"Women only get 77%"

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

thorsballs

next random

Comment

Made by www(dot)topmanagementdegrees(dot)com/

+1504

Views: 68936 Submitted: 04/14/2014

Block User's Content

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (381)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 381 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#3 - brewswillis

Reply-275

(04/14/2014)[-]

thats a well done comp, op. but i come here to laugh, not to fight an internet war against females. i really wish that anti-faminazi-propaganda would come to an end.

#6 to #3 - jokexplain

Reply+396

(04/14/2014)[-]

this isn't an anti-feminazi post, and you're an idiot.

#194 to #6 - wotterpatch

Reply+18

(04/15/2014)[-]

did you just...explain why this guys intelligence is a joke?

#141 to #6 - araell

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

thanks jokexplain

#150 to #6 - anon id: fc5ec6c4

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

anti-faminazi... dumbo.

#20 to #6 - brewswillis

Reply-26

(04/14/2014)[-]

while this is just an accumulation of facts, you can - as always - see where this is going.
just scroll a bit and you can see people get going about it.

#181 to #20 - anon id: d6037564

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

trying to use logic on fj? against the bandwagon? that's a bold move

#15 to #3 - thorsballs [OP]

Reply+21

(04/14/2014)[-]

But the war is over

#279 to #15 - zarcos

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

It's funny cuz out of context that almost sounds nice...

#29 to #15 - senhortobias

Reply-21

(04/14/2014)[-]

AND THEN HE DIED

#118 to #29 - broale

Reply+6

(04/15/2014)[-]

#190 to #118 - eiaisqzbsesb

Reply+8

(04/15/2014)[-]

For all those who haven't seen the latest episode, He's talking about Tyrion dying...

#49 to #3 - usamajime

Reply+9

(04/15/2014)[-]

i'm pretty sure this is just an informational post, not meant to be persuasive.

have a t-shirt

#389 to #49 - breakfastsamurai

Reply0

(12/25/2016)[-]

This'll be useful...

#327 to #3 - animedudej

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

HEY! just cause Famicons want to be on equal standing to us "Hoomans" doesnt mean they ******* deserve it

#231 to #3 - anon id: d1c70d3b

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

it's not a comp

#85 to #3 - anon id: 106efc14

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

I don't see how facts are anti-feminist.

#205 to #3 - ixcarnifexxi

Reply-1

(04/15/2014)[-]

Anti-feminized.... It's a post trying to get women to stop being like "OMG MEN GET PAID MORE IN THE WORK FORCE, WHAT'S THE POINT OF GETTING A JOB AND SUPPORTING MY FAMILY!?"

Also, go on Tumblr. You'll find plenty feminist posts and man-haters on there.

#147 to #3 - phaegitt

Reply-2

(04/15/2014)[-]

found the feminazi!

#16 to #3 - jewsburninindaoven

Reply-6

(04/14/2014)[-]

It won't come to an end until their sexual frustration does, but seeing how they spend the majority of the time trolling and arguing with people on the internet, I don't see that happening

#12 - married

Reply+251

(04/14/2014)[-]

Mfw I show a feminist this post

#335 to #12 - anon id: d2ef00c8

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

A feminist would be happy about this post. A feminazi would you said it so you can rape her ideals.

#142 to #12 - mondominiman#119 on contentRank#119

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

Where the ****** does that gif start.

#157 to #142 - anon id: 24562c01

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

I always look at it as "Listen...Okay? You can be as bitchen' as you want"

#158 to #157 - anon id: 24562c01

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

My bad, I forgot to click refresh comments before I replied.

#155 to #142 - anon id: 154c1036

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

Starts at listen

#156 to #155 - mondominiman#119 on contentRank#119

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

Thanks, no longer will I have to toss and turn at night wondering what little face Romney was trying to tell me all this time.

#53 - fyaq

Reply+186

(04/15/2014)[-]

You just raped the entire female population of tumblr.

#117 to #53 - kotetsulovesfj

Reply+19

(04/15/2014)[-]

OP: "It was my privilege"

#209 to #53 - snowshark

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

Well he didn't but I imagine a good portion will still claim he did.

#22 - assdoreponyfucker

Reply-149

(04/14/2014)[-]

******* feminazi propaganda

#26 to #22 - nimba

Reply+166

(04/14/2014)[-]

Are you illiterate

#52 to #26 - adu

Reply+3

(04/15/2014)[-]

Probably a tl;dr knuckledragger.

#246 to #22 - tanstin

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

If anything this debunks feminist arguments

#206 to #22 - ixcarnifexxi

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

Please, reread everything in that post. Your comment is like having science prove everything in the universe and saying "God did it, that's all that matters".

