antibiotic resistance by 1kiki

If you don't mind, Kiki. I'd like to change the subject.

It's not something that I ever want to talk about with people who's company I actually enjoy, and Wishy isn't really good for my Calm right about now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 22, 2017 5:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So I'm going to put in my $0.02 and hopefully have the good sense to shut up afterwards.

KIKI - I think SIX is expressing a deeply emotional reaction, not a political stand. First, I have to tell you a story: I know someone who's had impulse control problems his entire life; He's been known as "Stormy ____" for as long as I can remember. He's now just a little younger than me, so he's pretty old. Thanks to his inability to control his own impulses, he's lost any number of jobs, crashed any number of cars and motorcycles, lost every friend he ever had, and was reduced to living - electricity, heat, and water-free - in the basement of an old farm building that he was going to renovate some day. Well, the property was a mess, full of old mattresses and other crap that people had dumped on the property, as well as junkers and parts that Stormy had collected. His siblings, nieces, nephews, and in-laws showed up one spring day to help him clear his property; they had rented a haulaway and borrowed a small tractor to help them drag the heavy stuff. And there was Stormy ... in tears, frantically trying to protect some small white flowers that were just beginning to bloom in the spring mud from being trampled and crushed.

Why was that?

Stormy had identified with the flowers. He cared deeply about them; they were part of him, and he couldn't bear to see them killed.

See where this is going?

It doesn't make sense, it doesn't HAVE to make sense, but I think that's what's happened with SIX.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
and now you're a raving bitch and a lunatic.

I just learned to stop coddling and enabling people. May not be the nice thing, but patting someone on the head every time they say something stupid isn't doing anything for the planet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thanks to his inability to control his own impulses,

And there was Stormy ... in tears,

Why was that?

Stormy had identified with the flowers. He cared deeply about them; they

Romanticize much? The flowers were just a convenient scapegoat for the grief of a failed life. Could've been anything that would have set him off.

I don't think it's the same with 6ix. I think he thinks he was cheated out of something that partially "belonged" to him. Thus all the feminist loathing. I'd bet a crisp $20 she didn't want to have kids and he thought he could make her stay by knocking her up. As much as women try to trap men with kids, men do the same damn thing...THAT'S why he hates women that make their own decisions. He couldn't force her to do what he wanted. And he even admits he wouldn't WANT a kid now, which is just twisted...

Anyone who spends their time bitching about feminists when there are much bigger baddies in the world AIN'T THAT DEEP.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:46 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
If you don't mind, Kiki. I'd like to change the subject.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:12 AM

Nah Wishy. You're just a bitch. I've never met somebody in my life who is so negative and judgemental of everybody but herself 100% of the time. You never have a nice thing to say about anyone, and you argue with everybody all the time. You try to infect others with your hate and goad them until they argue back with you. You probably masturbate while cutting yourself.

Everybody here would be doing themselves a favor to just ignore everything you say from now on. I know I will.

I suggest you find 4Chan or something where there are more miserable little worms like you hanging about the place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2017 6:26 PM

Don't hear you denying you tried to trap her, 6ix.

Not that you would admit to it, after all the whining for sympathy you've done.

You may not remember, but you've brought it up at least 6 times now.

YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED OUT ON IT, STOP BRINGING IT UP...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2017 6:33 PM

How would I trap her? The idea is ridiculous. It's not like I was the one on birth control.

Given my attitude about money, purposefully trying to knock up some girl and have to deal with all of the expenses that come with a child with or without marriage being a factor doesn't even make any sense. I think my history speaks for itself here.

What I don't understand is why she told me about it in the first place. It wasn't for financial reasons. She wasn't asking me to give her money for an abortion. She should have kept it to herself if she was going to do that. It's not as if in the world we live in my opinion mattered at all anyhow.

I didn't bring it up. I brought up an argument that Kiki started that happened to have this involved in it along the way, and then YOU brought it to the forefront again.

You can go back to abusing your husband and daughter for kicks. I'm done replying to your BS now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2017 7:35 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

6

I said I wasn't going tyo discuss that one unhappy part of your life. and I won't. But overall, my observation is that you have a lot of issues on the topic of women that go far beyond that one event. Not discussing that one thing out of consideration doesn't mean that my impression of you has changed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:05 PM

That's fine Kiki. Overall, I'm not much of a fan of yours either.

You may go out of your way to get into it and devolve to personal attacks quickly, but you're nowhere near as malicious and hateful as Wishy is. I appreciate the fact that when somebody requests that we back off a personal topic that you immediately do so. How long do you think it will be now before Wishy comes back with another one? She can't help herself. She seems to love talking about me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 2:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
How long do you think it will be now before Wishy comes back with another one?

