Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-21-2019, 02:28 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,143
I make a shit ton more money than another guy at the company (I know this because he volunteered it, my jaw dropped but I said nothing). He's another man. We both have the "same job". As far as I can tell, the only difference is I have been in my career for more than a decade and he's only a couple years out of college. I've had the benefit of multiple pay bumps over this time and make 40K more than I made 10 years ago. But we still pretty much do the same thing.

Now, a theoretical (not really because I've seen this happen): My buddy could get pissed off at is lowly wages, go to another company, pick up some new skills and get some major pay bumps. My biggest pay bumps were early on in my career (nearly 100% after the first 2 years). I could lose my job or whatever, then he calls me and says "hey we have a job opening over here."

He's learned all the latest cutting age stuff over the last year, and I'm still doing a bunch of legacy crap I've been doing the last 5 years, so I'm not exactly looked at as a rock star, even though I've forgotten more than he knows. So he could very well make more money than I make now because I'm fledgling on a very specific facet of the job that's all the rave.

"Same pay for same job" is simplistic. Even factoring in experience is a difficult calculus, because you can have experience in different things, with some experience being more valuable than others.

Last edited by Ashtura; 05-21-2019 at 02:30 PM.
  #102  
Old 05-21-2019, 02:32 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sure. But consider the following example:

Bob and Alice both start with Company A at the same time. They each work for 3 years, and every year they both get a 1% raise for being with the company for that year. Now, Alice leaves to have and raise a baby. She's gone for 4 years. In the meantime, Bob has been getting 1% raises every year.

Alice now comes back to work at the same job she had when she left at the salary she had when she left. Bob is still working that same job. At this point, Bob's salary is higher due to the 1% raise he got every year for those 4 years he was working.

Are people saying Alice should get a raise to make her salary the same as Bob's?
If this is because Bob values his career over family and chose not to have a child, then I think that's OK. But if this is because Bob kept working while his wife Jane quit work for 4 years to have and raise their baby, then that I think is a problem. Why didn't Bob take 2 years off to raise the baby so that Jane would only need to take 2 years off? Why does our society expect the woman to do all the work raising the children? Why doesn't our government have laws requiring equal parental leave for both men and women? It's not a problem caused by Company A, but it's still an unfairness that should be addressed.

Last edited by scr4; 05-21-2019 at 02:33 PM.
  #103  
Old 05-21-2019, 02:34 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Is that normal, knowing what your company bills the client for your labor?

I mean, my hours are billed to the US government, but I have no idea what my company is charging them for me. Should I?
I didn't find out until I started getting involved in hiring decisions and proposal writing. It's a small company so that helped as well, most of my team has no clue what their hourly rate is. There's no reason for your company not to tell you how much they're billing the government other than it's in their best interest to keep you in the dark. (Which is why most people on my team don't know, I've been explicitly advised that all of our proposals are confidential and not to tell the team. I think that's BS but I value my job so I've kept mum. I do disclose my own salary to anyone who asks, though, because I think employees should share that information with each other to help even the field.)

Last edited by steronz; 05-21-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #104  
Old 05-21-2019, 02:38 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I didn't find out until I started getting involved in hiring decisions and proposal writing. It's a small company so that helped as well, most of my team has no clue what their hourly rate is. There's no reason for your company not to tell you how much they're billing the government other than it's in their best interest to keep you in the dark. (Which is why most people on my team don't know, I've been explicitly advised that all of our proposals are confidential and not to tell the team. I think that's BS but I value my job so I've kept mum. I do disclose my own salary to anyone who asks, though, because I think employees should share that information with each other to help even the field.)
Cool, thanks for the info! (no sarcasm, really).
  #105  
Old 05-21-2019, 02:54 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post

Those have nothing to do with being paid the same wage for the same job.
But it explains a lot about the gender pay gap. Which, by and large, has little or nothing to do with sexism or discrimination.

