Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: Australia Dragging Its Feet

  1. #1

    Default Australia Dragging Its Feet

    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  2. #2
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    More like just plain dumb. They are waiting for a plebiscite that everyone knows the answer to already, so lets just spend millions anyway. Conservative ***** in the ruling parties.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  3. #3

    Default

    Oh, stop Rok, you love the idea that soon only women will be the minority.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  4. #4
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    Oh, stop Rok, you love the idea that soon only women will be the minority.
    If women became the majority and stopped the 3.5% inexplicable wage gap, she wouldn't have anything to complain about.

    Therefore those things happening = her worst fear.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    If women became the majority and stopped the 3.5% inexplicable wage gap, she wouldn't have anything to complain about.

    Therefore those things happening = her worst fear.
    Women are 52% of the population. And the wage gap is proven to be because men are less satisfied in their jobs and thus ask for higher wages and more promotions.

    She'll always pretend there's a "patriarchy."

    So, soon blacks won't be discriminated against, neither will Mexicans. But she'll still be a "victim of the patriarchy."
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  6. #6
    Senator Mouse-Keyboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The country with the world's longest official name
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    Women are 52% of the population. And the wage gap is proven to be because men are less satisfied in their jobs and thus ask for higher wages and more promotions.
    Do you have this proof?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    If women became the majority and stopped the 3.5% inexplicable wage gap, she wouldn't have anything to complain about.

    Therefore those things happening = her worst fear.
    I thought that wage gap was chalked up to aggressive wage negotiations. Testosterone and all.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mouse-Keyboard View Post
    Do you have this proof?
    These studies were from ones Sapient and Woden posted ages ago on the forums. I don't care to find them again.

    Woden Dearest! I need you to find me stuff!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  9. #9
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gender+populati...+united+states

    As a bonus I will include stats on womens' privilege by college attendance:

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=college+population+by+gender#
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  10. #10
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    I thought that wage gap was chalked up to aggressive wage negotiations. Testosterone and all.
    Would that be wage negotiations conducted in a framework set up and dominated by men?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  11. #11
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Would that be wage negotiations conducted in a framework set up and dominated by men?
    Depends. Is it a gigantic issue causing approximately 18,000 asstons of 1st-world social justice woes in your mind? If so, then yes, it was caused by men.

    There. You happy now? I have a protrusion from my crotch; therefore I accept blame for whatever you're complaining about this time.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  12. #12
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    Depends. Is it a gigantic issue causing approximately 18,000 asstons of 1st-world social justice woes in your mind? If so, then yes, it was caused by men.

    There. You happy now? I have a protrusion from my crotch; therefore I accept blame for whatever you're complaining about this time.
    It's no biggie. Well, not to you anyway. If you have a daughter it might matter a tiny bit. Or maybe not.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Would that be wage negotiations conducted in a framework set up and dominated by men?
    I don't see the need to throw your sexist views into this.

  14. #14
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    I don't see the need to throw your sexist views into this.
    It's sexist to say men still hold more power and were involved more in the setting up the current system of business?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    It's sexist to say men still hold more power and were involved more in the setting up the current system of business?
    It is sexist to instantly accuse men to be the fault for inequality when there is no proof otherwise.

  16. #16
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    It is sexist to instantly accuse men to be the fault for inequality when there is no proof otherwise.
    So you would agree with my claims but 1. Assume I am blaming men (nope, it is the system - set up by men, not the men in it) 2.Would rather blame women (at fault?) for not being able to play the system, than the system itself not being level.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  17. #17

    Default

    I blame no one. I just stated that men, on average, tend to be more aggressive and that plays a beneficial role in negotiating wages. The same tactics could be used by women but, on average, don't seem to.

  18. #18
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    I blame no one. I just stated that men, on average, tend to be more aggressive and that plays a beneficial role in negotiating wages. The same tactics could be used by women but, on average, don't seem to.
    It only works because of the system set up to account for men. It is far more efficient to reward based on input and outcome and not aggression. Which is where it will get to on a level playing field. Eventually.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    It only works because of the system set up to account for men. It is far more efficient to reward based on input and outcome and not aggression. Which is where it will get to on a level playing field. Eventually.
    So your solution is: People should not be allowed to negotiate? Why?

  20. #20

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Rokchick, to clarify some things:

    1) Do you believe that businesses should be allowed to offer higher-than-their-competition wages in order to attract potential employees?
    2) Do you believe that workers should be able to negotiate for higher wages with potential employers?
    3) Do you believe that workers should be able to "shop around" for the same position at different employers?