HOW LONG DO YOU INTEND TO BRING IT UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF "THOSE HORRIBLE FEMINISTS", WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN WANT A KID? She did you a damn favor and you know it. But if you admit THAT you'd have to admit you are just as bad as the feminists you loathe.

When you stop whining and start looking in the damn mirror, I'll be happy to stop!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 4:03 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
My argument was that because they have children, they end up getting paid twice what I get paid

To be accurate, your argument was because THEY ARE WOMEN they got paid twice what you got paid. I was the one who pointed out that being either male or female is not part of the EIC equation, but having children in the household is.

Quote:
She will confuse you by talking about so many things at once and make you say contradictory things if you're not careful. She's an expert at arguing. Look at her. She lives for it.

Shall I point out the unprovoked personal attack in this one?

And 6, I didn't 'confuse' you. You are confused. You say different things about the same topic because you think different things about the same topic. You say that /wages went down because women joined the labor force. Not that there's anything wrong with women being in the labor force, but they should be minding the children. Not that women specifically should be minding the children, because sometimes the best mom for the job is 'mister mom'. But there's no role anymore for the man to be the breadwinner./ You literally contradict yourself sentence to sentence. In the same post. Without any help from me.

Quote:
This whole issue was brought up about the BS "Gender Wage Gap". Obama comes out and talks about it like it's a real thing ... and people ... start to believe that if they're women I am making more than they do for the same job, which is absolutely illegal.

It's not illegal, which is why women getting paid less for the same work is as widespread as it is to this day. Where did you get the idea that it was illegal? You can do what you please, as long as you don't SAY out loud you're paying women less BECAUSE they're women.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 4:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
To be accurate, your argument was because THEY ARE WOMEN they got paid twice what you got paid. I was the one who pointed out that being either male or female is not part of the EIC equation, but having children in the household is.

To be accurate, my argument is because they are women WITH CHILDREN, they got paid twice what I got paid. There can be no legitimate argument against the fact that a majority of single parents that are getting max EIC benefits are women.

The reason this was brought up is because close to half of the country now is working at near minimum wage which tends to be right in the sweet spot for EIC benefit max payout. Put these two facts together and for the bottom half of the country in earnings, women on average make more than men do for the same job.

Quote:
She will confuse you by talking about so many things at once and make you say contradictory things if you're not careful. She's an expert at arguing. Look at her. She lives for it. -6

Quote:
Shall I point out the unprovoked personal attack in this one? -Kiki

Whatever floats your boat.

It was not unprovoked. You had already started up again. It wasn't an attack either. It's what you do. Not my problem if you can't look at yourself and see it.

Quote:
And 6, I didn't 'confuse' you. You are confused. You say different things about the same topic because you think different things about the same topic. You say that /wages went down because women joined the labor force. Not that there's anything wrong with women being in the labor force, but they should be minding the children. Not that women specifically should be minding the children, because sometimes the best mom for the job is 'mister mom'. But there's no role anymore for the man to be the breadwinner./ You literally contradict yourself sentence to sentence. In the same post. Without any help from me.

You do the same thing. I think everybody does. Orwell wasn't just making stuff up when he talked about DoubleThink.

Wages did go down because of women joining the work force.
There's nothign wrong with women being in the labor force.
"Somebody" should be minding the children, not specifically women.
Sometimes the best mom for the job is Mr. Mom.
Men in quite a few cases have no possibility of ever being the bread winner.

I stand by all of those thoughts, and see no reason why any of them are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
This whole issue was brought up about the BS "Gender Wage Gap". Obama comes out and talks about it like it's a real thing ... and people ... start to believe that if they're women I am making more than they do for the same job, which is absolutely illegal. -6

Quote:
It's not illegal -Kiki

Yes it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 4:44 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
women on average make more than men do for the same job

Not according to the wage scale paid by the employer. You're conflating federal tax policy with hourly pay rates. They're two different things.

Quote:
She will confuse you by talking about so many things at once and make you say contradictory things if you're not careful. She's an expert at arguing. Look at her. She lives for it. -6

Quote:
Shall I point out the unprovoked personal attack in this one? -Kiki

Quote:
It was not unprovoked. You had already started up again. -6

Started WHAT up agaion? Debating your posts? Is that all it takes?

Quote:
It wasn't an attack either. It's what you do.

So when you do 'it', it's not an attack, but when I do 'it', it is?

Quote:
Wages did go down because of women joining the work force.

Wages went down BEFORE women joined the labor force in large numbers. (There was always a female presence in the labor force.) The only way you could dispute that was by saying you didn't believe the numbers I posted. not that you posted any of your own, of course. You never do.