Regards,
Shodan
  #106  
Old 05-21-2019, 03:25 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post

Those have nothing to do with being paid the same wage for the same job.
Of course they do. Most of the wage gap is because women choose different jobs. However, even on the same job men and women make different choices. Men work longer hours which means that even in the exact same job at the exact same hourly wage they would make more. Men have a higher workforce participation rate so they are more likely to have more experience and thus be more productive in their jobs and make more. Men are more motivated by money and so would make choices to do dangerous or unpleasant work in the same job and thus make more money.

For instance men Uber drivers make more than women Uber drivers. This despite that the rate is not negotiated and they are paid according to an set algorithm that does not take into account gender. It is because they work more hours, seek out more lucrative routes, and drive faster.

Even in a setting where everything should be equal such as the MBTA, the Boston public trans system, where all people are given the same starting salary, and promotion is due solely to seniority, men make more than women because they voluntarily work more overtime, and take less leave.
  #107  
Old 05-21-2019, 03:28 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Correct. The price point of your labor, anyone's labor, is the point at which how much you think you are worth meets how much they think you are worth.
Or rather, how much they can convince you to accept. I suspect that no company pays their employees what they feel their employees are actually worth to the company, because if they did no company would make a profit because they'd be paying out all the profits to the employees that generated them. (And then they'd promptly go out of business because they'd have no money left for rent, supplies, and other expenses.)

Really, the worth of one's labor (in terms of the value the labor generates) doesn't come into play at any point in this discussion, besides as an absolute cap that the company will refuse to pay above. They will very happily go lower.
  #108  
Old 05-21-2019, 03:32 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"The work you do" is a subset of perceived value, not distinct from it.
...no, its "in addition too." Michelle Williams got paid scale for the work she did. It had nothing to do with her perceived value.

Quote:
An actor who the studio believes will draw more fans has higher perceived value than an actor who will draw fewer, even if it is the same movie.

If they hire the actor and the movie bombs at the box office, perceived demand for the actor is going to go down. OTOH Chadwick Boseman made $700K for his first appearance as the Black Panther, and several times that for his starring role in the movie of the same name and subsequent films (cite).

Regards,
Shodan
This doesn't appear to disagree with anything I've said.
  #109  
Old 05-21-2019, 03:52 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Hold on now -- when it comes to individual employees, I think it is very inaccurate to attribute their salaries to "the economy" determining their worth. In reality, their employer makes decisions based on what they can get away with.
That's fair. My response was addressing a macro point as the original comparison was a type of job compared to another type of job. When it comes down to individuals there is surely variance that will reflect distortions.

I believe in markets, generally. I think most people do too. But when what can be explained by markets appears to not comport with one's view of how the world should be, a lot of times people either forget, or think markets somehow don't apply in that particular situation. Granted, I do believe there are instances where markets don't function that well, but in general the burden rests on those who would make that argument because for the vast majority of other times, markets work on a macro level.


Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Major problem: Your argument is ignoring the concept of underpayment. If everyone were paid their actual worth then the entire profits of the company would be distributed as wages in proportion to the value produced by the person. Outside of self-employed persons and very small partnerships this never happens, because the people in charge like money and if you handed back all the extra money you got by hiring Fred there's no point in hiring Fred. Also, and very importantly, market forces allow wages to be set far below value produced, because if Fred asks for anywhere near what he's worth you can hire the less-demanding Joe (or Josť) instead.
People would not be paid the entire profits of the company if they are paid what they are worth. The evidence is the history of capitalism. If this were so, then those employees would certainly look for other work to maximize their income/utility. That they don't means that the value of their labor on a macro level is what they are paid. We measure what their labor is worth in dollars. Are you suggesting there is some other metric that conveys superior information as to what a person's labor is worth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Really, the worth of one's labor (in terms of the value the labor generates) doesn't come into play at any point in this discussion, besides as an absolute cap that the company will refuse to pay above. They will very happily go lower.
You seem to be ignoring market factors in determining wages. The very best horse and buggy makers started earning a whole lot less after cars became more prevalent - their skills didn't diminish, but the demand certainly did - their labor started to be worth less than it had before.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Hollywood movies stars are not clustered at the "lower end of the economic scale" and women are paid less than men not because they don't perform "equal work" (they often do) : but because of their perceived "value" to a production. When the actors came into reshoot scenes for "All the Money in the world" Michelle Williams (who was top billed) got paid a $1000: her co-star Marc Wahlberg got paid 1.5 millions dollars. And they both had the same agent. So I don't think your premise holds water. But if you'd like to make a case for it feel free to present some evidence.
I'm not sure what you're trying to assert here. Do you think Wahlberg and Williams should have been paid the same amount, or that the delta between them should have been less? What do you base your analysis on?
  #110  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:03 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I accept that idea but I don't see how it applies to Hollywood actresses.
...can you not see how it applied to the example I cited?