    Because unless you answered no to all of those, then it's impossible to prevent people who are more driven towards getting a higher starting wage from trying to get a higher starting wage, particularly in careers where there are lots of openings relative to the number of people who can fill them.

    And if you did answer no to those, then it sounds like you're either delusional about the way market forces affect wages, and/or are completely against worker's rights when it comes to wages...

  21. #21
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Rokchick, to clarify some things:

    1) Do you believe that businesses should be allowed to offer higher-than-their-competition wages in order to attract potential employees?
    2) Do you believe that workers should be able to negotiate for higher wages with potential employers?
    3) Do you believe that workers should be able to "shop around" for the same position at different employers?

    Because unless you answered no to all of those, then it's impossible to prevent people who are more driven towards getting a higher starting wage from trying to get a higher starting wage, particularly in careers where there are lots of openings relative to the number of people who can fill them.

    And if you did answer no to those, then it sounds like you're either delusional about the way market forces affect wages, and/or are completely against worker's rights when it comes to wages...
    None of those are absolutes. So, yes to all, but with caveats. But you totally miss the point. Again.

    Being able to negotiate a better deal with a boss/potential boss who has been through the current system makes the current system the benchmark. That's my point. You are commenting on the way it is now. I don't disagree, I'm saying that is why the field is not level.

    Incoming anecdote alert: When I employ people, I consciously try to get past their opinion of themselves. It's usually not relevant, except to show the level of sociopathy they might employ. For positions that require human interaction or team coherence, a high self opinion makes them less capable, not more. So someone who bargains hard is actually the wrong person from the perspective of company performance. But currently, when most senior employees (particularly in big organisations) got there by being macho, they only recognize it as a good thing in potential employees. They are wrong, but they still decide who to employ.

    Certainly there is an excess of sociopathy (and usually testosterone) in those running most big successful companies today. But the world is evolving. We no longer accept absolutely anything goes to create wealth for shareholders. Well some do, but dinosaur. The better way that will evolve is to assess and pay based on input and outcome. So a company will offer employees incentives, rather than pay based on what they ask for. That would actually make the company more efficient and more profitable. That works, right? But to fix the problem and create the better company, you have to remove the inefficiency.

    As long as everyone gets enough (minimum wage) to live reasonably on, inefficiencies can be sorted in the rest. But no one needs to earn $40 million a year to drive down living standards in the country.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  22. #22
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Rokchick, to clarify some things:

    1) Do you believe that businesses should be allowed to offer higher-than-their-competition wages in order to attract potential employees?
    2) Do you believe that workers should be able to negotiate for higher wages with potential employers?
    3) Do you believe that workers should be able to "shop around" for the same position at different employers?
    Actually, I think Rok capitulated on these points much too quickly. I'm not sure what's sacred about any of these "rights."

    In other words, you've asked these questions without trade-offs present. Sure, if there's no negative effects, I agree that businesses ought to be able to negotiate with employers for higher wages. Sure, if there's no negative effects, I'll agree with all 3!

    But what happens when one of these things conflicts with something else we think is important? For example, I also think that the answer to:
    4) should anyone be denied basic access to enough water on a daily basis to not die of dehydration?

    Is yes. And we are fortunate to live in a world where I can, for the most part, answer 1-3 and 4 with "yes" without a conflict.

    But if the question
    5) should we be compensating men and women equally for equal work?

    Is answered with yes, and we live in a world where that happens to conflict with 1-3, I don't see why it has to be #5 that we drop, and not one or more of #1-3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Because unless you answered no to all of those, then it's impossible to prevent people who are more driven towards getting a higher starting wage from trying to get a higher starting wage, particularly in careers where there are lots of openings relative to the number of people who can fill them.
    This, I agree with, with an important caveat --

    You can answer "yes" to all the questions you put forth, then even agree with what you said here, but know that while it may be impossible to prevent people from trying to get a higher starting wage, it may be possible to prevent people from succeeding differently in the wrong kind of way. It may be possible to allow people whose work is worth more to be paid more than people whose work is worth less while making sure that people whose skin is black are not paid less than people whose skin is white. It may be impossible, but it may be possible!

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    None of those are absolutes. So, yes to all, but with caveats. But you totally miss the point. Again.