#23 - fataliteehee

Reply+139

(04/14/2014)[-]

Why's the 74 half the size of the 26?

#51 to #23 - instakill

Reply+18

(04/15/2014)[-]

I've done work on things like this, these graphs are usually made by just entering info into fields in excel, it's very easy to get where things are mixed up

#24 to #23 - jackierage

Reply+2

(04/14/2014)[-]

Typo maybe

#329 to #23 - animedudej

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

Faminazi propaganda i tell you what!

#276 to #23 - jokexplain

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

definitely switched around. more women choose counseling psychology.

#82 - loltrosity

Reply+100

(04/15/2014)[-]

I said it before on a post regarding this topic, and I'll say it again.

If woman truly made less than men, with the same job, same hours, etc., then employers would hire nobody BUT women because they get the same work done for less cash from the business.

#128 to #82 - economyexplain

Reply+9

(04/15/2014)[-]

I can understand where you're coming from, but many employers don't have that mindset.

It's not a conscious thing. Most people aren't so cold as to hire women because they want to increase their profit margin, they just perceive women as being inferior workers and assign them a lower salary. They've shown that even people who are vehemently for equal pay still assign lower wages to women because of social norms.

Numerous studies have shown this. For example, when many orchestra's switched to a blind hiring process, where an applicant would play a piece of music and the quality of the music was all the employer had to go on, the number of women hired more than doubled.

It's difficult to address to actual root issue because it's ingrained in society's subconscious, so instead we try to pass laws to dampen the results. I ask that you please take this into consideration, or read the studies and formulate your own opinions, but please do be open minded.

Source:
www.nber.org/papers/w5903 - A report from the National Bureau of Economic Research (not a government entity) that specifically covers the concept of hiring people based solely on their skill rather than any perceived image of that person. It's from the 90's though, so I imagine the numbers may be off, but the concept remains solid and proven.

#316 to #128 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

That's causal oversimplification. That study only supports the notion that women aren't hired solely on their performance level, but on other criterion as well, such as their expected reliability and availability. I would also include the social dynamic less enlightened women often introduce (drama).

To reiterate loltrosity's wise words, if it was economical to hire women, they would be fools not to and would get shut out by those who did. How can you argue against self-organizing market forces and promote market crippling legislation? Turn in your name at the desk, along with jokexplain who makes people cry, and all the other ironic thingexplain's.

#338 to #316 - jokexplain

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

I made your mom cry last night bitch *****
what education do you possess to counter the clams of someone whose bread and butter is economics?

#340 to #338 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

The same that allow me to counter the clams of someone whose bread and butter is apparently explaining jokes.

#344 to #340 - jokexplain

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

what claims? I didn't say anything. listen to economyexplain, he knows what's up.

#346 to #344 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

what claims? I didn't say claims. listen to my comment. don't vouch for him when you can't even do your job.

#347 to #346 - jokexplain

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

lol wat
anyway, you didn't provide a cogent counterargument to what he said, merely repeating the original comment.
on top of that, you made show of misogyny by saying 'women cause too much drama',
as if men, who are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs and more prone to bursts of violence, are any more stable than they are.

#350 to #347 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

He knows what I'm talking about. Please, go away.

#362 to #350 - economyexplain

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

I know what you're talking about. I used to hear people like you in my freshman and sophomore years of college; those voices soon died out or dropped out.

I hope you will continue to learn more about the topic and perhaps change your point of view. You seem very passionate, but naive and uninformed.

#380 to #362 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

Also, you never addressed the main concept. You just basked in jokexplain's worship and called it naive. I know too many "educated" college graduates. It turns out not every class teaches the same. You have a clear bias, despite your attempt to conceal it and garner false credibility. If you think you can push your partisan opinion without providing a valid argument, good luck.

#374 to #362 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

Then, your freshmen and sophomores had no idea what they were talking about, and I wonder if you actually know what I'm talking about. To me, you seem naive and uninformed. I hope you learn the errs of over legislation before you hurt too many people.

#169 to #82 - kievaughnb

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

By that logic, they could just pay everybody, men included, as little as possible for maximum profit. Which they've done.

#115 - economyexplain

Reply+63

(04/15/2014)[-]

Economyexplain here. Forgive me in advance because I've only studied these issues within the United States.

Women do not make 77% of what men make. When taking into account people with the same job and same number of hours worked (most studies use 40 hours per week as a basis for this), women make an average of 84-88% of what men make. Every government report, and I do mean every single one, shows this is not the case. Some fields, especially those that are in medical or STEM related, see women earning an acceptable 95% of men's wages, while the majority of other fields such as management or administration see women earning 70% of men's wages (again, this is taking into account the same occupation and the same hours worked).

