Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
Dismantling the gender pay gap and sexual discrimination
There has widely been a call to narrow the so-called gender pay gap, as activists often use Office for National Statistics and hold up a ~9% pay gap between men and women (frankly, I find this disgusting: where are the intersex figures, feminists?) so as to make a case against this CLEARLY sexist society—although, predictably, the Guardian goes with a higher figure. Surely, this cannot be for any other reason than outright sexism and discrimination, right? I mean **** research, being loud is the most important thing surely?
http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...rveyofhoursandearnings/2015provisionalresults
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34855056
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/09/gender-pay-gap-women-working-free-until-end-of-year
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/policy-research/the-gender-pay-gap/
But there are two factors that can be explained to fight off this bacterial infection: economics and data analysis.
Firstly, it's interesting how these feminists (I know it's a buzzword but it's very useful) are actually destroying their chances for equal pay, as these people are usually the ones that vouch for the minimum wage—when, actually, they should be wanting to be rid of it because society is so sexist! Consider this: if there is a position of labour in which a man is preferable to a woman (because that's what the feminist claim is: discrimination), then should not a woman be able to offer her labour productivity at a rate lower, which offers an employer justification for work? If you're saying “of course not”, you are allowing for gender-segregated jobs. By allowing for this, these discriminated women could enter the work force and accumulate capital and experience.
Additionally, of course, you incur that cost of opportunity of not hiring the woman, as she was prepared to provide the labour at a lower cost, the sexist pigs.
Secondly, how on Earth is it possible that an employer would want to pay more for a man's productivity, which is equal with women's? Profit maximisation is at a deficit, and let me tell you—the grand majority of the rich work for their own gain and nobody else, thus, why would they neglect extra resources because they fancy discriminating women because they're clearly sexist pigs?
And, of course, the life choice of individuals must be taken into account. When people lump every single individual, occupation, circumstance and wage into one big pile, they are displaying the most fallacious data points one can come across: indeed, if you were to write a statistics paper on it you should be blasted for not understanding confounding factors.
There is no institutional sexism going on; no forced-induced gender bias. If there was, then why are women 35% more likely to go to university than men? Does anyone else smell the bias of the matriarchy? Get up in arms, men, this is clearly sexual discrimination.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35111772
There has widely been a call to narrow the so-called gender pay gap, as activists often use Office for National Statistics and hold up a ~9% pay gap between men and women (frankly, I find this disgusting: where are the intersex figures, feminists?) so as to make a case against this CLEARLY sexist society—although, predictably, the Guardian goes with a higher figure. Surely, this cannot be for any other reason than outright sexism and discrimination, right? I mean **** research, being loud is the most important thing surely?
http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...rveyofhoursandearnings/2015provisionalresults
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34855056
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/09/gender-pay-gap-women-working-free-until-end-of-year
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/policy-research/the-gender-pay-gap/
But there are two factors that can be explained to fight off this bacterial infection: economics and data analysis.
Firstly, it's interesting how these feminists (I know it's a buzzword but it's very useful) are actually destroying their chances for equal pay, as these people are usually the ones that vouch for the minimum wage—when, actually, they should be wanting to be rid of it because society is so sexist! Consider this: if there is a position of labour in which a man is preferable to a woman (because that's what the feminist claim is: discrimination), then should not a woman be able to offer her labour productivity at a rate lower, which offers an employer justification for work? If you're saying “of course not”, you are allowing for gender-segregated jobs. By allowing for this, these discriminated women could enter the work force and accumulate capital and experience.
Additionally, of course, you incur that cost of opportunity of not hiring the woman, as she was prepared to provide the labour at a lower cost, the sexist pigs.
Secondly, how on Earth is it possible that an employer would want to pay more for a man's productivity, which is equal with women's? Profit maximisation is at a deficit, and let me tell you—the grand majority of the rich work for their own gain and nobody else, thus, why would they neglect extra resources because they fancy discriminating women because they're clearly sexist pigs?
And, of course, the life choice of individuals must be taken into account. When people lump every single individual, occupation, circumstance and wage into one big pile, they are displaying the most fallacious data points one can come across: indeed, if you were to write a statistics paper on it you should be blasted for not understanding confounding factors.
There is no institutional sexism going on; no forced-induced gender bias. If there was, then why are women 35% more likely to go to university than men? Does anyone else smell the bias of the matriarchy? Get up in arms, men, this is clearly sexual discrimination.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35111772