    Being able to negotiate a better deal with a boss/potential boss who has been through the current system makes the current system the benchmark. That's my point. You are commenting on the way it is now. I don't disagree, I'm saying that is why the field is not level.
    Explain this further and is this opinion or do you have an article from a publication that specializes in business pieces (Ex: Forbes) to support this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Incoming anecdote alert: When I employ people, I consciously try to get past their opinion of themselves. It's usually not relevant, except to show the level of sociopathy they might employ. For positions that require human interaction or team coherence, a high self opinion makes them less capable, not more. So someone who bargains hard is actually the wrong person from the perspective of company performance. But currently, when most senior employees (particularly in big organisations) got there by being macho, they only recognize it as a good thing in potential employees. They are wrong, but they still decide who to employ.
    Having self-confidence (or as you said it 'self-opinion) and a sense of self-worth does not mean they're a sociopath. Also: having the ability to articulate their worth to you does not mean their lacking in skill--it just means they're articulate. Note: I am not saying this is absolute,


    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Certainly there is an excess of sociopathy (and usually testosterone) in those running most big successful companies today. But the world is evolving. We no longer accept absolutely anything goes to create wealth for shareholders. Well some do, but dinosaur. The better way that will evolve is to assess and pay based on input and outcome. So a company will offer employees incentives, rather than pay based on what they ask for. That would actually make the company more efficient and more profitable. That works, right? But to fix the problem and create the better company, you have to remove the inefficiency.
    The issue is: the value of your time is always greater than what the company will want to pay, until you start getting to the top. As you grow in the company, take on new roles, learn new tasks and operating procedures your value actually increases and often to the point where you can be doing the job of two or more people due to your diverse skillset. Will you ever be paid 2-3x wage for this? HELL NO. Should you be paid more for this knowledge though? HELL YES.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    As long as everyone gets enough (minimum wage) to live reasonably on, inefficiencies can be sorted in the rest. But no one needs to earn $40 million a year to drive down living standards in the country.
    But the value of some jobs are significantly less important than others. While I agree the federal minimum wage is too low and it is impossible to survive on 7.25 an hour (even with several roommates in a small apartment out in a crime-ridden neighborhood) the idea of paying everyone the same regardless of their skill set is ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Actually, I think Rok capitulated on these points much too quickly. I'm not sure what's sacred about any of these "rights."

    In other words, you've asked these questions without trade-offs present. Sure, if there's no negative effects, I agree that businesses ought to be able to negotiate with employers for higher wages. Sure, if there's no negative effects, I'll agree with all 3!
    There aren't any negative effects to being allowed to negotiate. Negotiations happen all the time and there's nothing wrong with it. The people you negotiate with may have issues, but the negotiation itself isn't bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    But what happens when one of these things conflicts with something else we think is important? For example, I also think that the answer to:
    4) should anyone be denied basic access to enough water on a daily basis to not die of dehydration?
    Is yes. And we are fortunate to live in a world where I can, for the most part, answer 1-3 and 4 with "yes" without a conflict.

    But if the question
    5) should we be compensating men and women equally for equal work?
    We do. People are not paid based on their gender but for the value the company believes they are worth. Just because men may push harder for more money doesn't mean that's sexism. It just means that men push harder.

  24. #24

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So, yes to all, but with caveats.
    With what caveats? And if you think the wage negotiation system is such a problem, what is the alternative you propose?

    Or are you just whining for the sake of whining, without even trying to offer suggestions on how to change anything?

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    We do. People are not paid based on their gender but for the value the company believes they are worth. Just because men may push harder for more money doesn't mean that's sexism. It just means that men push harder.
    Exactly. Women are not seen as valuable as men. And psychological research backs this up pretty significantly. Women with young children are seen as less dedicated to the company they work for. This effect is not noticed in men. Additionally, minority women are stereotyped even more than White women.

    There are other important factors that the studies take a look at. For those that are interested I can supply various works. Although it never appears to be of interest and you all prefer to speak without providing evidence.

    EDIT: Cuddy, Glick, and Beninger (2011) is a good study to take a look at and explores some of the effects described above.
    US1 - R8: Seba18 - TMH
    US1 - R9: Easy Faked Oven - RIP (http://travian-reports.net/us/report/284151238bd/http://travian-reports.net/us/report/293427537bc)
    US19 - R1: Seba18 (win)

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seba View Post
    Exactly. Women are not seen as valuable as men. And psychological research backs this up pretty significantly. Women with young children are seen as less dedicated to the company they work for. This effect is not noticed in men. Additionally, minority women are stereotyped even more than White women.