Quote:
I do see that you are obsessed with Hollywood actresses being the great victims of this world.
What an utterly ridiculous strawman.

Quote:
Now for your information, the vast majority of actors and actresses get paid scale, exactly the same.
Williams was paid scale. Walhberg was not.

Quote:
As for the rest, I have never heard of studio making two versions of a movie, one with a man in a role and a woman in the same role, releasing both, yet the man was paid more. Equal work means the exact same work, with the exact same standard of productivity.
I've given an example. You continue to ignore it. Williams was top-billed. She got paid 0.07% of what Wahlberg got paid for the reshoots. It doesn't mean " the same role." Here are SAG tables for theatrical performances. Scale isn't dependent on being in the same role, creating the same work with the same standards of productivity.


Quote:
It happens unfortunately, it is tolerated by very few people, and actionable in this country, and it is addressed every day when discovered.
It isn't always "actionable" as the example I posted quite clearly demonstrates. It is tolerated by very many people.

Quote:
At the same time thousands and thousands of women, probably millions, are denied the opportunity to perform the same work as men in order to receive higher pay.
You can address this and address the pay gap at the very same time. It isn't a dichotomy.

Quote:
Too bad they aren't rich Hollywood actresses that you would care about.
Too bad you can't actually refute what I said and have to resort to making this personal.
  #111  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:12 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...can you not see how it applied to the example I cited?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt you do either. Why on earth should two Hollywood stars get paid the same for doing different work? Do you think all actors should get paid the same? Do you have any sort of point that can be demonstrated with people who don't get paid millions of dollars to do very different jobs with no objective means of determining the value of their productivity?
  #112  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:13 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
People would not be paid the entire profits of the company if they are paid what they are worth. The evidence is the history of capitalism. If this were so, then those employees would certainly look for other work to maximize their income/utility. That they don't means that the value of their labor on a macro level is what they are paid. We measure what their labor is worth in dollars. Are you suggesting there is some other metric that conveys superior information as to what a person's labor is worth?
The value of their labor is shown in the value that their labor produces - their output. This could be extremely hard to calculate a dollar value for, but it is *clearly* a better metric than their wage - and it's clearly the metric their employers use. If you have two people making the same wage (perhaps it's a fixed-wage position) and one of them is more productive or does better work, the employers will value that employee more. And no, that doesn't mean the more valuable employee will suddenly have a raise or promotion forced on them in order to show their employer's appreciation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You seem to be ignoring market factors in determining wages. The very best horse and buggy makers started earning a whole lot less after cars became more prevalent - their skills didn't diminish, but the demand certainly did - their labor started to be worth less than it had before.
Bringing in market forces certainly doesn't support the notion that wages indicate worth, by my above definition of worth. Doubling the workforce doesn't make a person less productive, but market forces would suggest that wages should drop all the same.
  #113  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:22 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm not sure what you're trying to assert here. Do you think Wahlberg and Williams should have been paid the same amount, or that the delta between them should have been less? What do you base your analysis on?
...Williams was top-billed. At the very least she should have been paid the same as the man who got last billed. Instead she got paid 0.07% of what he got paid. Do you think that Wahlberg offered 99% more value to society than Williams? What do you base your analysis on?
  #114  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:24 PM
Delayed Reflex is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
But it explains a lot about the gender pay gap. Which, by and large, has little or nothing to do with sexism or discrimination.

Regards,
Shodan
There was a podcast recently which interviewed one of the authors of a recent study on the gender pay gap in several western countries. What you are talking about - working different hours, different job types, etc. does appear to account for ~75% of the unadjusted pay gap - however men are still paid ~4.9% higher for the same work done in the US.