Quote:
... (no employer) shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [...]

As I said, you can pay women less for the same work as long as you don't say out loud that's what you do.

You can claim the work is not equal work, that different levels of skill, effort, or responsibility are required, that the individuals merit different pay for different performance levels, or quantity or quality of production ...

Not only that but you can differentially hire and promote men over women by jury-rigging requirements, or by claiming more men were hired or promoted because more men happened to meet those requirements.

Proving otherwise is extremely difficult, which is why those cases rarely come up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
women on average make more than men do for the same job -6

Quote:
no. Not according to the wage scale paid by the employer. You're confusing federal tax policy with hourly pay rates. They're two different things. -Kiki

I'm not confusing anything. I'm just not recognizing a bullshit distinction. Anyone "earning" the EIC would not be getting any EIC credit if they did not work the job. It doesn't matter where the money comes from.

Quote:
... shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [...]

Quote:
As I said, you can pay women less for the same work as long as you don't say out loud that's what you do.

You can claim the work is not equal work, that different levels of skill, effort, or responsibility are required, that the individuals merit different pay for different performance levels, or quantity or quality of production ...

Not only that but you can differentially hire and promote men over women by jury-rigging requirements, or by claiming more men were hired or promoted because more men happened to meet those requirements.

Proving otherwise is extremely difficult, which is why those cases rarely come up.

Sure. No argument from me there.

And the equal and opposite is true as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 7:11 AM

https://www.pay-equity.org/PDFs/IWPR-Occupation2012.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 11:42 AM

Well.... those articles certainly seem to be a bit more reasonable, although I think it's pretty hard to just blame even 5-6% on "discrimination". Assuming that is just laziness and doesn't account for any case-by-case basis research.

That being said, I wouldn't be as opposed to hearing the argument if these were the more reasonable figures used by people like Obama and Kristen Bell when they use the completely misrepresented figures of 77 cents on the dollar. You are aware of how that 77 cents figure is derived and why it's disingenuous, right?

As for my argument about the EIC and the final pay that people at the poverty wage make at the end of the year, the section under the second graph in the IWPR study only bolsters it.

Quote:
Women are More than Twice as Likely as Men to Work in Occupations With Poverty Wages

That might not be good for the overall figure that leads us to the 77 cents argument, but for the bottom half of earners in the country, this means that there is even double the chance that the female employees are getting a huge bump in EIC earnings on top of the already much greater chance that a woman fulfills the qualifications for the largest EIC payout.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 4:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As I said, you can pay women less for the same work as long as you don't say out loud that's what you do.

You can claim the work is not equal work, that different levels of skill, effort, or responsibility are required, that the individuals merit different pay for different performance levels, or quantity or quality of production ...

Not only that but you can differentially hire and promote men over women by jury-rigging requirements, or by claiming more men were hired or promoted because more men happened to meet those requirements.

Proving otherwise is extremely difficult, which is why those cases rarely come up.

It's the same thing with age discrimination, or color discrimination.

Quote:
Well.... those articles certainly seem to be a bit more reasonable, although I think it's pretty hard to just blame even 5-6% on "discrimination". Assuming that is just laziness and doesn't account for any case-by-case basis research. - SIX

Well, SIX that's where you're wrong. There are just too many studies that show that when work results (loan applications, rental applications, grant applications, job applications, papers submitted for peer review, sales figures, etc etc) are evaluated on a "blinded" basis ... in other words, the reviewer(s) has(have) no way of knowing or guessing the applicant's race, sex, or age ... women (people of color, the middle-aged) actually come out MUCH FARTHER AHEAD than young white men.

I'm not telling you this to make you feel guilty or to try to take away anything from you or less proud of your accomplishments, simply to try and inform you that's reality.

So IMHO people should be evaluated as much as possible on a blinded basis simply to reduce the role of prejudice. And in the future going forward, we should be dedicated to being a true meritocracy, so that people's talents and hard work will be fairly and honestly rewarded. That's how you make hard work, honesty, and talents the base of an economy; not hobnobbing, greed, and oligarchism.

HOWEVER, whether the role of prejudice accounts for 6% .... or 60% .... of the average person's wealth, income, or prospects .... it simply does NOT match up to the HUGE wealth inequality overhanging the entire USA economy, and the complete lack of agency over the larger aspects of our collective future.

Did WE export jobs to China? Did WE decide to embark on a program of endless wars? Did WE decide to base our economy on debt? Did WE set up the wage/reward structure, or the tax structure? Why do the top 25 "tech" money-grabbers make more than all of the kindergarten teachers COMBINED?