Also, while this may come as a major shock...
there are actually a total of 13 million women working in STEM and other advanced fields, while there are just over 10 million men working the same jobs. To give the comp credit though, their numbers concerning women with the "Least Lucrative College Majors" is relatively accurate.

Sources:
www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf - A very easy to read report by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Lots of graphs and hard numbers. Pretty much anything you want to know on this topic, and I do mean anything, can be found here.
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html - The BLS report was made in conjunction with the United States Census Bureau. If for some reason the previous .PDF doesn't have what you need, you'll find it here.

I know FJ tends to thumb anything that talks about equal rights, but if you've made it this far, thanks for hearing me out at least. Feel free to comment and source if you disagree with anything I've had to share; I'm always open to new views.

#173 to #115 - xerathon

Reply+2

(04/15/2014)[-]

Well done economyexplain. Economics is also area of my (little) expertise. There are indeed quite many studies that indicate unexplainable differences in women's and men's wages, but usually less than 10% in the wider population of the work force. In certain areas however women with the same education job experience etc, still get unexplainable wage differences higher than 10%.

#232 to #173 - economyexplain

Reply+6

(04/15/2014)[-]

Even the most conservative studies that many people who are against equal pay laws cite show that there is a difference of at least 5-7% in men and women's earnings. Statistically speaking, any difference within 5% is acceptable, but to see it on an institutional level, as in across the board, is pretty disturbing, especially when you realize that making 5-7% less than your coworker in a high paying field can mean thousands of dollars less.

#385 to #232 - antexic

Reply0

(04/16/2014)[-]

That 5-7% is explained by biological differences between men and women. Men tend to be more aggressive and vocal in regards to their maltreatment and asking for raises. Not to mention that men are on average taller which gives them a psychological advantage when negotiating things like clients or pay raises.

#154 to #115 - MrDeadiron

Reply+2

(04/15/2014)[-]

Man, I wish you explain guys could get anything right.

#234 to #154 - economyexplain

Reply+7

(04/15/2014)[-]

I don't understand you guys. Most economists aren't very political, we just show numbers and facts. We do tend to hate ignorance though.

The VERY few public sector economists I've studied and worked with who have also been against equal pay were also the ones who'd blame Obama for every socioeconomic issue we covered, and cited FOX news and the Drudge report in their research papers. They weren't the brightest people and you almost wanted to clap when they got something right, but you're welcome to side with them.

#325 to #234 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

You say you only give numbers and aren't political, then you reveal your partisanship. You hate stupidity and think those who are against market disrupting legislation are stupid. Yet, what you're supporting is anti-economics. Will you be judged by your own measure?

#336 to #325 - economyexplain

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

I personally believe I am very purple, in between both parties, but while myself and many of my peers criticize all sides, it gets a little annoying to have someone who consistently brings their party affiliation into the mix. I'd be just as mad if it was some preteen with a hard-on for Obama praising him for every economic success of the past decade or so.

Also, anyone who studies public sector economics is familiar with the principle of market efficiency vs moral obligation; it's why we have a minimum wage and various social programs.

You're welcome to disagree with me on any point, but please do so productively. I wish more people would provide some sort of source or evidence, rather than call critical legislation "stupid."

#354 to #336 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

Then, don't use the word yourself. Minimum wage isn't market efficiency vs moral obligation. Market efficiency is the moral obligation. It eliminates unemployment, and increases productivity. After all, the point is to lift people out of poverty, and there is no better way than to increase GDP. "Blasphemy!" you say. You know somehow minimum wage does have a positive purpose, but it's the opposite of what you think. It's not to automatically raise everyone out of poverty, because that's essentially impossible. It's to transform the market from unskilled and industrial to technological and creative by forcing people to get an education before they are allowed to work. So, if you find a moral advantage to forcing women out of work by creating inefficiencies in their market, then I will listen to it. Until then, "equal pay" is just another crazy attempt for someone to get their hands on the market that will just harm women more than anything else.

#359 to #354 - economyexplain

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

The moral obligation I refer to is that of a livable wage. Yes, without a minimum wage, the labor market would be far more balanced and unemployment would fall drastically (in concept; there's no telling if the lower wages will actually discourage more workers than are required for an efficient equilibrium). However, we as a society tend to view poverty as unacceptable and promote policies to fight this.

Our GDP continues to rise, but our GINI index rises faster. It proves that an increase in GDP doesn't necessarily eliminate poverty, but at least in recent years it does serve to make the rich even richer.

As for the rest of your argument, it goes against nearly everything I've learned and observed. The only women who may be forced out of the labor market will be forced out by business owners as a political statement, similar to what happens with every new law passed.

