EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 310
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On July 16 2015 03:13 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: If anyone knows, in the Brood War Zerg campaign where you get all your infested CC's carried over into the next mission, did they actually have separate scenarios with each one having a different amount of CC's, or did they do some magic to get the right amount added in at the start? I'm pretty sure they magically gave you the correct number of CCs. IIRC, if you completed the mission and then went back to play it again, you'd get none the second time. | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On July 16 2015 03:18 whatisthisasheep wrote: If a man goes through gender reassignment surgery to become a female, can their employer now pay them less for doing the same job they had because now they are considered female? No, because (at least in the US) paying someone less (or more) based on gender has been illegal since 1963. On July 16 2015 03:18 The_Templar wrote: I'm pretty sure they magically gave you the correct number of CCs. IIRC, if you completed the mission and then went back to play it again, you'd get none the second time. Well it would make sense to only have the worst start from the beginning and hide the other 5 (otherwise you'd have like mission 4a/4b/4c/etc. options). I forget if it actually shows the bonus mission, but if it does, it doesn't work on mine either so I have to load up the previous mission just before my units break through with more than 5 minutes to spare. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
On July 16 2015 03:18 whatisthisasheep wrote: If a man goes through gender reassignment surgery to become a female, can their employer now pay them less for doing the same job they had because now they are considered female? The paygap is a myth... | ||
|
Coppermantis
United States845 Posts
Well, that's true to some extent. As far as I know, it isn't so much that women get paid less than men for doing the same jobs, but that women on average work lower-earning jobs and have a more difficult time getting promoted. Thus, the average income for a woman is less than that of a man. As Sentinel said, it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, although there are probably some cases of that happening regardless. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
On July 16 2015 08:45 Coppermantis wrote: Well, that's true to some extent. As far as I know, it isn't so much that women get paid less than men for doing the same jobs, but that women on average work lower-earning jobs and have a more difficult time getting promoted. Thus, the average income for a woman is less than that of a man. As Sentinel said, it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, although there are probably some cases of that happening regardless. It is less because of hours. The average woman in US gets 77 cents for a man's dollar. The average woman works 77hr for the man 100. Man and woman get the same shit. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On July 16 2015 08:45 Coppermantis wrote: Well, that's true to some extent. As far as I know, it isn't so much that women get paid less than men for doing the same jobs, but that women on average work lower-earning jobs and have a more difficult time getting promoted. Thus, the average income for a woman is less than that of a man. As Sentinel said, it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, although there are probably some cases of that happening regardless. This is a general overview on the explanation behind the pay gap and how, if you're unmarried, it's actually reversed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/ By the same logic, young men are discriminated against in favor of young women. Women in their 20s without children out-earn men by as much as $1.08 to every dollar, according to some estimates. It must also be true that white men are discriminated against in favor of Asian-American men, who earn over 5 percent more than white men. To claim either of these as discrimination would be ridiculous, though, right? There are differences in job types, education levels, hours worked, and other factors that lead to these wage differentials. But these factors are just as responsible for the overall difference in wages between men and women. Once you control for factors such as college major, time off of the labor force to raise children, and hours worked per week, the gender wage gap essentially disappears. A big part of the difference in pay is due to the choice of jobs: women choose to enter career fields that pay less than those that men choose. Women are still more likely to be Kindergarten teachers while men are more likely to work in finance. In short, firms aren’t discriminating against women. The reality remains that women, on average, do earn less than men. But to blame it on discrimination is misguided. Solutions to the gender wage gap aren’t simple. Taking time off from a job, or working fewer hours, will reduce one’s earning potential, but many people (rightly) relish the opportunity to take time off to raise children. There are no easy policy recommendations to deal with the loss of earning power for those who take time off to raise children. But there is one thing we can do that would decrease the gender wage gap with no negative consequences: ensure that women are encouraged to pursue work in high-paying industries. But Coppermantis is right, there's always subjectivity on the part of the employer, although they'd have to be extra careful to cover their steps in the process, not have the EEOC involved, give sufficient reasons for staying... if I was going through all that trouble to save money, I'd just give pay cuts across the board, no reason to just stop at the women. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
The wage gap is a thing of the past now where I live, and I think in most places in Europe as well. | ||
|
whatisthisasheep
624 Posts
On July 16 2015 14:07 FiWiFaKi wrote: In Canada, the salaries of men and women are almost identical for the same work. The wage gap is roughly 20%, and it's estimated that only 10% of this comes from discrimination. Which means that on average, in the same field, women would be paid only 2% less than men. The wage gap is a thing of the past now where I live, and I think in most places in Europe as well. But men die 7-10 years earlier than women, so men should be getting paid more to compensate for that. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
And honestly, it does bring up and argument, though it's a difficult one to go about. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On July 16 2015 14:42 whatisthisasheep wrote: But men die 7-10 years earlier than women, so men should be getting paid more to compensate for that. No, because your data is based on people who already died, thus who for most of them spent most of their lives living in a society where women either didn't work at all or very little and men were doing for most of them manual, physical work (factory workers) rather than works in the tertiary sector like nowadays. Thus it is a false argument, as we don't know what the effects of the current tries at gender equality on life expectancy will be. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On July 16 2015 15:28 OtherWorld wrote: No, because your data is based on people who already died, thus who for most of them spent most of their lives living in a society where women either didn't work at all or very little and men were doing for most of them manual, physical work (factory workers) rather than works in the tertiary sector like nowadays. Thus it is a false argument, as we don't know what the effects of the current tries at gender equality on life expectancy will be. Healthy women will live longer than healthy men. edit: Also why all of the oldest people ever are women. This isn't an argument that has any room for debate. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On July 16 2015 15:44 FiWiFaKi wrote: Healthy women will live longer than healthy men. edit: Also why all of the oldest people ever are women. This isn't an argument that has any room for debate. And? Can you predict how that gap will evolve in time [hint : it is currently narrowing ] with enough precision to justify that men should be payed more than women for a similar job, because of life expectancy difference? I'm not denying that it is very likely that healthy women (although how you define "healthy" would interest me) will live longer than healthy men, but I wouldn't be surprised if by the time I'm old enough to see my grandchildren, the gap in life expectancy between men and women would be close to, or even under, 1 year only. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11913 Posts
Why should someone be paid more if they are going to die earlier? So everyone has a similar amount of lifetime money? I'd say money/year is a much more sensible metric, since you also need time to spend the money. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On July 16 2015 18:21 Faust852 wrote: Anyway the argument that women are paid less for the same work is stupid because if it were to be true, corporate would only recrute women to the point men's wage would balance out. And I don't see a women-only job market. Yes, that is one argument in economics. If everyone is hiring men, and women are cheaper... Then people will want to maximize profit, and hire women, thus make more profit. If the market is perfectly competitive, they can undercut the competitors, and thus drive the other companies out of business. However there are many forms of discrimination... A certain occupation might be less accessible to women, so a fewer higher quality hires exist. People might have a belief that men are smarter, more productive, etc, and thus would rather hire men. If the market is a monopoly or oligopoly, there will be profits either way. Anyway, I guess all I'm trying to get at, is that small forms of discrimination are able to exist, though in western countries, they are quite small. There are other complains, like women aren't in as many higher-up positions. A lot of that is due to biology, men are naturally more competitive than women. In society, men care more about looks, women care more about status (biology and evolution), and those forms of things can lead men to focus on careers more. Women are more risk-averse than men, so they might not push for that promotion, women are more emotional. None of this is bad, it's just we do have our differences, and need to accept that. Btw, took a course in behavioral and experimental economics, and these trends were found through experiments - I'm not just talking through my ass. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On July 16 2015 19:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: There are other complains, like women aren't in as many higher-up positions. A lot of that is due to biology, men are naturally more competitive than women. In society, men care more about looks, women care more about status (biology and evolution), and those forms of things can lead men to focus on careers more. Women are more risk-averse than men, so they might not push for that promotion, women are more emotional. None of this is bad, it's just we do have our differences, and need to accept that. Btw, took a course in behavioral and experimental economics, and these trends were found through experiments - I'm not just talking through my ass. Well you see, even though this was found through experiments, this is typically the type of thinking that is a basis for discrimination. What these experiments said (most likely) is that most women were less career-focused and more risk-averse than most men. Now what are you doing (and what are plenty of people doing)? You're deleting the most part, probably without thinking it's that bad, but sadly it's the most important part. And then people in charge of hiring people start to think that all women are less competitive than all men, and that's when issues begin. Generalizing is almost never a good way of thinking things and only leads to bad results ; one must be very, very careful when generalizing. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On July 16 2015 19:44 OtherWorld wrote: Well you see, even though this was found through experiments, this is typically the type of thinking that is a basis for discrimination. What these experiments said (most likely) is that most women were less career-focused and more risk-averse than most men. Now what are you doing (and what are plenty of people doing)? You're deleting the most part, probably without thinking it's that bad, but sadly it's the most important part. And then people in charge of hiring people start to think that all women are less competitive than all men, and that's when issues begin. Generalizing is almost never a good way of thinking things and only leads to bad results ; one must be very, very careful when generalizing. I meant "on average" for all of these things. Statistically, a man will have more competitive behavior than a woman. So when you take a resume, and then you interview a person, you want to learn as much as you can about them... But sometimes, you can't obtain all information, and thus you sometimes stereotype to put statistics on your side. Yes, you shouldn't do so, but an average person might without realizing it. If you have no information about someone, you will choose the thing that's more statistically favorable. Just like when you're on a bus, and you see some big scary tattooed guy, versus a little guy listening to music, you're more likely to sit next to them, based on stereotyping. You could also ask both of them how much they mind if you sit next to them, and make your decision that way, but most people wouldn't. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
| ||