    There are other important factors that the studies take a look at. For those that are interested I can supply various works. Although it never appears to be of interest and you all prefer to speak without providing evidence.

    EDIT: Cuddy, Glick, and Beninger (2011) is a good study to take a look at and explores some of the effects described above.
    I could see this being an issue with hiring practices. And that is an area I will agree has a LOT of bias in it. But as for wages: no. Once you get your foot in the door you're pretty much a number to them.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    I could see this being an issue with hiring practices. And that is an area I will agree has a LOT of bias in it. But as for wages: no. Once you get your foot in the door you're pretty much a number to them.
    But, see, this influences wages greatly. And maternity leave has much to do with it. Working mothers taking a leave are seen as less dedicated to their peers (including other women). Which is bull****. .
    US1 - R8: Seba18 - TMH
    US1 - R9: Easy Faked Oven - RIP (http://travian-reports.net/us/report/284151238bd/http://travian-reports.net/us/report/293427537bc)
    US19 - R1: Seba18 (win)

  28. #28
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    There aren't any negative effects to being allowed to negotiate. Negotiations happen all the time and there's nothing wrong with it. The people you negotiate with may have issues, but the negotiation itself isn't bad.
    That's not necessarily true, though. Maybe we mean different things by "negative effects to being allowed to negotiate." I mean in a game theoretical sense. So like, for example, imagine that we have a system of punishment where people know that they are not allowed to negotiate regarding their punishments when they are convicted a crime, and imagine another system with all other conditions the same except that people are allowed to negotiate. I'm saying that it's possible that the system of punishment could, as a whole, be a worse system of punishment if people are allowed to negotiate, as opposed to not, for a whole bunch of reasons. (For example, maybe knowing they can negotiate means that more people commit crimes.) If it were, I'd say that in that case, "negotiating has negative effects for the system." The same could be true about negotiating wages. It might be the case that allowing negotiations in wages results in outcomes we otherwise would have thought were the wrong outcomes.

    And often, we do think that. That's why in the 1800's, before unions, working conditions were so poor for workers. They were all allowed to negotiate their wages with the employer separately, which resulted in a situation where the employers had a ton of bargaining power while workers had none, which resulted in some of the worst working conditions since Feudalism, if not even worse.

    So I'm just putting some pressure on the assertion that "negotiating" is a thing that we should basically accept as always good -- when there is a system with negotiations allowed, sometimes there are reasons why the outcomes are worse. Sometimes there are not. I agree that negotiations are good to the extent that, if I think that there aren't negative outcomes, that negotiating should be allowed by default. But I don't think this is sacred in that, if it turns out that there are bad results -- as in the case of workers negotiating with bosses without a union which takes away their individual right to negotiate -- that our rational response should be to curtail the "right" to negotiate. Now, you might disagree with me about whether or not I am giving a true example of a time negotiating produced a negative outcome in a system, but that's not as important to me as the point that it's possible that there could be, so we shouldn't hold the "right to negotiate" sacred.
    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    We do. People are not paid based on their gender but for the value the company believes they are worth. Just because men may push harder for more money doesn't mean that's sexism. It just means that men push harder.
    I think what I am trying to say is that it isn't bad that "men push harder" (teehee), if it's true, but that I think at the same time that "just because men push harder doesn't mean that they should succeed at getting higher wages than women." In other words, just having asked is not a legitimate reason for being given a raise. If a worker in condition X is worthy of a raise, they should get it whether or not they ask. I have no problem with a man who is worth more being paid more than a woman who is worth less, but if the only reason you can give for why a man is being paid more than a woman is that "he asked and she didn't," that is not legitimate. If women were more likely to ask than men, I'd be saying the same thing. I'm ok with success being different based on how much a person's labor is worth, but NOT with it being different for a stupid reason, like whether or not the worker bothered to ask for a raise they were entitled to.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 08-25-2016 at 03:39 AM.