Why don't we just commit to fixing the system to eliminate prejudice to the extent possible, and focus on the REAL BIG inequities that are facing us right now, instead of quibbling over peanuts?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:20 PM

I don't believe for a second that in blind tests that it turns out that minorities and women come out ahead of white men on a consistent basis. You'd have to site some pretty credible sources from all over the political spectrum for me to even begin to believe that.

You did say "young white men" though, which does make it a very different story. I would only take that particular stat seriously if the other people in the blind were also of the same age. Kids today all over the map are kind of screwed for a lot of reasons. I'm not young, and I've done pretty well. I still wouldn't want to compare my current net worth against my mom's, although I would kill her credit score any given day.

I agree with everything else you posted though. I'm not at all against "blind" becoming the practice everywhere, as it would foster a meritocracy. There's a reason why it hasn't been done though, and that's because when the results came in people who were not fairing well would bitch about one "ism" or another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Men in quite a few cases have no possibility of ever being the bread winner.

Yes it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

My hubby must be Superman, he's been primary breadwinner for 14 years.
With Asperger's, and the worlds' worst parents, no less.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gender-pay-gap-buffer_us_56f03672e
4b03a640a6b2f92

Yet despite a clearly scrupulous commitment to pay fairness, Buffer just realized that women at the company make less than men overall. The average annual salary for a man at Buffer is $98,705, while women make $89,205, according to internal analysis from Feb. 23, Buffer released last week — its first look at gender and pay.

We were surprised,” Courtney Seiter, who heads up Buffer’s inclusivity efforts, told The Huffington Post. “We’ve had transparent salaries for two and half years, we put out so much data that it never occurred to us to analyze it [for gender] until recently.”

Within professions, women tend to make less money because they gravitate to work that is less demanding or requires fewer hours. Many need flexibility and time to take care of children and family. So more men become partner at high-paying law firms, while female lawyers might gravitate to lower-paying in-house legal jobs, for example. The work of economist Claudia Goldin at Harvard has been emphatic on this point. It also means that we take more time away from the workforce, further depressing wages.

Negotiation won’t fix this. Policy solutions might help, for example, by providing paid parental leave and, possibly, subsidized child-care that would allow more women to stay in the workforce and even out the gap.

Those women that work are usually ALSO the primary caregivers for children.

Bitching about what single parents make is ASSHOLIC. They provide for those who CANNOT, which we all were at one point. Speaking personally, the Gen-X women are ALSO taking care of aging parents, or in my case, an aging GRANDPARENT...because my Boomer relatives are narcissists.

I am in favor of giving tax breaks to people who do not have children, but it isn't going to happen. You've ALREADY got it easy, anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 6:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians
Additionally, as part of these revisions, a number of orchestras adopted “blind” auditions whereby screens are used to conceal the identity and gender of the musician from the jury. In the years after these changes were instituted, the percent of female musicians in the five highest-ranked orchestras in the nation increased from 6 percent in 1970 to 21 percent in 1993.

http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9C
blind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians

Also http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

Quote:
Double-blind peer review reveals gender bias
“A difference of 7.9% in the proportion of female first-authored papers following the implementation of double-blind review in BE is ” http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07305/“>three times greater than the recorded increase in female ecology graduates in the USA across the same time period and represents a 33% increase in the representation of female authors. Furthermore, this increased representation of female authors more accurately reflects the ” (US" target="_BLANK">http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/employ.htm">(US) life sciences academic workforce composition, which is 37% female.

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/01/doubleblind_peer_review_r
eveal.html

Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis
https://arxiv.org/vc/math/papers/0701/0701537v2.pdf

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 68, No. 2, 2012, pp. 221--237
Identifying Discrimination at Work: The Use of Field Experiments
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/identifying_discriminatio
n_pager_western.pdf

Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate
http://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/arti
cle/woman-who-switched-to-man's-name-on-resume-goes-from-0-to-70-percent-response-rate-060816

I've heard about these studies over the years. Sometimes they were "sting" operations which sent couples looking for a rental, identical in every way except for color. Other times they were loan applications, identical in every way except that sometimes the applicant was a woman and sometimes a man. Still others were scientific journals who instituted double-blind peer review, orchestras who auditioned their applicants from behind a screen, grant applications that were reviewed "blinded" etc etc. Too many to dredge up now.

My own personal experience, being told "We've always had a woman in the lab" as opposed to field-testing at large industries.

And then there is the personal experience of a biochemist who has literally experienced BOTH worlds, having transitioned from female to male.

Quote:
In his commentary Barres points to data from a range of studies showing bias in science. For example, when a mixed panel of scientists evaluated grant proposals without names, men and women fared equally well. However, competing unblinded, a woman applying for a research grant needed to be three times more productive than men to be considered equally competent.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060714174545.htm

I overstated the results ... when tested or reviewed "blinded", women did as well as men. As opposed to doing much worse than men when reviewed unblinded.