The podcast/study talk about the difference in pay gap by industry, and found that media had the biggest adjusted pay gap of ~6.4%, while the biotech industry had the lowest adjusted pay gap of only 2.2%. The author believed that fields that had higher pay gaps had more of an "old boys club" where connections mattered more than credentials for compensation, while industries with a low pay gap were more merit based. So there is still some good evidence that discrimination still exists, though it is likely a smaller scale than some people might believe.

I encourage everyone to read the study (or at least the summary) as I feel like people are often talking past each other, without being consistent as to whether they are referring to the adjusted pay gap vs. unadjusted.

As for whether society undervalues the types of work that historically are over-represented by women - I think one of the biggest factors is that how valuable (ie. important) the work is is only one piece of the puzzle as to how people are compensated for that work. For example, caring for a child is exceptionally important, but it is not something that requires that specialized of a skillset, so there are a vast number of people who are qualified and willing to do that work, so it doesn't pay that well. If external childcare gets too expensive, people will take it on themselves.
  #115  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:24 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Williams was top-billed. At the very least she should have been paid the same as the man who got last billed. Instead she got paid 0.07% of what he got paid. Do you think that Wahlberg offered 99% more value to society than Williams? What do you base your analysis on?
She agreed to the amount. QED.
  #116  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:27 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
She agreed to the amount. QED.
Are you serious?

Sorry, can't help but read that as a very, very graceless concession.
  #117  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:32 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt you do either.
...I've struggled to parse what you have been talking about. I still don't quite know what you are talking about.


Quote:
Why on earth should two Hollywood stars get paid the same for doing different work?
How different was the work Williams and Walhberg did on the reshoots? Can you be specific? Did Walhberg really do 1.5 million dollars more work than Williams?

Quote:
Do you think all actors should get paid the same? Do you have any sort of point that can be demonstrated with people who don't get paid millions of dollars to do very different jobs with no objective means of determining the value of their productivity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Now for your information, the vast majority of actors and actresses get paid scale, exactly the same.
The "objective" means exist. You've already pointed to it. Actors aren't measured on "productivity." One could potentially sit on their arse most of the day and still end up getting paid scale.
  #118  
Old 05-21-2019, 04:58 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
She agreed to the amount. QED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
We have currency to translate the actual value of that labor into measurable amounts, and if daycare workers are getting paid less than oil laborers, then they are by definition providing less value to society.
...LOL.

I asked for an analysis. Instead you've provided further evidence that not only the gender pay gap exists, but why it continues to exist. And apparently you appear to endorse it.

According to Bone: the value of labor is measurable, and if people are paid less by definition they provide less value to society. Michelle Williams got paid substantially less than Walhberg so by your definition provides substantially less value to society (or, if you would prefer, the economy) than Walhberg. And its her fault she got paid less because she agreed to the amount that was offered to her. Even though the people who were responsible for negotiating on her behalf, her agency, was the same agency that got Walhberg his 1.5 million dollars.

Uh huh.

I think your analysis is flawed.
  #119  
Old 05-21-2019, 05:15 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I think your analysis is flawed.
The analysis is predicated upon the argument that the free market is a flawless (flawless!) value-finding device, and thus wages by definition are the value of the labor. And the free market actually is flawless - but only regarding the buying and selling of spherical cows.
  #120  
Old 05-21-2019, 05:18 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,304
It seems like you're denying, or at least minimizing Williams's individual agency (not her agent, but her sense of agency). It seems paternalistic to suggest that Williams is somehow unable to find employment that reflects the actual value of her work. You express incredulity that Williams chose, of her own free will, to accept work for an amount you think was not sufficient.