  29. #29
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    Explain this further and is this opinion or do you have an article from a publication that specializes in business pieces (Ex: Forbes) to support this?
    Do you not see the irony in your question? You want me to reference something based on the current system to say it isn't working well? OK then!
    Here's a fully referenced spiel that doesn't even try to say the system is fixed, just why it doesn't work for women.
    https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/defaul...otiation_1.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    Having self-confidence (or as you said it 'self-opinion) and a sense of self-worth does not mean they're a sociopath. Also: having the ability to articulate their worth to you does not mean their lacking in skill--it just means they're articulate. Note: I am not saying this is absolute,
    I should elaborate. I mean sociopathy/empathy on a scale. Of course I don't mean the world is full of sociopaths. I just mean "less empathetic" or "lower EQ". And people with a high self opinion do tend to be less empathetic. Except me of course. I'm perfect.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    The issue is: the value of your time is always greater than what the company will want to pay, until you start getting to the top. As you grow in the company, take on new roles, learn new tasks and operating procedures your value actually increases and often to the point where you can be doing the job of two or more people due to your diverse skillset. Will you ever be paid 2-3x wage for this? HELL NO. Should you be paid more for this knowledge though? HELL YES.
    You have a very narrow view. And again based only on the current system (which I'm claiming needs to be adjusted). There is far more at stake, and yes, I do get paid more than 3 x others. And I'm worth more than that too. But it is obvious and I shouldn't have to negotiate it against some guy who is not as good, but a lot louder.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    But the value of some jobs are significantly less important than others. While I agree the federal minimum wage is too low and it is impossible to survive on 7.25 an hour (even with several roommates in a small apartment out in a crime-ridden neighborhood) the idea of paying everyone the same regardless of their skill set is ludicrous.
    I'm not saying pay everyone the same. Just that a decent wage minimum is essential. And all those who think the economy will collapse if you do are flat wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    There aren't any negative effects to being allowed to negotiate. Negotiations happen all the time and there's nothing wrong with it. The people you negotiate with may have issues, but the negotiation itself isn't bad.
    Yes, there are. And it is screamingly obvious unless you are the beneficiary. If a system of negotiation does not get the best outcome, it is not the best system. It is the current system, and if you can't see past that, then it is your vision at fault. I'm saying change is needed, and that it will come, but faster is better (for everyone except those who are likely to be paid more than they are worth - and excuse me for not wanting to pander to them!).

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    We do. People are not paid based on their gender but for the value the company believes they are worth. Just because men may push harder for more money doesn't mean that's sexism. It just means that men push harder.
    But if the system that decides how to pay them is biased to one gender then the outcome is.

    Burn, I didn't capitulate. I said there were caveats. That's what you've said too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    With what caveats? And if you think the wage negotiation system is such a problem, what is the alternative you propose?

    Or are you just whining for the sake of whining, without even trying to offer suggestions on how to change anything?
    The most obvious one is "only if it gets the best outcome". Currently it doesn't. The alternative that I propose is that we get more diversity (and not just gender - cultural diversity is important too) in the upper echelons. If it means some leverage to do it then, use some. For a start, expose/teach more about the value of diversity. It's not just feel-good stuff, it actually matters to outcomes. That is intuitively obvious, but very difficult to show to those with a pre-set view from the nice side of the fence.


    Board diversity/Financial performance
    Diversity matters
    And more stuff
    Now this doesn't prove that the diversity led to the stronger performance, it could also mean that companies that are financially successful are also more inclusive. So smart companies are more inclusive, because they are smart?

    But hey.. sure... stick with the current system. It's so awesome....
    Last edited by Rokchick; 08-25-2016 at 04:04 AM.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    That's not necessarily true, though. Maybe we mean different things by "negative effects to being allowed to negotiate." I mean in a game theoretical sense. So like, for example, imagine that we have a system of punishment where people know that they are not allowed to negotiate regarding their punishments when they are convicted a crime, and imagine another system with all other conditions the same except that people are allowed to negotiate. I'm saying that it's possible that the system of punishment could, as a whole, be a worse system of punishment if people are allowed to negotiate, as opposed to not, for a whole bunch of reasons. If it were, I'd say that in that case, "negotiating has negative effects for the system." The same could be true about negotiating wages. It might be the case that allowing negotiations in wages results in outcomes we otherwise would have thought were the wrong outcomes.

    And often, we do think that. That's why in the 1800's, before unions, working conditions were so poor for workers. They were all allowed to negotiate their wages with the employer separately, which resulted in a situation where the employers had a ton of bargaining power while workers had none, which resulted in some of the worst working conditions since Feudalism, if not even worse.