Anyway, I think this is one way to reduce discrimiation.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:

My hubby must be Superman, he's been primary breadwinner for 14 years.
With Asperger's, and the worlds' worst parents, no less.

I said in many cases. Not even a majority. The largest part of your husband being the breadwinner in your family is because of your inability to be one. I'm not even trying to be insulting here. If you were a pharmacist like my sis-in-law, you'd be the breadwinner and nothing he could do would compete with that. She makes enough money so my brother can be the stay at home dad. My niece is a very lucky person.

Quote:
Yet despite a clearly scrupulous commitment to pay fairness, Buffer just realized that women at the company make less than men overall. The average annual salary for a man at Buffer is $98,705, while women make $89,205, according to internal analysis from Feb. 23, Buffer released last week — its first look at gender and pay.

What are the different types of jobs that the men and women work at the job?

This is the problem with the addition to the word "overall", and how we get the BS statistics that women make 77 cents to the dollar of what men make. Mmany larger companies hire their own union employees, which typically are male in the more dangerous professions such as elevator repair and electricians, and they also command a very high pay because they are union. Other points made in the articles Kiki posted are the amount of hours worked, overtime, leave of absences, ect.

Quote:
Within professions, women tend to make less money because they gravitate to work that is less demanding or requires fewer hours. Many need flexibility and time to take care of children and family. So more men become partner at high-paying law firms, while female lawyers might gravitate to lower-paying in-house legal jobs, for example. The work of economist Claudia Goldin at Harvard has been emphatic on this point. It also means that we take more time away from the workforce, further depressing wages.

Exactly. Glad to see the HuffPo is actually being objective about something for a change.

Quote:
Negotiation won’t fix this. Policy solutions might help, for example, by providing paid parental leave and, possibly, subsidized child-care that would allow more women to stay in the workforce and even out the gap.

Ah.... there's the rub.

Why don't you put your career first, or get a worthwhile degree for an in demand job that commands a higher salary? Why does policy need to be enforced to ensure an equal outcome?

I'm all for policies that promote equal opportunity. I'm very much against policies that enforce an equal outcome.

Equal opportunity is something that can be quantified and an agreement can be come to on what exactly that means in a subjective manner. Equal outcome is purely objective, and nobody will ever agree on what that is and somebody will always be screwed in the end.

Quote:
Those women that work are usually ALSO the primary caregivers for children.

Maybe. I don't understand your personal issue with the women we're talking about here though. There is no way that you could ever make close to even what these women make, let alone the slightly larger salary the men are making. Any woman making that much money could easily be the only parent working if they lived comfortably within their means.

Quote:
Bitching about what single parents make is ASSHOLIC. They provide for those who CANNOT, which we all were at one point. Speaking personally, the Gen-X women are ALSO taking care of aging parents, or in my case, an aging GRANDPARENT...because my Boomer relatives are narcissists.

I'm not bitching about it. I'm just pointing out that for the lower half of Americans who are living in or close to poverty that women actually make more than men do because of Government subsidies.

Quote:
I am in favor of giving tax breaks to people who do not have children, but it isn't going to happen. You've ALREADY got it easy, anyway.

Sure I do. But that's because of what I did with my money. Most single people able to get the type of jobs that I could get today are nowhere near my situation. Most people have it tough. Parents don't have a monopoly on that. I'm very grateful to be in the position I've put myself in. I don't admire anybody living in poverty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

I said in many cases.

Maybe.

I'm not bitching about it. I'm just pointing out that for the lower half of Americans who are living in or close to poverty that women actually make more than men do because of Government subsidies.

But that's because of what I did with my money.

Literally HALF of the males in this country are breadwinners.

"Today, almost 50% of U.S. women are now the family breadwinners, and two-thirds of women are either primary or co-breadwinners, according to SUM180, an online personal financial platform aimed at women."

Women DO provide more care for children and the aged. WHILE WORKING A PAYING JOB AS WELL.

•An estimated 66% of caregivers are female. [Updated February 2015] 6, 7
•The average caregiver is a 49 year old woman, caring for her 60 year old mother who does not live with her. She is married and employed. [Updated Februrary 2015] 8
•Although men also provide assistance, female caregivers may spend as much as 50% more time providing care than male caregivers.9

YOU HAVE IT EASY FINANCIALLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CHILD. All you have bitched about since you GOT HERE was that women with children get more than you do, you lazy BUM.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 9:12 PM

I have it easy because I don't have a child, I don't have a mortgage, I don't have a car payment, I don't have a cell phone, I don't have cable TV, I moved to a state with low property taxes, I got my property taxes further cut by more than half, and my living expenses are roughly 5 to 6 thousand dollars per year, barring any emergency expenditures.

