The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I never understood this.

I have heard the pay gap debunked numerous times  It is due to the differences in jobs chosen, hours worked, and other factors.

Isn't pay discrimination already illegal?

I also don't get Megan Rapinoe's claims about equal pay.  Isn't sports pay based on the income your league generates?   

Is there information that I am missing from the debate?

The fact that jobs traditionally filled by women pay less than jobs traditionally filled by men does not "debunk" the pay gap, but rather reinforces the evidence for its existence.  Similarly, the fact that the careers of women are hindered by bearing children - something that benefits us all as a society - is another example of the pay gap.

Lastly, I don't see why the soccer US Women's National Team (of which Rapinoe is a member) should be paid less than the US Men's National Team.  Notwithstanding the fact that the former is FAR more successful than the latter, the national teams receive funding from our government.

The pay gap claim is that women are paid less than men for doing the SAME work.  

Having children doesn't always benefit us as a society, either.  Ever heard of overpopulation?  Or people having children when they can't afford them.  But that's another story.

Also, do you think the WNBA players should make as much as the NBA players?

Having children is necessary for our society to continue.  Someone needs to be working and paying taxes 50 years from now, and the United States is not even remotely close to being overpopulated (we have the 2nd lowest population density in the G7, behind only Canada).

Do I think WNBA players should make as much as NBA players?  No.  Not even WNBA players (https://www.insider.com/sue-bird-wnba-nba-equal-pay-2020-10) think they should be paid the same as NBA players.

And no, the pay gap claim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap) is not necessarily that women are paid less than men for the SAME work (although they are (https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/global-and-cultural-effectiveness/pages/study-gender-pay-gap-narrows-but-still-exists.aspx)):

The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the average difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working. Women are generally considered to be paid less than men. There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap: non-adjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter typically takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average female's annual salary is 79% of the average male salary, compared to 95% for the adjusted average salary.

"Equal Pay Day" refers specifically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Day) to how far into the new year the average woman must work (in addition to their earnings last year) in order to have earned what the average man had earned the entire previous year, regardless of experience or job type.

Your first point is pretty flawed.  Our population density compared to other countries is not valid.  Imagine if seven overweight people set together in a room.  The second lightest said, "I'm not overweight.  All of seven people in this room, I am the second lightest"  That would be absurd, would it not? 

As for the USWNT, would this be a valid proposal?  Why don't we have a game where they play against the USMNT?  Then we can find out if they really are underpaid.

Here's a link that proves the gender pay gap is a myth

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/12/harvard-study-confirms-the-gender-wage-gap-is-just-a-myth/ (https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/12/harvard-study-confirms-the-gender-wage-gap-is-just-a-myth/)

Let's not get bogged down in hypothetical analogies.
Are you claiming that the United States of America is currently overpopulated?  If so, on which metric are you basing that claim?

If the soccer USMNT could play against women 100% of the time, maybe they'd actually win something for once.
However, since that's not the case, having the two teams play each other tells us virtually nothing about which team is better at their job (given that their job is beating the opponents on their schedule).

And again, your link does not prove that the pay gap is a "myth." The entire premise of that study is to measure men and women doing the same work (and even there, the study confirms a gender pay gap while offering a possible explanation).  But as I just said, the gender pay gap is about more than "equal pay for equal work"; it's also about the fact that "feminine" jobs (e.g. teacher) pay less than "masculine" jobs (e.g. police officer).

I didn't claim it either way.  I had originally responded to your point that having children is such a wonderful thing.  I believe, yes it is overpopulated, given that we spend billions of dollars a year on families who can't afford their children.

How is teaching feminine?  How is police officer masculine?  We have women police officers.  We have men who teach. 

So should the champion of the minor leagues in baseball be paid more than the major leaguers who don't win the World Series?

Children are a necessary component of a society that intends to exist longer than the current generation, for rather obvious reasons.

I don't see how those two things are connected.  By this metric, what would an underpopulated country look like?

Teaching is traditionally a feminine job, as the vast majority of teachers are female; vice versa for police.