I welcome you to back up your claims with any empirical or observable evidence. I'm glad you're so passionate about the subject though, and take solace in the fact that your conservative extremists at least counter the equally insane cries of liberal extremists.

#372 to #359 - cabbagemayhem

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

"The moral obligation I refer to is that of a livable wage. Yes, without a minimum wage, the labor market would be far more balanced and unemployment would fall drastically (in concept; there's no telling if the lower wages will actually discourage more workers than are required for an efficient equilibrium). However, we as a society tend to view poverty as unacceptable and promote policies to fight this."

That doesn't disagree with me. Efficient wages can only be determined by market forces through negotiation. When you set a minimum wage, you give some people a "livable wage" (arbitrarily defined), and the rest no wage at all, more or less balancing out, except that it also limits the market itself. How can you decide what a fair wage is? Socialism doesn't work. Minimum wage must be dealt with carefully. It transforms the market only by cutting it. Now, don't say, "The scalpel worked. Let's start hacking!"

"The only women who may be forced out of the labor market will be forced out by business owners as a political statement, similar to what happens with every new law passed."

Business isn't spiteful, it can't afford to be. A business that dislikes legislation because it's less profitable isn't going to throw away more profit. Businesses are constantly trying to crunch numbers to maximize their profits. The decision of who to hire, when to hire, how many to hire, and how much to pay them is largely derived mathematically, and they have no choice but to stay within certain boundaries to make profits. People who are fired because of legislation, are fired because that legislation changed the math. Any other reason is just a welcome mat for their competition.

Not all women would be forced out, let alone immediately, because it also cost money to replace employees. But there wouldn't be as many job offerings, and they would slowly be replaced in areas where it is most profitable.

#298 to #115 - jokexplain

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

love you man

#130 to #115 - anon id: 176afbfc

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

couldn't find sauce on ur claim that there's more women than men in STEM fields. Seems entirely wrong based on experience.

#133 to #130 - economyexplain

Reply+3

(04/15/2014)[-]

It can be found on Page 60 of the BLS report .PDF I sourced, starting under the category of "Professional and Related occupations." That section focuses mainly on the Technology and Mathematics aspects of STEM.

#37 - champaigne

Reply+17

(04/14/2014)[-]

tl;dr somebody sum it up for me in 1 sentence

#41 to #37 - vorarephilia

Reply+46

(04/15/2014)[-]

wage gap depends on how you look at it.

#144 to #41 - lastgentleman#235 on commentsRank#235

Reply+10

(04/15/2014)[-]

I am so ******* hard right now.

#54 to #41 - jessesanman

Reply+6

(04/15/2014)[-]

Sorry...what? I was distracted by the semi-incestuous behavior of those loli, succubi, aliens sisters

#183 to #41 - metacobalion

Reply+4

(04/15/2014)[-]

Apparently I have a tail fetish now. This is how furries start isn't it?

#343 to #183 - felixjarl

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

Nah, more likely that you have a thing for lesbians doing things to each other.

#366 to #343 - metacobalion

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

How about both?

#368 to #366 - felixjarl

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

So what you are saying is that you want a furry fetish?

#369 to #368 - metacobalion

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

#370 to #369 - felixjarl

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

Thought so.

Let me help you prevent it.

#371 to #370 - metacobalion

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

Oh god KILL IT WITH FIRE

#207 to #41 - ixcarnifexxi

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

*Wage gap depends on education and career choice, maternity/paternity leave choices etc*

#56 to #41 - warofdawn

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

please give me source of this!

#58 to #56 - vorarephilia

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

motto to love ru

#39 to #37 - beefcakesizzle

Reply+3

(04/15/2014)[-]

It was earth all along

#96 to #37 - hybredmoon

Reply+1

(04/15/2014)[-]

Post anti-feminism, get thumbs.

#48 to #37 - tomahawkkit

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

women make 94 cents for every dollar a man makes when factoring in career choice among other things

#44 to #37 - instakill

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

women make less than men because they make choices that cause them to make less

#40 to #37 - yourmomiswatching

Reply-8

(04/15/2014)[-]

Women still only get 77%

#184 - sullykid

Reply+39

(04/15/2014)[-]

The fact that women make 77c for every $1 men make is unfair. That only leaves 23c for the men.

#1 - theawesomestperson

Reply+36

(04/14/2014)[-]

I'm a girl, and I'm so glad this got cleared up. I've heard about how women get paid less than men all the time and it didn't make any sense to me. The best thing about this post, though, is it's not aimed at any gender. They're not trying to anger feminazis and they're not trying to inflate men's indignation. So a thumb from me!

#112 to #1 - anon id: 29cee6d6

Reply0

(04/15/2014)[-]

I agree, I always thought the 70 cents thing sounded way off.

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 381 comments ]

Add Comment