    So I'm just putting some pressure on the assertion that "negotiating" is a thing that we should basically accept as always good -- when there is a system with negotiations allowed, sometimes there are reasons why the outcomes are worse. Sometimes there are not. I agree that negotiations are good to the extent that, if I think that there aren't negative outcomes, that negotiating should be allowed by default. But I don't think this is sacred in that, if it turns out that there are bad results -- as in the case of workers negotiating with bosses without a union which takes away their individual right to negotiate -- that our rational response should be to curtail the "right" to negotiate. Now, you might disagree with me about whether or not I am giving a true example of a time negotiating produced a negative outcome in a system, but that's not as important to me as the point that it's possible that there could be, so we shouldn't hold the "right to negotiate" sacred.
    Back during those times employees had no ability to negotiate for work safety, job security, or even wage. I believe it wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt came along and forced companies to negotiate with striking workers instead of calling Pinkerton on them to break skulls that we got SOME semblance of workers rights and ability to negotiate. From that came things like government-enforced workers rights, minimum wage, and later mandatory overtime pay (which is still skirted in some states by calling employees 'seasonal')
    Also: you can, to some extent, negotiate your jail sentence--ever heard of plea bargains or even giving last words before being sentenced? The last words, while not a traditional "negotiation" it is a plea for leniency in which you try to convince the judge to grant you a less harsh sentence.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I think what I am trying to say is that it isn't bad that "men push harder" (teehee), if it's true, but that I think at the same time that "just because men push harder doesn't mean that they should succeed at getting higher wages than women." In other words, just having asked is not a legitimate reason for being given a raise. If a worker in condition X is worthy of a raise, they should get it whether or not they ask. I have no problem with a man who is worth more being paid more than a woman who is worth less, but if the only reason you can give for why a man is being paid more than a woman is that "he asked and she didn't," that is not legitimate. If women were more likely to ask than men, I'd be saying the same thing. I'm ok with success being different based on how much a person's labor is worth, but NOT with it being different for a stupid reason, like whether or not the worker bothered to ask for a raise they were entitled to.
    I disagree. IF 'pushing harder' is what truly is a main factor in wage gap differences (and it's actually very minimal) those who put forth the effort and present their case the best should be rewarded for the effort. Why do you think there are only 3 medals in the Olympics and not just participation awards to everyone? It's because those who have pushed themselves the hardest deserve the recognition.
    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/20131206_PP_womennegotiation_1.pdf
    It seems that women are not inherently less willing to negotiate but in workplace contexts women are reluctant to enter into negotiation.8 When they do negotiate for themselves, they ask for less and are more likely to accept an initial offer rather than attempt to negotiate it to be more in their favour.
    So you're saying it's MEN'S fault women WILLINGLY negotiate for less or don't bother negotiating? And **** what other people think of you--your ability to survive is more important than social bull ****.
    Last edited by 5m4llP0X; 08-25-2016 at 03:59 AM.

  31. #31
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    Also: you can, to some extent, negotiate your jail sentence--ever heard of plea bargains or even giving last words before being sentenced? The last words, while not a traditional "negotiation" it is a plea for leniency in which you try to convince the judge to grant you a less harsh sentence.
    I know -- I was trying to explain why it is possible in the abstract that negotiation could have bad effects, not make a point about our actual criminal justice system. Same with the example of unions. I think that your picture of how management related to workers historically is not a good picture and it is misleading you about the particular case, but again, my point wasn't about unions, it was about how the "right" to negotiate isn't inherently awesome; that can depend on whether being allowed to negotiate results in good or bad. You're now just saying you think it results in good, and that may be. But if I thought that the right to negotiate was leading to something bad, such as women being paid less than men for the same work, then I might certainly be tempted to say "well maybe we shouldn't allow that kind of negotiating!" (Whether I'd be right or wrong if I said that would have to do not with whether negotiation is inherently good or bad, but instead with which decision will result in better outcomes.)
    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    I disagree. IF 'pushing harder' is what truly is a main factor in wage gap differences (and it's actually very minimal) those who put forth the effort and present their case the best should be rewarded for the effort. Why do you think there are only 3 medals in the Olympics and not just participation awards to everyone? It's because those who have pushed themselves the hardest deserve the recognition.
    Not at all. Medals in the Olympics are not awarded to those who push the hardest. They are awarded to those who do the best. The measure of the winning marathon runner is not whose heart rate got the highest (eg a plausible measure of who tried hardest), but who crossed the finish line first. We care not about who put in the most effort, but about who is the best. If this is the analogy you wish to discuss, then I think your incomplete picture of the Olympics is totally an analog to your incomplete picture of the position of the worker.

    Workers are paid by employers, fundamentally, because the worker is producing more value for the employer than the employer is losing by having to pay the worker's salary. If the worker is making X dollars for the employer, and is getting paid Y dollars, then clearly the employer can afford to pay Y dollars. If another worker is ALSO making X dollars for the employer, but is making LESS than Y dollars, then clearly the employer is stealing money that could have been given to the person who produced the value!

