The Official Good Ideas Thread™
-
You would like that wouldn't you? You saucy minx...
-
YouTube has had that peculiarity for years. You can usually avoid signing in before watching any age-rated video by changing its URL to an
/embed/URL.
-
You can usually avoid signing in before watching any age-rated video by changing its URL to an /embed/ URL.
Or
/v/which is shorter ...
-
The monochrome option for U+1F93B gives me silly giggles.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to be, but some of those images are obviously misplaced (see, e.g., MARTIAL ARTS UNIFORM and WATER POLO). The image right below it looks more like wrestlers.
-
-
-
-
Making this ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzdv4FUHqP8
-
This presentation is a blast to watch; really good idea.
It looks to me like the restaurant has top-of-the line low-light hi-def cameras. That's a good idea, too.
-
-
Need a sewing machine for a small project? Laminator? Screen printer? 3D scanner*? Live in Sacramento and 18 years of age or older? The Sacramento public library has you covered...
http://www.saclibrary.org/Services/Library-of-Things/
*Not Suitable for use on pets or small children.
Along a similar theme, O'Reilly Auto Parts has a free tool loaner program for some rather expensive tools that you might only ever need to use once or twice:
http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/RentalTools.oap:
Many vehicle repairs require specialty tools that will only be used once. That's why we have a loaner tool program available at all O'Reilly Auto Parts locations. The tool offering is broad enough to cover just about any job. The loaner tool program does require a deposit, which is fully refundable once the tool is returned. Use our Online Store Locator to find your local O'Reilly Auto Parts.
Tool availability may vary from store to store, we suggest you contact your local O'Reilly Auto Parts store to check on the tool you need.
-
-
Petroleum engineering would be the most effective.
Petroleum engineering will be a shrinking field for a while, what with the collapse of the resources bubble.
-
Petroleum engineering will be a shrinking field for a while, what with the collapse of the resources bubble.
Not so sure about that. Oil shale is picking up where crude oil is leaving off.
-
@cartman82 said:
Petroleum engineering would be the most effective.
Well, the proper answer is mu, anyway, because the wage gap is almost a myth, created by comparing all women to all men. As soon as you compare women at any given stage of their career to men at the same stage of the same career, women make about 93% as much as men.
-
Well, the proper answer is mu
Why isn't the answer pi? Or my favorite, rho?
the wage gap is almost a myth, created by comparing all women to all men. As soon as you compare women at any given stage of their career to men at the same stage of the same career, women make about 93% as much as men.
"The wage gap doesn't exist. It's just that women make less than men"
What the mathematical fuck are you smoking?
-
Gun control in Tyria is pretty strong. For example, in order to get a legendary pistol, one of the things you need to do is this:
-
Related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYHWz-nQqFg
I have a feeling this could be used a lot in discussions around here given the amount people practice """reading""" instead of reading.
-
Oil shale is picking up where crude oil is leaving off.
Except that the petroleum price has collapsed over the last year. It doesn't matter so much where it comes from. You're a few years behind with your advice.
and more generally…
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
@FrostCat said:
Well, the proper answer is mu
Why isn't the answer pi? Or my favorite, rho?
@Lorne_Kates said:
"The wage gap doesn't exist. It's just that women make less than men"
What the mathematical fuck are you smoking?
Supposedly women only make 77% as much as men. That's a pretty hefty difference. But it's an incorrect number, and we've been over this so I'm not going to type it again. Also, you clearly missed the word "almost" in my post.
-
Supposedly women only make 77% as much as men. That's a pretty hefty difference. But it's an incorrect number, and we've been over this so I'm not going to type it again. Also, you clearly missed the word "almost" in my post.
Yeah, an aggregate figure is a bit deceiving. It's better to go by the job-by-job statistics.
The top job on the list actually shows a premium for women, but by #10 on the top best, women are earning only 95% of what men earn. Where it really sucks is further down into a list where, for example, in the case of janitorial supervisors, women earn just 69% of what men doing the same job earn.
It would be nice to see numbers of women in each job. I suspect that #1 on the worst list only has a handful, since the percentage of women came out exactly 40.00%.
