Society/Culture The Gender Pay Gap

[Chief]

But wages aren't 'set up' for 50s style mum, dad and 2.3 kids or 'set up' to discriminate against single mums anymore.

Pretty sure - and there are people who are more expert than me - that many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central location.

Despite the rise of WFH, you see plenty of news about the bigger companies trying to get people back into the office on regular hours.

 

[the_interloper]

Pretty sure - and there are people who are more expert than me - that many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central location.

Despite the rise of WFH, you see plenty of news about the bigger companies trying to get people back into the office on regular hours.

The nerve of these companies, wanting their staff in their offices!

 

[faible]

Pretty sure - and there are people who are more expert than me - that many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central location.

Despite the rise of WFH, you see plenty of news about the bigger companies trying to get people back into the office on regular hours.

The nature of some jobs is that being able to work on-site, un-interrupted, or without long-term absence from the workplace will be advantageous. When you're selecting from similarly qualified and capable candidates then willingness to work as, when, and where directed by the workplace can be a factor. The more you're paying someone, the more control you're likely to want to have over those things. If I'm paying someone minimum wage I'm probably not expecting them to do anything outside of normal hours, if I'm paying them $500k a year, I'd expect them to be pretty much available whenever needed.

If you're wanting to be a CEO of a major company, you're up against people who are willing to do all those things.

Whilst a number of jobs can be done remotely, and workplaces will have to find a balance of home to office hours that makes them appealing in the job market, that's not the case for every job.

 

[PJays]

Pretty sure - and there are people who are more expert than me - that many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central location.

Yes of course, but this has nothing to do with gender discrimination.

Despite the rise of WFH, you see plenty of news about the bigger companies trying to get people back into the office on regular hours.

Yes, because they think it's better for workplace culture, productivity etc.

 

[faible]

Yes of course, but this has nothing to do with gender discrimination.


Yes, because they think it's better for workplace culture, productivity etc.

Also they've got office space they're paying for and need to justify...

 

[Carringbush2010]

Pretty sure - and there are people who are more expert than me - that many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central location.

Despite the rise of WFH, you see plenty of news about the bigger companies trying to get people back into the office on regular hours.

And? This doesn't prove that the gender pay gap is a deliberate conspiracy.

 

[Chief]

And? This doesn't prove that the gender pay gap is a deliberate conspiracy.

Straw man.

Where did I say it is?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Straw man.

Where did I say it is?

Then it's irrelevant

 

[Chief]

Then it's irrelevant

Why did you think that was my argument?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Why did you think that was my argument?

Because you alluded about how incomes are set up to disadvantage single mums , that's what I replied to

 

[Gralin]

Because you alluded about how incomes are set up to disadvantage single mums , that's what I replied to

So you think only single mums can't work 8 hours in a row in the city?

 

[Chief]

Because you alluded about how incomes are set up to disadvantage single mums , that's what I replied to

"many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central location."

This is true.

Nothing about a conspiracy there.

 

[Carringbush2010]

"many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central location."

This is true.

Nothing about a conspiracy there.

Didn't say it was your conspiracy, I clearly alluded that for some and the media that would be the thinking.

As I've stated earlier, the media reporting is that females make less in x field, rarely if ever is the reason for reported.

If all the reasons were laid out on the table, instead of narrative reporting, this wouldn't even be a debate.

 

[Chief]

Didn't say it was your conspiracy, I clearly alluded that for some and the media that would be the thinking.

You kind of did right here:

Society/Culture - The Gender Pay Gap

But wages aren't 'set up' for 50s style mum, dad and 2.3 kids or 'set up' to discriminate against single mums anymore. Pretty sure - and there are people who are more expert than me - that many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Chief]

If all the reasons were laid out on the table, instead of narrative reporting, this wouldn't even be a debate.

Yes but the consumer also has to do some work - hard on complex topics for time-poor people.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You kind of did right here:

Society/Culture - The Gender Pay Gap

But wages aren't 'set up' for 50s style mum, dad and 2.3 kids or 'set up' to discriminate against single mums anymore. Pretty sure - and there are people who are more expert than me - that many jobs are still set up to cater to someone who can work an uninterrupted 8 hour day in a central...

www.bigfooty.com

Semantics, I took that is you displaying a perspective, not necessarily your own.

Point still stands, there's no conspiracy going on, yet the talking points is all about 'women make less, oh the humanity' but rarely if ever is the reason for the less.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yes but the consumer also has to do some work - hard on complex topics for time-poor people.

And? Again, this does not prove there's a conspiracy going on.

 

[Chief]

And? Again, this does not prove there's a conspiracy going on.

Again - I never said there is. If you're referring to somebody else, I'm happy to follow a link.

 

[the_interloper]

Yes but the consumer also has to do some work - hard on complex topics for time-poor people.

Just like Rogan's listeners amirite?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Again - I never said there is. If you're referring to somebody else, I'm happy to follow a link.

Again, I didn't say you. Idk if you're reading my posts.

It's clear there's a mantra on msm and social media that there's an air of 'conspiracy'.

I haven't seen any reporting on msm that states the logical and practical reasons why there is a gender pay gap, oh and there definitely is a gap!

But on face value it looks like a case of 'society punching down on women!' Like I said if msm reported the logical and practical reasons like some on here have (social media) then this wouldn't even be a debate.

 

[the_interloper]

Again, I didn't say you. Idk if you're reading my posts.

It's clear there's a mantra on msm and social media that there's an air of 'conspiracy'.

I haven't seen any reporting on msm that states the logical and practical reasons why there is a gender pay gap, oh and there definitely is a gap!

But on face value it looks like a case of 'society punching down on women!' Like I said if msm reported the logical and practical reasons like some on here have (social media) then this wouldn't even be a debate.

Depends where you go i guess, I feel the reporting on this in the last few years has been a bit more logical. Yes there is a statistic called a "gender pay gap" (or is it sex pay gap?) but most acknowledge there are reasons for this, it's not just a blanket war on women and paying them less because patriarchy.

 

[Chief]

And? This doesn't prove that the gender pay gap is a deliberate conspiracy.

OK I will leave that there.

I will say that at times there actually has been "a conspiracy" to keep women out of work and men in jobs. Post-war returning soldiers being given jobs while the women who had those jobs during the war were sacked.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Depends where you go i guess, I feel the reporting on this in the last few years has been a bit more logical. Yes there is a statistic called a "gender pay gap" (or is it sex pay gap?) but most acknowledge there are reasons for this, it's not just a blanket war on women and paying them less because patriarchy.

That seems to be the narrative imv.

If the reporting seems a little bit more logical in recent years, then why is it still a debate?

 

[Carringbush2010]

OK I will leave that there.

I will say that at times there actually has been "a conspiracy" to keep women out of work and men in jobs. Post-war returning soldiers being given jobs while the women who had those jobs during the war were sacked.

Yeah, post war to now is very very different isn't it. There is no avenue to discriminate like that anymore and hasn't been for a some time.

We're talking about the gap >now and in recent times<, not 5 minutes after the war.

 

[the_interloper]

That seems to be the narrative imv.

If the reporting seems a little bit more logical in recent years, then why is it still a debate?

Because plenty of "journalists" write click bait articles about it, and quote random social media posts as sources. Media outlets broadcasting these views can make it seem like it's an even debate if they give multiple points of view equal air time (no matter how crackpot some of the views might be)