I take a different view. One that recognizes Williams as a person that has her own agency, and can make her own choices for what work she is willing to do and at what price. If she were to think that was unfair, then she has an obvious and easy solution - don't agree to do the work.
  #121  
Old 05-21-2019, 05:18 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The analysis is predicated upon the argument that the free market is a flawless (flawless!) value-finding device, and thus wages by definition are the value of the labor. And the free market actually is flawless - but only regarding the buying and selling of spherical cows.
...I just googled spherical cow: I had no idea that they were an actual thing
  #122  
Old 05-21-2019, 05:30 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It seems paternalistic to suggest that Williams is somehow unable to find employment that reflects the actual value of her work.
This sentence is nonsensical - either one is defining "actual value" as "whatever their wage is" and thus it's impossible to find a job that incorrectly values the work, or "actual value" is based on the value of the output and it's pretty much guaranteed that no employer will pay the person the full monies generated by their labor.

There is no definition of "actual value" where this position makes sense. Unless you have a third definition of "actual value" that you think works here?
  #123  
Old 05-21-2019, 05:49 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Williams was top-billed.
Billing is a form of payment. You don't know anything about this subject.
  #124  
Old 05-21-2019, 05:51 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It seems like you're denying, or at least minimizing Williams's individual agency (not her agent, but her sense of agency). It seems paternalistic to suggest that Williams is somehow unable to find employment that reflects the actual value of her work. You express incredulity that Williams chose, of her own free will, to accept work for an amount you think was not sufficient.
...it seems you are denying the actual facts of what actually happened here. You accused me before of being off topic: but making this about "agency" is an attempted distraction not only from the topic of "the gender pay gap" but to distract from the obvious contradictions in your posts.

William Morris Endeavours had agency to negotiate a better deal for their client: they didn't do so. The producers had agency to offer a better deal to Williams: they didn't do so. The decision not to tell Williams what was offered to Walhberg was a decision made by all with agency. A million dollar disparity is not something that happens without a great many people signing off on that decision. All people with agency. They all chose of their own free will to do this. By making this all about Williams agency you deny that anyone else was involved in what happened here.

They all chose to pay Williams substantially less than what Walhberg got paid. The negotiations were done in secret and she never would have found out if the information didn't make its way into the public domain. How are people supposed to "know their value" when there is zero basis for comparison?

Quote:
I take a different view. One that recognizes Williams as a person that has her own agency, and can make her own choices for what work she is willing to do and at what price. If she were to think that was unfair, then she has an obvious and easy solution - don't agree to do the work.
You are free to take a "different view." But your "different view" contradicts what you said at the start of the thread.
  #125  
Old 05-21-2019, 05:52 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Billing is a form of payment. You don't know anything about this subject.
Pretty sure they meant "listed at the top of the poster/playbill/cast list". The term means to be considered by those creating the show to be the most important role in the production.
  #126  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:00 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Billing is a form of payment. You don't know anything about this subject.
...LOL. Williams was top-billed. Walhberg got last billing. I could imagine a scenario where the person who got last billed got paid more than the top billed. But not at the rate that we saw here.
  #127  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:29 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,517
The reason Wahlberg got paid more than Williams is that he had more power in the negotiations than she did. In any negotiation the only real power is the power to walk away. If Walhberg had walked away from the movie he could have made another movie for huge money because he is a big star who gets paid tens of millions of dollars per movie. If Williams had walked away she could have made another movie for a similar amount of money that she got paid for this one. Thus because Walhberg had better alternatives than Williams did, he had more power and his agent was able to negotiate a clause that paid him 1.5 million to do reshoots and her agent was not able to negotiate a similar clause for her contract. Part of market power is the existence of alternatives.
  #128  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:49 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...LOL. Williams was top-billed. Walhberg got last billing. I could imagine a scenario where the person who got last billed got paid more than the top billed. But not at the rate that we saw here.
I'm not going to engage in this distraction anymore. This is not pay disparity at all. There people are contractors. It is clear that one actor has been paid more than the other because they are better at the job of contracting. The gender pay gap is an important issue for people trying to make enough money to live. If Michelle Williams is not getting paid enough then she shouldn't take the part, she doesn't have to, she never has to work again if she doesn't want to.

It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap.
  #129  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:59 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I'm not going to engage in this distraction anymore. This is not pay disparity at all. There people are contractors. It is clear that one actor has been paid more than the other because they are better at the job of contracting. The gender pay gap is an important issue for people trying to make enough money to live. If Michelle Williams is not getting paid enough then she shouldn't take the part, she doesn't have to, she never has to work again if she doesn't want to.