But while the 77% figure itself may be a bit deceiving, when you have an average man and an average woman doing exactly the same job, and the woman is getting 70% of what he is, you have to ask why. Especially for a supervisory role: what does a man do as a supervisor; or a retail salesperson: What does a man bring to the job that is worth 40% more pay?
-
when you have an average man and an average woman doing exactly the same job, and the woman is getting 70% of what he is, you have to ask why.
Right; but is that a thing that happens?
"Relating to fire dragon attacks, when you have a village and that evil dragon breathes fire and eats all its cattle regularly, you have to ask why."
A perfectly sound sentence, and yet utterly meaningless because fire dragons don't exist.
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
when you have an average man and an average woman doing exactly the same job, and the woman is getting 70% of what he is, you have to ask why.
Right; but is that a thing that happens?
"Relating to fire dragon attacks, when you have a village and that evil dragon breathes fire and eats all its cattle regularly, you have to ask why."
A perfectly sound sentence, and yet utterly meaningless because fire dragons don't exist.
He just gave you a statistic according to which it does happen. Not quite sure why you're pulling this dragon-crap other than to demonstrate that you didn't actually read what he wrote.
-
Right; but is that a thing that happens?
Yes, it does happen. The rest of your post is therefore irrelevant.
-
But while the 77% figure itself may be a bit deceiving, when you have an average man and an average woman doing exactly the same job, and the woman is getting 70% of what he is, you have to ask why. Especially for a supervisory role: what does a man do as a supervisor; or a retail salesperson: What does a man bring to the job that is worth 40% more pay?
There is the question as to whether the people on the same job are being compared at the same career stage. It's much more common for women to take a career break to raise children, so that's bound to have an impact; comparing career stage should help to counteract that known issue. It might also be that women are more likely to work part-time for similar reasons.
Perhaps what people are seeing when they look at figures like that 77% are the actual cost of having children?
-
Pish posh we all know that it's the patriachy. Now get back into the office start waving your cis privy edge around.
-
Perhaps what people are seeing when they look at figures like that 77% are the actual cost of having children?
Nice. So, essentially, children cost money to raise so you get even less money.
-
So, essentially, children cost money to raise so you get even less money.
Or you spend a lot on someone to do childcare for you.
-
Except that the petroleum price has collapsed over the last year. It doesn't matter so much where it comes from. You're a few years behind with your advice.
and more generally…
You haven't illustrated your point at all. My advice had to do with the payoff for a degree in petroleum engineering, not the price of oil. A bachelor's in petroleum engineering has been the highest paying major for at least 40 years, regardless of blips in the price of oil.
-
-
Where it really sucks is further down into a list where, for example, in the case of janitorial supervisors, women earn just 69% of what men doing the same job earn.
Even that is still possibly deceptive as it mentions median weekly earnings. I suspect that if you broke that down by time of service bands you'd find the delta drops.
-
when you have an average man and an average woman doing exactly the same job, and the woman is getting 70% of what he is, you have to ask why.
No, first you have to realize that when you look at the average man and the average woman, she's probably worked less time than he has, and would naturally make less.
-
Nice. So, essentially, children cost money to raise so you get even less money.
Hey, by and large men don't take time off to raise kids. Are you willing to pay someone with 2 years of experience the same as someone with 5 years experience?
-
-
There is the question as to whether the people on the same job are being compared at the same career stage. It's much more common for women to take a career break to raise children, so that's bound to have an impact; comparing career stage should help to counteract that known issue. It might also be that women are more likely to work part-time for similar reasons.
Perhaps what people are seeing when they look at figures like that 77% are the actual cost of having children?
U.S. women paid less in all industries, every level: report
Graduating to a Pay Gap (PDF) In this, especially see Chapter 2, "The Pay Gap, One Year after College Graduation". That talks about the most equal time in a career: fresh out of college, same degree, same experience, same college debt; different wages.
The bottom line is that career differences aren't accounted for by childbearing. Women often don't take that much time off...unless of course they are terminated because they became pregnant and are therefore "instantly incapable" of performing the job.
It might be unfair to use 77% as a sound bite, but the deeper you dig into the figures the more clear it becomes that there is no business justification for the gender difference in wages.
Then see On Equal Pay Day, key facts about the gender pay gap (PEW Research). Their big point is that, "But for young women, the wage gap is even smaller – at 93 percent – meaning they caught up to their same-aged male counterparts by roughly the last week in January of this year."