I don't know what you're arguing otherwise. I admitted a lot of women were breadwinners now. I'm not arguing that point at all.

Also, I don't know why I have to keep saying this part. I'm not bitching that women get government EIC payments that effectively make their salary double what I get. I bitch that I constantly have to hear about a non-existent or completely meaningless wage gap on top of it, depending on the situation.

Those making around 100k plus right now don't need to be making any more and could easily be the sole working parent if they wanted to. No man needs to be making more than 100k either.

Those that need it most make twice what I do because the government pays them to work. Most of them happen to be women. I'm okay with that. Just call it what it is.

Since I "GOT HERE"?

I've been here quite a lot longer than you have, little miss. I was pulling down quite a bit of money when I did too. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
barring any emergency expenditures.

I bitch that I constantly have to hear about a non-existent or completely meaningless wage gap on top of it, depending on the situation.

No man needs to be making more than 100k either.

...Just call it what it is.

Since I "GOT HERE"?

I've been here quite a lot longer than you have, little miss.

Like your teeth falling out? Or the cirrhosis? Those eventual expenditures?

The wage gap exists, but since many companies do not allow employees to discuss wages, it's hard to say how much of one there is. Either way, women are the ones working AND taking care of everything else, which means they get paid less. And studies have proven the get penalized more for even asking for better pay.

"The men in the study, however, said they'd only be less inclined to hire the female candidate who tried to negotiate. They didn't penalize the male candidate for doing the same."
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/03/commentary/everyday/sahadi/

HERE IS A STUDY THAT ADJUSTS FOR THE CHILD ISSUE AND STILL FOUND A 7% GAP IN PEOPLE WHO MADE THE SAME EDUCATIONAL CHOICES.... IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The report controls for occupation, major, hours worked, parenthood, and many other factors to reveal that college-educated women working full time were paid an unexplained 7% less than their male counterparts were paid one year after graduation. To clarify, this analysis looks at men and women who have made the same educational and occupational choices and still finds a gap.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2014/04/07/the-awful-tru
th-of-the-gender-pay-gap-it-gets-worse-as-women-age/#51fbde0b1ed4

Oh, and thanks for instituting what pay cap people should earn, Fuhrer....

Prolly the dumbest thing you said all day.

You don't take into account ANYTHING like commuting, living in an expensive area, a woman having a multiple birth, needing the money for medical conditions, there is a MILLION reasons for a salary over 100k.

YOU LEFT the site for a long time, so don't go there. I've been here since 2006. Not that I care when you got here, I'll only care when you leave.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2017 11:38 PM

Dentures are cheap. Not worried about that. I doubt I'll have any lasting effects from the drinking as long as I don't go back to it. I'm down 40 lbs since Christmas and I'm getting my six pack back. I'm pretty copacetic on the health front. Thanks for caring.

77% plus 7% is only 84%. That means that you've ceded 16%. That's progress. I can't prove one way or another about the other 7%, and nobody else can either, but I'll admit that there very well could be a small difference like that... as long as we're completely ignoring the government benefits. (EIC, welfare, etc.)

I'm not instituting any caps on pay, or even suggesting that somebody does. Stop being an idiot.

You or your husband combined don't make close to that and you get by, so I don't understand why you're trying to "fight" for the rights of women making nearly 100k when you don't have any hope of ever coming close to that "problem" yourself.

You also have a cell phone and cable TV and quite a few other expenditures that aren't necessary if you really budgeted as well, I'm sure. I just heard that the average American spends over $1,200 per year on fast food, for instance. That's gross for so many reasons.

There are plenty of people who are making it by on much less than your family take home pay. If you were making more, you'd just spend more, is my point.

I've been here since 2005 or 2006. Your profile says 2010. What name did you go by back then?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:41 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Anybody heard of the new study showing those injected with vaccines and still survive are something like 23 times more likely to spread the contagion they were injected/infected with.
So the vaccinations create the "herd" to be carriers and distribute, disseminate it to the whole population.

Heard parts of the discussion on Clyde somebodies radio show Ground Zero.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2018 4:31 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

That sounds like it could be interesting if you could provide just a wee bit more information for follow-up.

HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2018 5:23 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anybody heard of the new study showing those injected with vaccines and still survive are something like 23 times more likely to spread the contagion they were injected/infected with.
So the vaccinations create the "herd" to be carriers and distribute, disseminate it to the whole population.

Heard parts of the discussion on Clyde somebodies radio show Ground Zero.

