Post a response:
|
... for equal output, then why would they employ men at all? You think businessmen would take a hit to profits just to support male supremacy and/or paternalism? I think any CEO of a firm doing so would be voted out, like right now! The business of business is to make money, generally speaking. I'm NOT saying that women DON'T earn less. They do! Women want to go home when their shift is over. Men will work overtime--and even weekends--for free, just to get the work done! Women get paid less because they are worth less. And as for men, vice versa. Businesses need continuity. Men become managers, and don't then drop out for a few years, or forever, to have kids, as women very often do. That makes men worth more to the company! Because the men PRODUCE more. Men can, on average, be relied on to be there and get the job done. Women can't. It's simple economics. All this is off the top of my head, no AI involved! After typing this I checked Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States ... and there's a lot of waffling going on in the article. The women editors/contributors will never admit the truth: women are not willing to work as hard as men work in managerial roles. So, there are fewer female managers, and their salaries are lower because, on average, they won't be as productive as men! Of course, at lower levels, output will tend to be the same for both women and men. In those jobs women's salaries are generally equal to men. Of course, for a few days each month a women's productivity tends to fall off. Curious, that! If a woman provided the same economic benefits to a company as a man, who was paid 15 or 20 percent more, the men would all be replaced by women! Or not? M. Things are often more complicated than they appear on the surface. That's where education (and intelligence) come into play... ;-) [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst] |