But then, I bet you wouldn't want your pay reduced by 7% because you happen to be male. I bet you wouldn't want to have to work 13 months to make the same pay as your female counterparts--the people doing the same job as you--make in 12.
-
The bottom line is that career differences aren't accounted for by childbearing.
The first step in looking at this is determining whether there is a gap on an individual basis. Is there equal pay for equal work? I don't know about where you are, but I know that my employer is very careful about that sort of thing, at least until you get into the very high grades (which aren't covered by the union-negotiated pay scheme).
Given that the gap is very close when people are young (by your own citation) the problem must lie elsewhere, probably in the rate at which people get advancement. Even with a very good maternity leave scheme in place, it's incredibly rare for someone on it to get a promotion while they are off. That's a strong bias towards paying men more, and it is cumulative. If you compare with women who don't have children (for various reasons) then you see that their career trajectory is much more like that of men. What's more, not everywhere has a good maternity leave scheme in place. I'd expect it to be much less likely to be present in a small business than in a large corporation.
Last year, we hired a bunch of scientists to staff a bioscience research centre. The positions were specifically designed to be long-term career-advancing ones, the kind that are often rather difficult to come by (beyond a simple post-doc). We were very careful to operate without gender bias — both by policy and by what the management really wanted — and yet we got an embarrassing imbalance. We know that the postgraduate population in that field is slanted towards women (just by doing a simple head-count of the right cubicle farm) yet we got the opposite. We know that ability does not divide along gender lines. What did we do wrong?
-
There's also a really high correlation between "women in the workplace" and "people who don't bother negotiating a higher salary". I wager 7% is the difference between "negotiator" and "non-negotiator", gender ignored.
Look, if the effect is real, it's real. Fine. But the soundbyte is complete ass, and all I ever hear is the soundbyte.
-
But while the 77% figure itself may be a bit deceiving, when you have an average man and an average woman doing exactly the same job, and the woman is getting 70% of what he is, you have to ask why.
A better question would be: if women can be hired for 70% of what it would cost to hire a man, why wouldn't someone hire all women and use part of the difference to undercut their competition?
-
A better question would be: if women can be hired for 70% of what it would cost to hire a man, why wouldn't someone hire all women and use part of the difference to undercut their competition?
For the same reason why they're not getting the same money in the first place.
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
The bottom line is that career differences aren't accounted for by childbearing.
The first step in looking at this is determining whether there is a gap on an individual basis. Is there equal pay for equal work? I don't know about where you are, but I know that my employer is very careful about that sort of thing, at least until you get into the very high grades (which aren't covered by the union-negotiated pay scheme).
See, and this is what women get when this issue is discussed: "Well, I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you can find at least one cell somewhere in a woman's body—or one or two seconds somewhere in a woman's job history—that
proves she deserves to beexplains why she is paid less."Evidence is presented that, level-for-level, women are paid less money, and the justification immediately begins. It's "her fault", it's because she has babies, it's because she's less competent (when level-for-level means exactly the opposite); or it's because she can't negotiate (which brings in a whole separate argument: For women, asking for a raise is damned if you do or don't).
Given that the gap is very close when people are young (by your own citation) the problem must lie elsewhere, probably in the rate at which people get advancement.
It's not that close. The boss starts a fresh-out-of-college man at $26,000 a year and fresh-out-of-college woman at $24,180; basically $2000 a year less; 93% of what the man makes; does that seem fair to you? How do you justify that?
(Well, you tried to justify that, but your justification is nothing but a re-hash of arguments that have already been made—and discredited.)
That's a strong bias towards paying men more...
And that's it, right there, out of your own mouth.
A better question would be: if women can be hired for 70% of what it would cost to hire a man, why wouldn't someone hire all women and use part of the difference to undercut their competition?
Assuming someone was doing that, what makes you think they would advertise it?
-
Assuming someone was doing that, what makes you think they would advertise it?
What makes you think I think they would advertise it?
Filed under: shoulder aliens
-
What makes you think I think they would advertise it?
Sorry, I was too abstract.