No, they should not, but that's irrelevant.  This analogy is terrible, for many reasons:

- inexperienced male prospects do not work their way up through the women's league
- underperforming male players are not sent back down to the women's league
- the US government does not fund the operations of minor or major league baseball

Success is one thing, generating revenue is another.  I hear the leftists bitch about this all the time as well as WNBA stars being paid much less than their NBA counterparts.  If they want their argument to have merit, they will have to come up with a much better example than this.

Fact is, women's sports doesn't generate the revenue men's sports does.  Especially in basketball.  If Sue Bird and other WNBA stars got paid like Lebron James and Steph Curry, the WBNA would have to close shop.

Total Bullshit.

Nobody is arguing Sue Bird should make as much as Larry Bird did. 

However The women’s soccer team generates considerably more revenue (TV, ticket sales merch, etc.) then the mens team.  AND The men are paid more than the women.  If we use the NBA/WNBA comparison the women soccer players should be making much more than the men rather than much less.

Debatable

https://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/story/2019-07-30/us-soccer-women-paid-more-than-men (https://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/story/2019-07-30/us-soccer-women-paid-more-than-men)

This statement right here is bullshit.  I see it all over social media. 

You see that from people making bullshit straw-man argument.  Not from actual advocates of equal pay. 

The WNBA players deserve more money but not NBA money. 

You can see it right here (https://www.insider.com/sue-bird-wnba-nba-equal-pay-2020-10) directly from Sue Bird herself.  I already linked it earlier:

"I say this totally real — I don't think we should get the same money as NBA players," Bird said. "People think we think that when we say things like 'We want equality.'"

In actuality, the WNBA's all-time assists leader said she believes that calls for equality between men's and women's professional basketball are less about exorbitant salaries than about equal investment and exposure for the WNBA.

"We're just like 'Could I get the same media coverage, and the corporate sponsor looks, and things like that?'" Bird said. "So we can build the business, and then when it's really good — like the NBA is — then we can get that money."

I don't have a problem with athlete salaries being tied to league revenue.  Neither does Sue Bird.

However, US Soccer is heavily funded by the US government.  Revenue should not be the determining factor here.

But it is and always will be.  Because fact is, women's sports do not draw the attendance that men's sports do. 

Why should revenue be the determining factor for the salary of jobs that are funded by the government?  We don't base the pay of judges on how many fines they issue.

Here's how the claim is so blatantly misleading.

I made $17.05 an hour in healthcare last year

My coworker, who is much more experienced than me, makes $21.24 an hour

I am hired for thirty four hours.  She is hired for thirty two hours

Last year, she made $36,702.72

I made $37,200 last year because during the pandemic, I was often asked to work more hours and do overtime because our site was the healthy site, so all the patients came to our site.

Unless, the claim is that she should make the same amount of money I make for working fewer hours.  Is that what is being stated?

For the third time: it's not just about "equal pay for equal work."  I've explained this multiple times.

Oh, I think I get it now.

My coworker should get a raise so she makes as much as I get, regardless of how many hours she works.

The protest against the pay gap is that everybody should be paid the same REGARDLESS of their work.     

Is this correct?  It seems patently absurd to me, but then again, so are many other things espoused by the left.     

Isn't equal pay for unequal work considered communism or socialism?

So Spider, are you saying that EVERYBODY should get paid the same regardless of their job choice?

Let's look at this from a different angle.

We all agree that on average, women make less than men, right?  So there has to be a reason for this.

- One reason could be that women are not as smart as men, and are intellectually incapable of being as professionally successful.
- Another reason could be that women are lazier than men, and are simply unwilling to work as much.

I don't accept either of these explanations.  But there are some others I think are more compelling:

- Women are expected to carry more of the burden in raising children,  and their careers suffer for it.
- Career fields more frequently occupied by women tend to pay less,  even if they have higher prerequisites for entry.

Here's an example that should put this in clear contrast.

Take two supervisors at a company, one male, one female. Both have a stay-at-home spouse.  Over the course of a 5-year span, both have 3 children.  The man takes no time off from work at all for the birth of his children, while the woman takes the minimum maternity leave recommended by her doctor.  Their work performance is otherwise comparable.