It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap.
No True Scotsman is a fallacy.
  #130  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:59 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The reason Wahlberg got paid more than Williams is that he had more power in the negotiations than she did. In any negotiation the only real power is the power to walk away. If Walhberg had walked away from the movie he could have made another movie for huge money because he is a big star who gets paid tens of millions of dollars per movie. If Williams had walked away she could have made another movie for a similar amount of money that she got paid for this one. Thus because Walhberg had better alternatives than Williams did, he had more power and his agent was able to negotiate a clause that paid him 1.5 million to do reshoots and her agent was not able to negotiate a similar clause for her contract. Part of market power is the existence of alternatives.
...in simpler words: you agree the gender pay gap exists and you heartily endorse the traditional power structures that ensure the gender pay gap endures. Gotcha.
  #131  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:03 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It's a lot better than when I was working in the 70s and got a raise for getting engaged and then another raise when I got married. It worked the opposite way for women.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that your company cut pay for women who got married? (Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. While this didn't happen to her, people of my mother's generation have told stories about women having their paychecks issued in their husbands' names.)
  #132  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:12 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Men are more motivated by money and so would make choices to do dangerous or unpleasant work in the same job and thus make more money.

For instance men Uber drivers make more than women Uber drivers. This despite that the rate is not negotiated and they are paid according to an set algorithm that does not take into account gender. It is because they work more hours, seek out more lucrative routes, and drive faster.
Men are also more likely to drive at times and into places, and take passengers, that a female driver would refuse or be hesitant to do.
  #133  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:13 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
Wait a minute. Are you saying that your company cut pay for women who got married? (Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. While this didn't happen to her, people of my mother's generation have told stories about women having their paychecks issued in their husbands' names.)
Unlikely they cut pay, but might just fire her so they didn't have to wait around for her to get pregnant and leave anyway. Certainly her chance of any advancement was hurt.

Remember the logic, I needed the extra money when I got married because I had a family to take care of and I automatically was more reliable as a result. A woman became a liability because she would just get pregnant and leave anyway.

That kind of crap was real, almost everyone at the top was a man, and the few women up there put their careers at risk if they rocked the boat.
  #134  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...in simpler words: you agree the gender pay gap exists and you heartily endorse the traditional power structures that ensure the gender pay gap endures. Gotcha.
How is this even close to be an example of a gender pay gap? Wahlberg is one of the top stars in Hollywood and will have stronger negotiating power than a lesser star, man or woman.
  #135  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:27 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I'm not going to engage in this distraction anymore.
...LOL.

Quote:
This is not pay disparity at all.
1.5 million dollars is a pretty fucking big disparity to pretend doesn't exist.

Quote:
There people are contractors. It is clear that one actor has been paid more than the other because they are better at the job of contracting.
"The job of contracting." LOL.

Quote:
The gender pay gap is an important issue for people trying to make enough money to live.
The gender pay gap is an important issue for anyone on the wrong side of it.

Quote:
If Michelle Williams is not getting paid enough then she shouldn't take the part, she doesn't have to, she never has to work again if she doesn't want to.
And this here really says it all. Your solution to the pay gap is to tell woman to simply "stop playing the game." Get out of the industry.

You could advocate for more transparency. Because transparency is important. Its why on Williams next film project she got paid exactly the same as her male co-star. Its a very simple thing to do and it fucking works.

But nope. Better she never works again. Because that would be the best outcome.

Quote:
It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap.
LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAUW
Kerri Sleeman didnít expect to collect her final paycheck through bankruptcy court when she took a job as a design supervisor at a Michigan firm. And she certainly didnít expect that her efforts to collect that paycheck would reveal that for years she had made less than men she supervised.

...