The problem is that we wouldn't know specifically if this is being done, because companies doing this wouldn't advertise it (lawsuit magnet). In fact, this type of activity could well be a portion of the problem; there is almost certainly some companies where women are willfully paid less.
Some anecdotal stories here suggest willful lower pay in some cases: Unequal pay for women: 'I was told men should make more'
Addendum: I'm distinguishing here between "willful choice to pay less" and "unthinking bias". What you were suggesting was willful choice, which I think can be further broken into "the equivalent of criminal theft" versus "bigoted conception of worth".
The category of what you proposed would be the equivalent of criminal theft; a deliberate and willful scheme to select women and pay them less to reduce payroll. No doubt that happens, but no company doing that would publicize what they were doing.
-
I pay all of my male and female employees the same amount.
I don't have any employees.
-
In that case becoming self-employed will mess up your statistic.
-
It's not that close. The boss starts a fresh-out-of-college man at $26,000 a year and fresh-out-of-college woman at $24,180; basically $2000 a year less; 93% of what the man makes
I dunno, I've read things from people more credible than you that found that 20 something females were making more than similarly employed/educated 20 something males.
-
The category of what you proposed would be the equivalent of criminal theft; a deliberate and willful scheme to select women and pay them less to reduce payroll. No doubt that happens, but no company doing that would publicize what they were doing.
And what happens to women's wages if enough companies do that?
-
Women are getting 77% of the money? That only leaves 23% for the men!
-
I dunno, I've read things from people more credible than you that found that 20 something females were making more than similarly employed/educated 20 something males.
Well, don't keep us all in suspense...link?
-
Well, don't keep us all in suspense...link?
It was a book. But a quick search (now that I'm not on mobile) turned up this:
The gender gap is more difficult to analyze because the reasons for the difference are
harder to measure. Gender differences in schooling and cognitive skills as measured by
the AFQT are quite small and explain little of the pay gap. Instead the gender gap is
attributable to choices made by women concerning the amount of time and energy to
devote to a career as reflected in years of work experience, utilization of part-time work,
and workplace and job characteristics. There is no gender gap in wages among men and
women with similar family roles. Comparing the wage gap between women and men
ages 35-43 who have never married and never had a child, we find a small observed gap
in favor of women, which becomes insignificant after accounting for differences in skills
and job and workplace characteristics. What the average woman sacrifices in earnings
from choosing jobs that allow for part-time work and flexible work conditions is
presumably offset by a gain in the utility of time spent with children and family.
-
After studying for a while, trying to understand their methodology, to me it comes down to table 11. The gist of this table is: If we treat women as men in our models, the differences disappear. Which is true enough, as we can see in the line "Adjusted hourly wage ratio (Female/Male)", 4th and 8th (model M4) columns where the male models match to 99.9% and the female to 92.1%.
The problem with that is this. If we look at the other models, we see:
- M1: 79.3 (male coefficients) / 79.3 (female)
- M2: 95.1 / 90.7
- M3: 96.8 / 92.6
Which is fine so far, and yes, the model does seem to work better for male coefficients. Then we get to M4:
- M4: 99.9 / 92.1
So now we look deeper at M4 to see why it matches more closely. By lines, these coefficients for the male treatment are significantly lower (ABS(Δ) > 0.01) between M3 and M4: "Computer usage"(0.0122 vs -0.0040), "Disamenities (physical)" (0.0122 vs -0.0040 ), and "Unemployment risk; labor force turnover" (0.0116, 0.0028). These are the wrong direction; actually taking us away from that 99.9%. Something must account for the shift the other way.
The only thing that takes us the other way is "TYP: % female in occupation", which does not appear in M3, but does appear in M4, as 0.0721.
This is how I read that: Model M4 matches really closely if we adjust the M3 models by professions that employ a higher proportion of women.
That looks unsound; without which our closest match in the models using male coefficients is 96.8% for M3, male. I concede that's better than 93%, but it is still not 100%. Using my example of $12.50 per hour for a starting college graduate, which I chose as an example, that yields $26,000 for men, $25,200 for women; an $800 penalty.
More interesting is their conclusion that there is parity, perhaps a reversal, in the 35-40 range for childless persons. I'm not sure that's significant, but perhaps.
ohgodyes
Price of oil - Wikipedia
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MuAnswer