    In other words, Sam flips burgers and Jill flips burgers. Sam is paid $7 an hour and makes $8 an hour for his boss. So his boss makes $1 an hour off Sam. Jill also makes $8 an hour for her boss, but she is only paid $6.50 an hour. You say that if Sam asked for this raise and Jill did not, that this situation is fair. But it isn't! The people directly inputting their labor by physically flipping the burgers are producing the same value for the employer. Sam having said, "pay me more" added nothing to the economics of the question. If it is economically sustainable for the boss to make $1 an hour off his employees (meaning he could afford to make $1 an hour off his employees and still make a living himself), and he is doing so for Sam but making $1.50 off Jill just because she didn't ask, he's an *******! He's cheating her!

    If you don't share my feelings about the case, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you. I don't have a good argument for why I feel this way about the fairness of the situation. I just feel like, at the base, that's how it is. No value is added by the mere act of asking for higher wages. In an analog to the Olympics, both Sam and Jill "finished" at the same time. (They both make the same amount for their employer per hour.) But for no reason related to who "finished first," Sam is paid more. That's complete BS.

    (Disclaimer: I mean to be respectfully disagreeing with you, not putting you down.)
    Last edited by The Burninator; 08-25-2016 at 04:09 AM. Reason: Hella hard to read my text walls, again

  32. #32
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    Why do you think there are only 3 medals in the Olympics and not just participation awards to everyone? It's because those who have pushed themselves the hardest deserve the recognition.
    Edit:

    So you're saying it's MEN'S fault women WILLINGLY negotiate for less or don't bother negotiating? And **** what other people think of you--your ability to survive is more important than social bull ****.
    It makes no difference how hard you work if you don't win. You still don't get a medal. And the olympics are a good example in another way. Those countries with the most money do tend to get the most medals. That system is fixed as well.

    No, I'm saying the system is biased. How many times, do I have to say the same thing?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    It makes no difference how hard you work if you don't win. You still don't get a medal. And the olympics are a good example in another way. Those countries with the most money do tend to get the most medals. That system is fixed as well.
    Ok, I worded that badly. The build up to get into the Olympics alone requires natural talent and lots of work and dedication. So much work and dedication that natural talent alone cannot get you to the Olympics. So at that point: the ones who push themselves the hardest are best equipped to win.
    Also: The olympics isn't the Oscars--money alone does not buy you a trophy. It gets you research, equipment and better help. Help=/=win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    No, I'm saying the system is biased. How many times, do I have to say the same thing?
    As many times as you want--it doesn't make it true. The ability to be good at negotiating is NOT SEXIST it is THE ABILITY TO BE GOOD AT NEGOTIATING. And asking for more money IS NOT SEXIST it is ASKING FOR MORE MONEY. But I forget that I'm talking to a third wave feminist so instantly:

  34. #34
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    The ability to be good at negotiating is NOT SEXIST it is THE ABILITY TO BE GOOD AT NEGOTIATING. And asking for more money IS NOT SEXIST it is ASKING FOR MORE MONEY.
    THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB, OR GIVING THE BEST OUTCOME. Whew, that felt dumb. Let's go back to selective caps.

    Asking for more money is not sexist. Defending a system that makes one gender more likely to get a fair outcome (yes, fair! Paying more for no better outcome is not fair on anyone) is.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB, OR GIVING THE BEST OUTCOME.
    No, being good at negotiating is just that. We can agree on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Whew, that felt dumb. Let's go back to selective caps.

    Asking for more money is not sexist. Defending a system that makes one gender more likely to get a fair outcome (yes, fair! Paying more for no better outcome is not fair on anyone) is.
    Your article even said the fault lies on the woman. They ask for less or don't bother negotiating.

  36. #36

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Rok and Burn, you seem to be under the impression that the negotiated raises are from guys just going up to their boss and saying, "Hey, can I get a raise?" out of the blue, rather than it being things like them looking around for how much they could make elsewhere and bringing it up with their boss.

    In other words, it's not just some random decision to give a person a raise because they asked, it's giving them a raise to keep them from quitting (with all of the costs and issues involved in getting a replacement for them). They're not going to go around and give everyone a raise just because one person realized they might be able to make more elsewhere -- and if bosses regularly did do this, it would lead to either rampant wage inflation across the board until wages got to the point that businesses couldn't afford to raise them anymore, or to every business offering the exact same rate for the same position (even if conditions at those businesses differed).