Soon after, Sleeman talked to her former supervisor and asked him about the pay disparity. He said that she probably wasnít misled ó salaries likely werenít negotiable when she was hired. But he said that the people she supervised ó lots of young men ó were the sole breadwinners for their wives and children, and that was probably taken into account when their salaries were figured. Sleeman was married at the time but had no children ó and, of course, was a woman. The supervisor was not apologetic, Sleeman said.
https://www.aauw.org/2013/05/09/hear...-pay-inequity/

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
Former BBC Scotland health correspondent Eleanor Bradford
"I was BBC Scotland's health correspondent from 2001 to 2016. I discovered I was one of the lowest paid correspondents at BBC Scotland, despite regularly appearing on UK-wide news and delivering exclusive stories. I regularly asked for a pay rise, and eventually cited equal pay legislation. This led to an immediate increase of £5,000 but it was not backdated. I remained around £10,000 below some male colleagues who were doing identical correspondent jobs. In one of my annual appraisals I was told I was a 'model correspondent'. I left the BBC."

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42872377

That's two cases.
  #136  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:33 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How is this even close to be an example of a gender pay gap? Wahlberg is one of the top stars in Hollywood and will have stronger negotiating power than a lesser star, man or woman.
This. I'm pretty sure the star power of the actors involved determined what they got paid.
  #137  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:36 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Why should someone starting 5 years after you only get the salary you started with 5 years ago? They are doing the same job you are doing. They should get the same pay.

Do you believe that you are getting paid above market for your role? Could you go somewhere else and get a job with similar pay?
I'm confused. Surely manson1972 has five years more experience than the new hire and can presumably solve problems that the new hire cannot solve and/or do things more efficiently, even if they both have the same job title.

It seems that manson1972, all other things being equal, would be a more desirable employee and should receive higher pay.
  #138  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:46 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
What country do you live in?

Where is the 50th percentile considered mediocre?

If you haven't looked lately the job market in the US is tight.
Not crappy, not great. The very definition of mediocre. I did work for a big company with this policy. Candidates turned us down left and right.

Tight job markets mean that starting salaries can get higher than salaries for people with tenure. That's a different situation, and why in my example I assumed starting salaries only rose with inflation.
What happens then - and I've had this situation a lot - is that those with high starting salaries get low or no raises to let those with more years catch up.
Tight job markets may or may not cause companies to give big raises. I've seen a lot of expectation of inertia, along with an expectation of turnover. Stupid on the part of management, but hardly surprising.
  #139  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:58 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post

The "objective" means exist. You've already pointed to it. Actors aren't measured on "productivity." One could potentially sit on their arse most of the day and still end up getting paid scale.
Most actors do sit on their ass all day and collect scale. The principals might work more, but they don't get scale.
  #140  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:02 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How is this even close to be an example of a gender pay gap? Wahlberg is one of the top stars in Hollywood and will have stronger negotiating power than a lesser star, man or woman.
...it fits exactly the same pattern as the other two cases I cited. Williams wasn't just paid less than Wahlberg: she was paid the scale rate. That shows this isn't about negotiating power: Williams agents didn't actually negotiate even after they secured 1.5 million for their other client. Its why transparency is important. Its why the problem is structural and baked into the system.
  #141  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:02 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...no, its "in addition too." Michelle Williams got paid scale for the work she did. It had nothing to do with her perceived value.
It appears that she and everyone else was told that no one except the crew was going to get paid for the reshoot. Ridley Scott didn't get paid. It was almost a charity thing. Wahlberg and his agent were assholes, demanding more money and no doubt holding the reshoot hostage. The problem was that no one got told that he was not agreeing to do it for nothing.

This one is not a good example. There are plenty of good examples, though.
  #142  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:11 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The gender pay gap does not exist. The reason women collectively make less money than men are because they have different priorities and make decisions that reflect those priorities. Men work more dangerous and more unpleasant jobs, men work longer hours, and men stay in the workforce longer. Thus men make more money than women.

The first equal pay act was passed in 1963. Since then very few elections go by without somebody promising to pass a new one if elected. Maybe one day people will get wise to this racket but I am not holding my breath.
If there was no gap, then no one would have any problem with the laws being proposed. They would be willing to report and prove that there was no gender gap.

It's like BLM. If cops didn't think there was bias against black people in policing, there would be not reason to not be working with them to prove it. Instead, they vilify them.
  #143  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:18 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
This one is not a good example. There are plenty of good examples, though.
...I was waiting for someone to point this out.