When a spot opens up for a promotion, should the man get it because he has been more available and taken less time off? Such a decision would be punishing the woman for her biology. Again, our society requires children to survive, and it's unjust to punish women for providing the same service that every one of us required to enter this world.

Before I answer your point, can you answer my question with a yes or no?

You asked me three questions.

No.

No.

No.

Does our society require a woman to have children?

The responses in this thread are a perfect example of what happens when people lack a basic understanding of social sciences.

A society functions as a whole like an organism, there are people that study this organism and the patterns. They're economists, they're social scientists. There's even a class taught in schools starting in 1st grade called social studies.

The problem that the people on the right have with this entire topic is that they either
a - argue against a point no-one is making, either though ignorance of the actual problem or through misunderstanding of what the problem is
or
b - argue in bad faith by constructing a straw man and arguing against that even tho they know better. (this is where some politicians live)

The baseline questions here are really whether you think a woman can perform the same jobs a man can and vice versa. Can women be doctors, lawyers, CEOs, programmers just as well as men can. Do they have the same intellectual capacity, do they have the same work ethic or dedication to a task. The obvious (to me) answer is yes. Women can perform pretty much any task a man can. Is the opposite true? Can a man succeed in an industry that is staffed predominantly by women? I think that is also true and a man can succeed.

That begs the question, then is why do women as a whole make less money than men. Do we undervalue industries that are staffed predominantly by women? Do we bar women either purposefully or through subconscious bias from entering male dominated fields? Do women in male fields make less money? Do men working in fields dominated by women make more money?

That's what equal pay day is calling to attention. You cannot take your example of "this one woman makes more per hour than i do, but i work more hours, therefore it's all fair" and apply it across a society. A society is whether you like it or not, more than just what your narrow experiences of the world tell you it is.

The reason this actually has value is because we've seen multiple examples of when women's pay rises as a whole, that society increases in prosperity as a whole. That's the value of a social science.

False. Before women worked outside of the home there was less competition for jobs and families could be raised on just one salary.

I can also connect multiple unrelated facts!!!

Before women worked outside the home, the nazi's were in power in Germany!

Therefore women working outside the home helped win the 2nd world war.

oh .. wait .. that one is actually related...  hmm ... ok

Before women worked outside the home people were dying of smallpox.
Before women worked outside the home black people were slaves in this country.
Before women worked outside the home the US was a British colony.

not to mention that your point is in fact false and mine is true, so there is that.

I believe I should be paid the same as Patrick Mahomes...and have no problem protesting about it.

You are referring to a very specific and limited timeframe: the United States in the 40 years after WW2.  During this time period, many other powers were either rebuilding from WW2 (a war that barely affected the US mainland), or trying to catch up to the US (who had built a huge economic lead during those years).

So yeah, in the 50s/60s/70s/80s, you could afford to raise a family on one salary... as long as you weren't working in a field traditionally filled by women.

Right now, we have no other way to produce children.  But it sounds like that may not be the meaning behind your question.

If you're asking if our society requires any one specific woman to have children, the answer is no... in exactly the same sense that it doesn't require any one specific person to vote, or join the military, or pay taxes.  But it definitely requires some women to have them, so it's silly and counterproductive to punish those that do.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you only deserve Blake Bortles money.  :D

I don't know about the current earnings of womens soccer players, or what contract they are on, but... When they were suing the other year about being underpaid I was all for it, until I looked at the facts.  The women had signed contracts with much more guaranteed money than the men, which they received.  After they won the title all of sudden they wanted to change the rules and get the money that the men were getting that wasn't guaranteed.  They didn't want to take the risk and preferred upfront money versus bonuses on accomplishments, they chose wrong.  I do think they should be paid comparable to the men if they are generating the revenue.  However, we also have to consider that mens teams in other countries are usually the highest paid athletes in their countries, so the US has to overpay their men just to attract decent players, or the mens team would never be any good.  I'm sure the womens teams in other countries are probably paid much less than the US womens team.  It's tough when you are dealing with a global sport like soccer to find a fair balance.

Deal!!   ;D