I don't know what to think about Flu Vaccines.

All I know is that I've never taken one and I've never had the Flu.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 1, 2018 11:54 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
That sounds like it could be interesting if you could provide just a wee bit more information for follow-up.

I recall mention of mere breathing being the spreading action, and flu vaccines causing the neurological disorders. But I don't get a good hit on searching. The specific link was given, and was admitted to be hard to find, but I didn't write it down while driving.

OK, try groundzeromedia.org with Clyde Lewis. Shots In The Dark show dated 31 Jan. I cannot check that content at this time. On the show he did recite a specific link address.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2018 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Dentures are cheap.

I'm not instituting any caps on pay, or even suggesting that somebody does. Stop being an idiot.

I don't understand why you're trying to "fight" for the rights of women

You also have a cell phone and cable TV and quite a few other expenditures that aren't necessary if you really budgeted as well, I'm sure. I just heard that the average American spends over $1,200 per year on fast food, for instance. That's gross for so many reasons.

Dentures are cheap... that's a laugh. My neighbor had to have her teeth removed last month and JUST the removal surgeries and revisions were over 8 THOUSAND BUCKS.

Yes, you did suggest pay caps.

"Those making around 100k plus right now don't need to be making any more and could easily be the sole working parent if they wanted to. No man needs to be making more than 100k either."

I only got a cell phone LAST YEAR, and only because I had to coordinate health care with my aunt over my grandma. I did not want one, we do NOT have cable. I don't collect anything, and I rarely spend a buck on myself.

I will ALWAYS fight for womens rights, because women are still being married off as children, are still being raped and killed and abused, and are still treated as inferior. WHY WOULD I *NOT* WANT THAT TO STOP??

As for fast food...WHEN YOU HAVE TO FEED ANOTHER BEING EVERY DAMN DAY... FAST FOOD BECOMES A NECESSITY. Even with all the things we can't eat, we still have to buy some fast food when we are out all day. Who are you to judge?? All you have to think about is yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2018 5:40 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wow. Necropost much, Wishy?

(Wishy's heavily edited version of my post that takes things out of context to fit her narrative):

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringWishy:
Dentures are cheap.

I'm not instituting any caps on pay, or even suggesting that somebody does. Stop being an idiot.

I don't understand why you're trying to "fight" for the rights of women

You also have a cell phone and cable TV and quite a few other expenditures that aren't necessary if you really budgeted as well, I'm sure. I just heard that the average American spends over $1,200 per year on fast food, for instance. That's gross for so many reasons.

(Original, unedited quote from September 24th of last year):

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Dentures are cheap. Not worried about that. I doubt I'll have any lasting effects from the drinking as long as I don't go back to it. I'm down 40 lbs since Christmas and I'm getting my six pack back. I'm pretty copacetic on the health front. Thanks for caring.

77% plus 7% is only 84%. That means that you've ceded 16%. That's progress. I can't prove one way or another about the other 7%, and nobody else can either, but I'll admit that there very well could be a small difference like that... as long as we're completely ignoring the government benefits. (EIC, welfare, etc.)

I'm not instituting any caps on pay, or even suggesting that somebody does. Stop being an idiot.

You or your husband combined don't make close to that and you get by, so I don't understand why you're trying to "fight" for the rights of women making nearly 100k when you don't have any hope of ever coming close to that "problem" yourself.

You also have a cell phone and cable TV and quite a few other expenditures that aren't necessary if you really budgeted as well, I'm sure. I just heard that the average American spends over $1,200 per year on fast food, for instance. That's gross for so many reasons.

There are plenty of people who are making it by on much less than your family take home pay. If you were making more, you'd just spend more, is my point.

I've been here since 2005 or 2006. Your profile says 2010. What name did you go by back then?

Quote:
Wishy: Dentures are cheap... that's a laugh. My neighbor had to have her teeth removed last month and JUST the removal surgeries and revisions were over 8 THOUSAND BUCKS.

They're cheap, relatively speaking to other options available and to general health things that are covered under insurance.

Exhibit A: In order to go through both the periodontal process and the oral surgery including laser treatment, bone grafts, posts and false teeth, it would cost me upwards of $60,000 in comparison. Your figure of $8,000 is correct. My own research put that at anywhere from $6,000-$9,000, assuming I don't spring for the top-shelf dentures that alone would cost more than that.

Exhibit B: Around 22 years old, when I was uninsured, I had a lump on my testicle for about a month before I went to get it checked out. It went away a week or two later, but not after $5,000 I was charged to have an ultrasound and have a doctor tell me that it was a harmless cyst. This was back in 2001 or so, so I would imagine at this point that the same procedure would cost more than your neighbor's tooth removal and dentures cost.