Here's the thing though. People deny the gender pay gap exist. And they go to extraordinarily extreme lengths in order to argue that the gap doesn't exist. And in this thread: rather than actually reading my cite and coming to the same determination that you did, people didn't read my cite and instead argued "the gap actually exists and that its a good thing and if you don't like it you should women should leave the industry."

I've cited a couple of what you may consider "better" examples. But this particular example did its job.
  #144  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:24 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...it fits exactly the same pattern as the other two cases I cited. Williams wasn't just paid less than Wahlberg: she was paid the scale rate. That shows this isn't about negotiating power: Williams agents didn't actually negotiate even after they secured 1.5 million for their other client. Its why transparency is important. Its why the problem is structural and baked into the system.
How do you know they didn't try to negotiate and they were told "Nope. Scale and that's it!"
  #145  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:26 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post

I've cited a couple of what you may consider "better" examples. But this particular example did its job.
You have yet to cite a single example.
  #146  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:28 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
How do you know they didn't try to negotiate and they were told "Nope. Scale and that's it!"
...we actually know they didn't negotiate. This actually isn't disputed by anyone.
  #147  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:34 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...we actually know they didn't negotiate. This actually isn't disputed by anyone.
I didn't say it was disputed. I asked how do you know it?
  #148  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:41 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I didn't say it was disputed. I asked how do you know it?
...because I've read several stories about this, cited them in this thread, and they explain what happened? How did you not know this?
  #149  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:52 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It seems like you're denying, or at least minimizing Williams's individual agency (not her agent, but her sense of agency). It seems paternalistic to suggest that Williams is somehow unable to find employment that reflects the actual value of her work. You express incredulity that Williams chose, of her own free will, to accept work for an amount you think was not sufficient.

I take a different view. One that recognizes Williams as a person that has her own agency, and can make her own choices for what work she is willing to do and at what price. If she were to think that was unfair, then she has an obvious and easy solution - don't agree to do the work.
And this seems to me like a strawman. Your first paragraph does not seem to contain any statements made in this thread, but merely assumptions. Then your second paragraph knocks down those assumptions that were never said.

The issue with Williams is that SHE was upset at the disparity because she believed the situation was misrepresented to her. She was told everyone was doing it for scale, and so she chose to do so as well. But it turns out, one of the people involved (the male principle actor and thus equal to her in all but gender) was not doing it for scale. ]

So none of this is about what Banquet Bear thinks she should have been paid. It's about Williams herself thinking they lied to her, and thus she did not in fact enter into the contract of her own free will What she did agree to of her own free will was not actually what happened.

So, rather than defend her personal autonomy, you are (possibly accidentally) removing her autonomy by ignoring her statements on the matter.

That said, I do agree it is a poor example, due to additional complicating factors that make it more difficult to tell if gender discrimination was a factor. Sure, Wahlberg says he didn't know it was supposed to be for scale, which would imply that the company didn't tell him that. And you could argue that, since she and he are both leads, they both should have been told equally.

But it's difficult to prove those assumptions. He could have been told but didn't listen. His agent could have been told but didn't pass it on to him, and was just more aggressive. (Just because the agents work at the same company doesn't mean they have the same negotiation style.) Or they didn't mention everyone was doing it for scale for reasons other than discrimination.

Do I suspect discrimination may have played a factor? Yes. But it's not clear cut. And at least Wahlberg donated what he got to charity to make up for it. And then Williams was paid the same as her male costars in her next role.

So she got exactly what she wanted. Sure seems she negotiated quite well, if you ask me.

Last edited by BigT; 05-21-2019 at 08:53 PM.
  #150  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:58 PM
elfkin477 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 22,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
. Should we focus on getting women to demand more money? Make them suck it up and walk into their manager's office asking for a salary sufficient to buy a house and raise a family, like men have to do? Or is there some broader change that needs to happen, like making salaries public and ensuring some equality regardless of negotiating ability?
Women ask for raises as often as men but get them less often

For women, asking for a raise is damned if you do or donít
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017