taking place because of what she said. Like most posts here, for example our little exchange. it's been a positive thoughtful discussion with questions and examples and stats and links.

I think the issue lies with the warrior cast of our ancient past and our religions. It used to be the that the strongest person did get the most and deserved the most. The biggest strongest person had the most value. Then in our religions, they were all male dominated...an extension of this warrior system.

Now things are different. Sure there are still jobs and situations where the biggest, strongest fastest person should be paid more, like sports, military, some law enforcement crowd control and heavy labor like some construction and logging etc.

But...everything else should be even....it is in reality, but we have not caught up yet. A woman should be paid the same as a man in any Tech Industry, any leadership industry, management industry, writing, music, art, teaching, research, driving etc.

That's all this was ever about and again, this discussion is good, and it's because of Patricia Arquette this time. What's the problem?

Cheers!



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join