From the article:
The first thing to know is that, no matter how you slice it, there is a gender pay gap. Do men really make more than women? Yes. The gender pay gap is very real. But the best-known stat — that women earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by men (according to PayScale’s latest data) — only tells part of the story. This stat is representative of the uncontrolled — or “raw” — gender pay gap, which looks at a median salary for all men and women regardless of job type or worker seniority. When looking at the uncontrolled gap, it is true that the median salary for men is roughly 24 percent higher than the median salary for women.
Yep. Exactly correct. When you look at raw data, data that doesn’t account for experience, pay gaps, and occupational choices, there is indeed a large “gender gap” which only the totally ignorant would bother to quote without statistical normalization.
And, the totally ignorant, unfortuantely, DO quote it without statistical normalization.
No it isn’t. What they sell advertising for is entirely tied to what they can sell advertising for.
Yes, that’s what I said. Thank you.
What they pay for the broadcast rights is a function of a lot of different factors, including what competition is vying for those rights, the demographics of the lead in, the programs the time spot will be competing against and the general interest in the sport.
Oh, fuck this shit, Ron. Give it rest. You’re making something that’s pathetically simple into something complicated. No.
If NBC thinks they get $X for advertising a particular event, they’ll spend some percentage of $X (based on their experience and past ratings) for the rights to broadcast. You can put all the variables on it you like, and I’m sure they do too. At the end of the day, if they figure that they’ll get less from broadcasting Serena than they will from broadcasting Federer, they’ll pay more for the rights to broadcast Federer.
If a network EVER decides to pay = for mens and womens for no other reason than “social justice”, let me know. I’ll short the stock immediately, and attend the next stockholder’s meeting, where I’ll scream for the CEO’s head on a platter.
You’re kinda young to be posting on the Internet, having been born last night and all.
I have no idea what that means. If that’s your real picture, I could be your mother. Easily.
If you can’t win an argument on it’s merits, and have to try cheap shots, I’d suggest other activities.
If you’ll accept the labor rights, the mandated vacation time and the strong Union presence in Europe, I’ll take that against a minimum wage all day.
Me too. The point here is that working together, which is what unions in Europe do with their management, is more profitable than working at odds with their management, which is what US unions do. The unions in the US are their own worst enemies. There is NOTHING in conservative principles of economic governance which forces a conservative to oppose labor collectives, BUT, since our US unions were stupid enough to align themselves with one political party some decades ago, obviously they’ve cultivated hard feelings with the other side.
If labor in the US is dependent on the Democrats and Neanderthals like Richard Trumka to move forward, they’re screwed. And they did it to themselves.
How long are you planning on paying “apprentice” wages for non-skilled labor that requires no training?
Don’t know. Off the top of my head, I’d say as long as the individual is a student or until they’re 18. But I’d be willing to negotiate that, as long as I can get somebody to carry my bag again. I’m an older lady who still travels on business weekly and I’d like a little fracking help.
Great idea, because what I really want hanging around my young child is some random person who got the job because we have to put him somewhere.
So, what you’re basically saying here is that the people who will be on UBI aren’t worth a shit.
To which I say, OK, let’s pay them accordingly.
Yep, because the ‘gotta stick em somewhere’ employee is totally going to be trustworthy around helpless sick people. Makes me all warm inside.
Trust me, your “emotions” are the least of anyone’s concerns. What we’re concerned about is the structural integrity of the United States of America, which you don’t seem so keen on.
What you’re talking about is workfare, and it is stuck in a paradigm of work-ethic.
Damn straight. If you lose that, you have no country.
But when society automates a large percentage of jobs out of existence, there are only so many trash crews on so many highways before it becomes obvious that you’re just making up fake jobs for the people who can’t program robots.
What you’re stuck in is the view that all jobs that are worth doing are being done. Until you mature your outlook and realize that there are LOTS of jobs that are now being UNDONE due to $$$, and that there are tons of VALUABLE PEOPLE who are being unemployed due to circumstances that can provide valuable labor to society, you have no hope.
Thanks for playing.