3
0

If women are paid less for equal work...


 invite response                
2016 Feb 9, 8:06pm   4,217 views  6 comments

by resistance   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

then why don't corporations just always hire women for every job and save a bundle? Corporations care only about profits, so the rational thing would be for them all to hire only women and save all that money for the same quality of work.

Ah, you might say that male managers within the company favor men and tend to hire them, and that's the problem.

But women managers are also more likely to hire men, and the great hidden secret is that it is because they do not like competition from other women for male attention - especially not from beautiful women. HR women in particular tend to squash resumes from young attractive women, so the managers often never even see them.

http://www.livescience.com/9038-attractive-women-hired.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/04/04/girl-on-girl-crime-too-pretty-costs-you-the-job/
http://www.economist.com/node/21551535

#sexism #hiring #reality

Comments 1 - 6 of 6        Search these comments

1   justme   2016 Feb 9, 10:08pm  

Theorem: Every bad act women accuse men of doing in the workplace (and otherwise, for that sake), they are actually doing to a much greater degree themselves.

Case in point: Discriminating against female applicants. For women, the workplace is a place to evaluate the mate potential of men, and to compete for the "best" one. No wonder that for a long time the most popular job for women was to be a secretary or a receptionist. This had the combined advantage both of being close to a higher-status male and also being in a position to display themselves to "important" visitors as well as evaluating the potential of same visitors. And to get back to the original point: The women in these positions do not like other female competition.

Addendum: Intrasexual competition for men is also the reason why women traditionally have gravitated towards the accounting department. What better place to see where and how the money is flowing. Especially if you get to do the payroll or handle the stock options or stock awards.

2   Dan8267   2016 Feb 9, 11:13pm  


If women are paid less for equal work...

In a capitalist economy, people aren't paid based on what they produce, i.e. their work. They are paid based on how little the company can get away with paying the employee without losing him or her, unless of course, they can find someone cheaper.

The very concept of "equal pay for equal work" is predicated on the premise that pay is based on productivity, not bargaining power. This premise cannot ever be fulfilled in a capitalist economy because, by definition, a capitalist system is one in which private owners control both the means of production and the distribution of the profit created by production, and private owners will always have the financial self-interest to exploit the workers by distributing as little of the worker's profit creation to them. This is because if one person gets to cut the pie and distribute the slices, that person will always give himself as much of the pie as possible while avoiding open revolt.

The only way possible to provide equal pay for equal work is to base the share of profit on productivity, and the only way to do that is to take away the power to distribute resources, to cut the pie, from owners. And that, by definition, is abandoning capitalism.

Of course, capitalism has nothing to do with free markets, commerce, or trade. All economic systems perform commerce and trade, and all economic systems create markets. Capitalism, contrary to popular belief, is actually very anti-free market. Capitalists use the term "free market" as code for letting a few powerful players do whatever they want, but the term "free" in "free market" describes the market, not the players. A market is free only if it is free from manipulation by all players, both government and private. So capitalism actually prevents free markets. One need only look at health care in the United States, or the automobile industry, or the recording labels, or Microsoft for an example.

If anyone wants actual free markets, we must replace capitalism with something else. If any woman wants equal pay for equal work, we must replace capitalism with something else. If anyone wants all people to be productive members of society, i.e. everyone works and produces instead of being on welfare, we must replace capitalism with something else. If anyone wants our economy to be as efficient as possible, we must replace capitalism with something else. If anyone wants our economy to be constantly productive and growing rather than going through booms and busts, we must replace capitalism with something else.

So then, giving all these problems, why don't we even discuss making changes to our economic system anywhere in public, on the news, or in universities? Because the current system keeps a few parasites well fed and not having to do any real work, and those parasites own the government, the courts, and the press, and those parasites write the laws and hand them to senators. Capitalism is also incompatible with democracy and republics.

But try holding a rational conversation about economic principles in our country where capitalism is as much of a religion as communism was in the Soviet Union.

3   Reality   2016 Feb 10, 3:10am  

Dan8267 says

unless of course, they can find someone cheaper.

Exactly, and that's exactly Patrick's point too: if women were indeed paid less than men for doing the same work, employers would replace male employees with female workers en mass.

Incidentally, shopping for less expensive alternative is what everyone does most of the time, including you, Dan. Capitalistic Free Market is the recognition of this red pill reality. Socialism is blue pill endoctrination for the masses while inevitably allowing a few socialpaths rise to the top through government coercion. There were plenty bleeding heart liberals among Russians who participated in the overthrow of the Czarist regime, but once state coercion was expanded, they all became hapless victims of the Bolsheviks, even the more intellectual Bolsheviks became purge victims of Stalin and his secret police. Only the scums rise to the top in socialism / state-slavery / bureaucratic societies.

4   mmmarvel   2016 Feb 10, 5:35am  


HR women in particular tend to squash resumes from young attractive women, so the managers often never even see them.

Not always the case. There was a sporting goods store (sort of a local chain) that ALWAYS had the hottest women working for them. I mean the 'I-don't-need-anything-but-think-I'll-stop-in-and-look-around' type of eye candy. There wasn't a cow to be seen (although I'm sure the cows had a terrific personality). That was many years ago and the chain has been bought and sold several times ... but yeah, there were those stores (sigh).

5   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2016 Feb 10, 6:49am  

Much like the current narrative of "white privellege", it's simply a way to garner votes.

Really it's utterly meaningless. Women in equivalent work already make the same as men.

6   Dan8267   2016 Feb 10, 7:54am  

Reality says

Exactly, and that's exactly Patrick's point too

I realize this. Nothing in the post I made contradicts what Patrick says. In fact, Patrick's conclusion logically follows from the reason in my post.

Reality says

Capitalistic Free Market is the recognition of this red pill reality.

That is not a support of capitalism, the free market, or the fantasy of a free market within a modern capitalist society. There are no free markets in our economy, and the bigger the market in terms of yearly revenue, the less free it is in our economy. Markets dominated by oligopolies are not free. So the automobile, cell phone, computer, and even food industries are not free markets.

Reality says

Socialism is blue pill endoctrination

Socialism is not an economic system. It is a tactic, and one that is utterly impossible to avoid in any society. The U.S. military is the largest socialist program in all of human history. If you want to reduce socialism in the United States, start by cutting the "defense" spending by 90% or more. That would get rid of 40% of socialist spending in the federal budget.

Furthermore, socialism has absolutely nothing to do with my post. There are literally an infinite number of possible economic systems. In all of history, people have only tried, and named, three: capitalism, feudalism, and communism. If those are the only economic systems you can imagine, then that's the problem. All three of these economic systems are essentially identical, especially capitalism and communism. Taken to their ideological purest forms, the only difference between capitalism and communism is nomenclature, whether you call the owner class "government" or "private enterprise".

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions