The equal pay for women debate is Washington BS!

[Faun]

There is still a gap...

Women Can't Get Equal Pay in Finance No Matter What They Do

Women have yet to close the wage gap, even when they have similar jobs to their male counterparts. That's especially true on Wall Street. Last year, women who graduated from business school and took jobs in financial services earned an average of $21,872 less than male MBAs, according to data collected by Bloomberg Business. Drilling down into the numbers shows part of that discrepancy is explained by differences in the type of finance companies that hired women, but a gap persisted even when women worked in similar sub-sectors of finance as men.​

MBA"s are a poor qualitative comparison because the MBA is usually gotten by people of varying previous experience and backgrounds. So even if people graduated the same year with an MBA, they may get paid very differently based on their initial degree, and work experience prior to getting an MBA.

What evidence do you have that men acquiring MBA's have more work experience than women ... ?

What evidence is there that this is not a contributing factor? I'm not the one who did the study, I'm just pointing out another unknown that could invalidate the results.

Without facts to back your assertions, you're fling shit, hoping it will stick.

The people who believe in these studies should be able to answer these questions, you know, to defend the point they are trying to make.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in what the study says.

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

 

[martybegan]

MBA"s are a poor qualitative comparison because the MBA is usually gotten by people of varying previous experience and backgrounds. So even if people graduated the same year with an MBA, they may get paid very differently based on their initial degree, and work experience prior to getting an MBA.

What evidence do you have that men acquiring MBA's have more work experience than women ... ?

What evidence is there that this is not a contributing factor? I'm not the one who did the study, I'm just pointing out another unknown that could invalidate the results.

Without facts to back your assertions, you're fling shit, hoping it will stick.

The people who believe in these studies should be able to answer these questions, you know, to defend the point they are trying to make.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in what the study says.

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

if that's the convoluted logic you are going to apply to others and not to yourself, I suggest you stop posting on message boards, and also go fuck yourself with a rusty tire iron.

 

[hadit]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

It's been federal law for some time now that women can't be paid less just because they're women. Since 1963, in fact.

 

[hadit]

How about equal education, equal time at that company, etc. There's just to many factors to consider before you condemn men.

This debate is a huge fucking power grab.

It's also a moot point, since it's been against the law to pay women less since 1963. Passing more laws is going to do exactly what?

 

[The Rabbi]

How about equal education, equal time at that company, etc. There's just to many factors to consider before you condemn men.

This debate is a huge fucking power grab.

It's also a moot point, since it's been against the law to pay women less since 1963. Passing more laws is going to do exactly what?

Create income for lawyers.

 

[martybegan]

How about equal education, equal time at that company, etc. There's just to many factors to consider before you condemn men.

This debate is a huge fucking power grab.

It's also a moot point, since it's been against the law to pay women less since 1963. Passing more laws is going to do exactly what?

Create income for lawyers.

Pretty much this. It opens the door for companies to be sued more easily on more flimsy proof of wage differences.

 

[SwimExpert]

MBA"s are a poor qualitative comparison because the MBA is usually gotten by people of varying previous experience and backgrounds. So even if people graduated the same year with an MBA, they may get paid very differently based on their initial degree, and work experience prior to getting an MBA.

What evidence do you have that men acquiring MBA's have more work experience than women ... ?

What evidence is there that this is not a contributing factor? I'm not the one who did the study, I'm just pointing out another unknown that could invalidate the results.

Without facts to back your assertions, you're fling shit, hoping it will stick.

The people who believe in these studies should be able to answer these questions, you know, to defend the point they are trying to make.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in what the study says.

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's also a moot point, since it's been against the law to pay women less since 1963. Passing more laws is going to do exactly what?

It'll keep guns out of the hands of criminals and get the drugs off our streets. Oh wait....

 

[martybegan]

What evidence do you have that men acquiring MBA's have more work experience than women ... ?

What evidence is there that this is not a contributing factor? I'm not the one who did the study, I'm just pointing out another unknown that could invalidate the results.

Without facts to back your assertions, you're fling shit, hoping it will stick.

The people who believe in these studies should be able to answer these questions, you know, to defend the point they are trying to make.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in what the study says.

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

Thank you for replying in a more eloquent and less assholish way than I did. I have a headache and it makes me cranky.

 

[Faun]

What evidence do you have that men acquiring MBA's have more work experience than women ... ?

What evidence is there that this is not a contributing factor? I'm not the one who did the study, I'm just pointing out another unknown that could invalidate the results.

Without facts to back your assertions, you're fling shit, hoping it will stick.

The people who believe in these studies should be able to answer these questions, you know, to defend the point they are trying to make.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in what the study says.

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

 

[martybegan]

What evidence is there that this is not a contributing factor? I'm not the one who did the study, I'm just pointing out another unknown that could invalidate the results.

Without facts to back your assertions, you're fling shit, hoping it will stick.

The people who believe in these studies should be able to answer these questions, you know, to defend the point they are trying to make.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in what the study says.

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

 

[Faun]

Without facts to back your assertions, you're fling shit, hoping it will stick.

The people who believe in these studies should be able to answer these questions, you know, to defend the point they are trying to make.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in what the study says.

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

You idiotically assume acquiring an MBA was the sole category for that study. It wasn't. Respondents were further categorized by the type of company they were working for as well as sub-sectors of finance in financial services so that the study could make as relevant comparisons as possible.

And whereas my "ass-plucking" produced a Bloomberg study, yours produced nothing but hot stinky air. Essentially, you farted.

 

[martybegan]

The people who believe in these studies should be able to answer these questions, you know, to defend the point they are trying to make.

The burden of proof is on the people who believe in what the study says.

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

You idiotically assume acquiring an MBA was the sole category for that study. It wasn't. Respondents were further categorized by the type of company they were working for as well as sub-sectors of finance in financial services.

Whereas my "ass-plucking" produced a Bloomberg study, yours produced nothing but air. Essentially, you farted.

I notice you aren't mentioning experience in that list.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

You idiotically assume acquiring an MBA was the sole category for that study. It wasn't. Respondents were further categorized by the type of company they were working for as well as sub-sectors of finance in financial services.

Whereas my "ass-plucking" produced a Bloomberg study, yours produced nothing but air. Essentially, you farted.

I notice you aren't mentioning experience in that list.

The whole idea that an MBA is a proxy for inequality is so flawed only an idiot would have come up with it.

 

[Faun]

There is no burden of proof to refute made up comments that you yourself can't prove. That you can't prove your comment renders it self-refuted.

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

You idiotically assume acquiring an MBA was the sole category for that study. It wasn't. Respondents were further categorized by the type of company they were working for as well as sub-sectors of finance in financial services.

Whereas my "ass-plucking" produced a Bloomberg study, yours produced nothing but air. Essentially, you farted.

I notice you aren't mentioning experience in that list.

I don't have to ... the study addresses that. What a pity you're too mentally lazy to keep up, huh?

 

[Faun]

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

You idiotically assume acquiring an MBA was the sole category for that study. It wasn't. Respondents were further categorized by the type of company they were working for as well as sub-sectors of finance in financial services.

Whereas my "ass-plucking" produced a Bloomberg study, yours produced nothing but air. Essentially, you farted.

I notice you aren't mentioning experience in that list.

The whole idea that an MBA is a proxy for inequality is so flawed only an idiot would have come up with it.

Great, another mental midget who thinks that's what the study was about.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, the burden is on you. You have posited MBAs as a meaningful metric. This will require substantiation. Real world experience will tell most rational people that yes, there is substantial variety in industry, experience, and additional education by people who obtain MBAs. There is no need for a detractor to present evidence that there is variation in experience levels between men and women obtaining MBAs because the fact remains that there are many factors of variation. Thus, the income of a newly minted MBA is a reflection of so many factors that it cannot be reasonably attributed as a meaningful metric to gauge any alleged gender discrimination. We know that many industries attract significantly more members of one or the other gender. Since the industry of the MBA holder can significantly affect income, this could very easily be the cause of what you are alleging is due to gender.

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

You idiotically assume acquiring an MBA was the sole category for that study. It wasn't. Respondents were further categorized by the type of company they were working for as well as sub-sectors of finance in financial services.

Whereas my "ass-plucking" produced a Bloomberg study, yours produced nothing but air. Essentially, you farted.

I notice you aren't mentioning experience in that list.

I don't have to ... the study addresses that. What a pity you're too mentally lazy to keep up, huh?

What about this part?

The growing pay disparity may be partly explained by shifts in the career choices women MBAs are making today, compared to those they made a decade ago, according to a Bloomberg Businessweek analysis of 114 MBA programs surveyed in 2012 and 88 in 2002. One such shift involves finance jobs. Fewer MBA graduates of either gender are pursuing finance careers this year, when pay cuts and headcount reductions have made Wall Street jobs less attractive to some. But women have fled finance in substantially larger numbers, driving down average female salaries.

At Elite B-Schools the Gender Wage Gap Grows - Businessweek

 

[The Rabbi]

An MBA is merely a qualifier in the study in order to establish a common baseline between a group of men and women, along with other criteria such as by industry so that the study can compare apples with apples as best as possible. The unsubstantiated suggestion plucked from marty's ass that men in that category have more work experience need not be disproven since he failed to prove it to begin with. While I'm all ears to anyone with actual rebuttal based on verifiable data, I shrug off made up self-analyzed objections by those who are simply not satisfied with the study's findings. I see no evidence that men in that sample group possess any more work experience than women, especially since women in that age range (25-34) have a lower unemployment rate over the last decade or so than men.

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

You idiotically assume acquiring an MBA was the sole category for that study. It wasn't. Respondents were further categorized by the type of company they were working for as well as sub-sectors of finance in financial services.

Whereas my "ass-plucking" produced a Bloomberg study, yours produced nothing but air. Essentially, you farted.

I notice you aren't mentioning experience in that list.

The whole idea that an MBA is a proxy for inequality is so flawed only an idiot would have come up with it.

Great, another mental midget who thinks that's what the study was about.

You're a dolt. If there is a wage gap, it is that women make more than men.

 

[Faun]

Just the possibility of disparate work experience and backgrounds, and actual jobs makes it a poor comparison. Men in the catagory having more work experience is only ONE of the variables that makes the use of it as a gateway useless.

Engineers can get MBA's, Accountants can get MBA's, Marketing Majors can MBA's, even people with communication degrees and enough work experience.

The very underpinning of the study is flawed, and thus any further analysis is unnecessary due to this.

The only ass plucking going on is you trying to find a rational thought somewhere crammed up your rectum.

You idiotically assume acquiring an MBA was the sole category for that study. It wasn't. Respondents were further categorized by the type of company they were working for as well as sub-sectors of finance in financial services.

Whereas my "ass-plucking" produced a Bloomberg study, yours produced nothing but air. Essentially, you farted.

I notice you aren't mentioning experience in that list.

The whole idea that an MBA is a proxy for inequality is so flawed only an idiot would have come up with it.

Great, another mental midget who thinks that's what the study was about.

You're a dolt. If there is a wage gap, it is that women make more than men.

Hallucinates the forum jester

 

[bodecea]

There's nothing to debate.

Equal pay for equal work, across the board, for everyone.

That isn't the argument. The argument is that people complaining about a pay gap are using fudged numbers, either making broad categories that cover work that is not equal in skill or required training, or not accounting for experience and time in trade.

I'd like to see a valid survey of who works the most hours in a given job, men, or women.

In teaching, women miss many more days of school than men.

They get the exact same pay, but use more sick leave.

Hmmm...where did you get that stat?