Quote:
Wishy: Yes, you did suggest pay caps.

Quote:
6ix: "Those making around 100k plus right now don't need to be making any more and could easily be the sole working parent if they wanted to. No man needs to be making more than 100k either."

No. I didn't. I just said that nobody needs to be making more than that. Nobody needs that money to survive. It was just an observation of the truth. I didn't make any suggestions at all about what their employers should do.

Quote:
I only got a cell phone LAST YEAR, and only because I had to coordinate health care with my aunt over my grandma. I did not want one, we do NOT have cable. I don't collect anything, and I rarely spend a buck on myself.

Great.

Quote:
I will ALWAYS fight for womens rights, because women are still being married off as children, are still being raped and killed and abused, and are still treated as inferior. WHY WOULD I *NOT* WANT THAT TO STOP??

Then start campaigning for women's rights in countries where they're abused, by cultures where it's permissible by law to abuse them. You're fine here, Sweety. You'd already have had your head mailed to your dad in a package if you lived in one of the "Istans" for your opinions.

Quote:
As for fast food...WHEN YOU HAVE TO FEED ANOTHER BEING EVERY DAMN DAY... FAST FOOD BECOMES A NECESSITY. Even with all the things we can't eat, we still have to buy some fast food when we are out all day. Who are you to judge?? All you have to think about is yourself.

Tell that poor sob story to your daughter when she's a fat spinster cat lady. Maybe your combined hatred in men at that point in her life will be a stronger bond you can share with her to overcome all of the mental abuse and neglect you inflict upon her in what should be some pretty care free years.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2018 4:14 PM

You have the most juvenile perspective of money for an over 30 yr old I've ever met.

It's like you are frozen in Jr High land.

You have NO IDEA how much it costs to raise a child, pay for healthcare, schooling, pets, entertainment, clothing, transportation, housing, and decent food for three people and yet you proclaim no one should make over 100 thou??

To you it sounds like "lots and lots of money" because you don't have to take responsibility for anything but yourself.

Ludicrous.

Hubbs made good money this year, and before the settlement we still had difficulty paying the $2300 to repair the van and get new tires, and that's for ONE vehicle.

Women ARE still treated as things in this country and in pretty much every other country on Earth. You see the women YOUR age and think "entitled princesses" and that is all there is, because of your INCREDIBLY LIMITED EXPERIENCE??

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/health/ending-child-marriage-in-america/
index.html
"Did you know there were over 200,000 child marriages in America in the last 14 years," Johnson says. "Over 16,000 were in Florida."

The children here are GIRLS. They aren't forcing 11 yr old boys to get married!

Btw, she and I are allergic to cats. And yeah, I have also taught my tall, blond, pretty, and intelligent daughter to be allergic to scrubs like you. She might actually have a fullfilling life without dealing with narcissistic man-babies like yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2018 8:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Yup. Juvenile. That's why my house is paid for, my credit score is 822 and I haven't owed a dime to anybody since 2006.

So I guess I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your reply since you started it off like that. Maybe I'll get back to you in 4 months and throw a necropost back at you.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 2, 2018 11:44 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

Started az an interesting thred. Too bad it dejenerated into another argument.
At least many uv us agree on sumthing: too many peepl.

I havent red much past the 1st 5 or so posts - just enuf to see that it wuznt worth reading. Sorry if I'v missed anything worthwile, but I hav a minor comment.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
That's what I'm trying to say, I think the chances are slim to none, and none went fishing.

No. It wuz Slim.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 3, 2018 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:

I havent red much past the 1st 5 or so posts - just enuf to see that it wuznt worth reading. Sorry if I'v missed anything worthwile, but I hav a minor comment.

Didn't miss a thing, brah.

Just the usual 6ix telling everyone how they should live, saying women are never mistreated here in delusionland, and once again talking about paying off his house...'cause it's all he's got.

No, you didn't miss a thing.

Slim AND None caught some nice fish though...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 3, 2018 11:56 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Started az an interesting thred. Too bad it dejenerated into another argument.
At least many uv us agree on sumthing: too many peepl.

I havent red much past the 1st 5 or so posts - just enuf to see that it wuznt worth reading. Sorry if I'v missed anything worthwile, but I hav a minor comment.

It quickly devolved after the OP.
With skimming or scrolling, it seems if you check the posts which have gobs of linkies, those cover the meat of this thread. Not much discussion of the topic, though.
When I picked this thread to bump with the vaccinations study, I was recalling the OP. Not really the same topic, but along similar lines. I had been looking for that thread in News Headline, but couldn't find it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 23, 2021 5:15 PM