    If the type of raises you two are arguing over even happen, I'm sure they are in the minority of negotiated raises.

  37. #37
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Rok and Burn, you seem to be under the impression that the negotiated raises are from guys just going up to their boss and saying, "Hey, can I get a raise?" out of the blue, rather than it being things like them looking around for how much they could make elsewhere and bringing it up with their boss.

    In other words, it's not just some random decision to give a person a raise because they asked, it's giving them a raise to keep them from quitting (with all of the costs and issues involved in getting a replacement for them). They're not going to go around and give everyone a raise just because one person realized they might be able to make more elsewhere -- and if bosses regularly did do this, it would lead to either rampant wage inflation across the board until wages got to the point that businesses couldn't afford to raise them anymore, or to every business offering the exact same rate for the same position (even if conditions at those businesses differed).

    If the type of raises you two are arguing over even happen, I'm sure they are in the minority of negotiated raises.
    Oh for goodness sake. How is this so damned hard for you to understand? It is a cultural/system issue. I'll put it simplistically so don't jump on specifics, this is just so you can try to understand rather than giving the "durr, you dumb" response.

    The current system has evolved over many years from a history of #### dominance (insert male/white/christian/muslim/etc to suit situation). Hence, #### have dominated the workplace decision making. This results in the values/traits of #### being valued over those who are not #### for reasons other than benefit to the business/society. This means that when a decision to employ someone or pay someone more is made by a #### their cognitive bias prevents them from a fair assessment of the benefits of employing non-####. This is not specific to men, christians, gay women, or engineers. It is simply the way our minds work. Even for me. If I am presented with 2 candidates who seem similar, the one with the shared values and common background in what I consider important will seem better to me. If I am shy and reserved, a brash pushy guy will seem like a ****. But because shy, reserved people don't get the jobs, because shy, reserved people don't do the employing, because shy, reserved ... etc., then shy reserved people don't do the employing. Replace shy, reserved with black female in the US, or white jew in Islamabad and you might see the point.

    As for your stupid rampant inflation point: No. That is not what would happen or what Burn is saying. Nor I, and only someone so pre-conditioned to a single mindset would even imagine it is. Or someone who has nothing to do with employment. The world is not black and white, and simply taking some of one bias out of one situation would make very little difference except to improve productivity. The current situation does not provide for the best outcome.

    If you want me to put it in terms of your specifics: If someone is talking to their boss about a raise, then the boss looks around to see if someone else can do their job as well, or better, without the extra cost. Hint: it could be that quiet asian guy in the corner. Or that black lesbian muslim girl. If it was a black lesbian doing the choosing, she might get the job. If it was a pushy white guy, guess who he will see? Who currently does most of the deciding? So in this case it would just make the boss more likely to say "OK, off ya go then" rather than "ooh, he's just like me, I better keep him". Exaggeration of course, as that is not the conscious thought process, just the bias.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  38. #38

    Default

    Shy, reserved people don't get things because they don't speak up for what they want--that's kind of the issue of being shy and reserved. Because they don't get what they want it isn't the fault of the employer or the extroverted and driven it's the fault of the one who does not speak up.
    Also: your own article proved women ask for less or don't bother asking at all.

  39. #39
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    Shy, reserved people don't get things because they don't speak up for what they want--that's kind of the issue of being shy and reserved. Because they don't get what they want it isn't the fault of the employer or the extroverted and driven it's the fault of the one who does not speak up.
    Also: your own article proved women ask for less or don't bother asking at all.
    How can you not see the point? Shy reserved people are not making decisions, so shy reserved people don't get things. Asking for what you want, valuing your own abilities and being pushy are the traits that are currently more pronounced in employers and those getting paid more because they are in power! You cannot divorce power structures from outcomes. If a loud, brash, self opinionated white jew wants a pay rise in Islamabad, he will not get it in direct competition with someone more in tune with the ruling power structures. It won't be because he's not just as fabulous an engineer or cook, but because the people employing him don't see his strengths as quite as important as their own. It's not because they are bad or dumb, but because they are human. And just how intractable this cognitive bias is, is being shown very clearly on this thread.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  40. #40

    Default

    We're not in Islamabad. We're in USA and you're making accusations for the women's own folly. Again: your article even stated that women ask for less or don't even bother negotiating. It's not anyone's fault but their own.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •