INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Minister Of Silly Walks on February 03, 2018, 04:05:30 PM
-
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/an-equal-pay-revolution-is-nigh-in-the-uk-australia-take-note-20180202-p4yza7.html
Dangerous work that, reading the news.
An equal pay storm that has been brewing for several months since the BBC was forced to publish the salaries of its highest earners, revealing only a third are women and the top seven are all men, finally broke on Wednesday, dumping a torrential downpour of righteous anger at a Parliamentary Select Committee convened to look into the issue.
A subsequent review conducted by the BBC in response to the initial outcry over top earners’ pay inequality revealed a 9.6 per cent average gender pay gap across the BBC. “Better than average,” blustered the BBC when those figures were released. Not surprisingly, those comments did not quell the storm.
The BBC is a cautionary tale for many other large employers in the UK, who are bracing themselves for the aftermath of new legislation which is forcing them to publish their pay gaps by April of this year, something some have suggested will lead to many “BBC moments”.
-
About time.
-
Total fucking fake news.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJSMhGhXoAEIpRV.jpg)
-
Nope. Recently this anchor decided to quit in a huff over her salary being lower than her male co-anchor. She raised hell over it and the network let her go. Then it came out that his salary also included other components hers did not such as other yearly specials and such. She still thought they should be equal. There is the gender equality debate encapsulated.
-
The BBC numbers tell a different story.
-
The BBC numbers tell a different story.
Meh, in the case of Lisa Wilkinson and Karl Stefanovic there was a big outrage and the News company made the case that it was not prepared to pay Lisa the same because in his contract Karl had more duties including various specials he had to do that Lisa did not. It was a non-issue. To her, they were paid unequally for the same job.
Because the media controls the discourse, this very reasonable explanation is lost in the spin and outrage that promote Lisa as the victim and brave woman pushing but on equal pay.
Having said that, one article DID raise an interesting point. Whilst they both needed to get make up for the set. She had to have her hair done each day and so this put an extra hour a day on her prep time. Now THAT IS something that ought to be taken into account. an hour a day 5 days a week 52 weeks a year does add up and is obviously time he does not have to concern himself with.
That all said and done these people are both earning 1 million + dollars a year so I am not going to weep too much over either of them and the 1 percenter issues they have.
-
The BBC numbers tell a different story.
Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.
You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.
BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.
THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!
-
The BBC numbers tell a different story.
Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.
You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.
BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.
THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!
How do you explain the fact that there is a 6.8% gap, then, according to their own numbers? How do you explain the fact that they will cut the salaries of some of their male journalists following the publication of their own study, the one where they claim there is no gender bias?
If you scratch below the surface a bit, you'll find a lot of criticism aimed at their studies. Yes, it's easier to just claim it's fake news but I'm guessing that you wouldn't if you were paid 6.8% less than a female colleague.
As for the Google numbers, you were the one to miss the division between tech and non-tech employees. Statistics are so easily misunderstood, aren't they? It happens to the best of us so it goes without saying that it happens to you. Happy to revisit the discussion if you can produce sources that back up your claims.
-
The BBC numbers tell a different story.
Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.
You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.
BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.
THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!
How do you explain the fact that there is a 6.8% gap, then, according to their own numbers? How do you explain the fact that they will cut the salaries of some of their male journalists following the publication of their own study, the one where they claim there is no gender bias?
If you scratch below the surface a bit, you'll find a lot of criticism aimed at their studies. Yes, it's easier to just claim it's fake news but I'm guessing that you wouldn't if you were paid 6.8% less than a female colleague.
As for the Google numbers, you were the one to miss the division between tech and non-tech employees. Statistics are so easily misunderstood, aren't they? It happens to the best of us so it goes without saying that it happens to you. Happy to revisit the discussion if you can produce sources that back up your claims.
I dunno? Fear? Public outrage? Allaying the sponsor's concerns? Being seen as Progressive?
Could be many reasons.
-
Statistics are all too often either the tools of the selfinterested when manipulating those they see as 'useful idiots', outright liars, or people who don't themselves understand the statistics but think they do.
(this isn't pointing any fingers at any specific people here btw) more, as a general principle relating to statistics themselves. 74% of all statistics are bollocks, if your talking about external genitalia that might possibly be about correct. But otherwise its still bollocks.
Statistics can be made to say what the person coming up with them WANTS them to say, all too often.
-
The BBC numbers tell a different story.
Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.
You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.
BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.
THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!
How do you explain the fact that there is a 6.8% gap, then, according to their own numbers? How do you explain the fact that they will cut the salaries of some of their male journalists following the publication of their own study, the one where they claim there is no gender bias?
If you scratch below the surface a bit, you'll find a lot of criticism aimed at their studies. Yes, it's easier to just claim it's fake news but I'm guessing that you wouldn't if you were paid 6.8% less than a female colleague.
As for the Google numbers, you were the one to miss the division between tech and non-tech employees. Statistics are so easily misunderstood, aren't they? It happens to the best of us so it goes without saying that it happens to you. Happy to revisit the discussion if you can produce sources that back up your claims.
I dunno? Fear? Public outrage? Allaying the sponsor's concerns? Being seen as Progressive?
Could be many reasons.
I take it that you don't have any sources either?
-
Statistics are all too often either the tools of the selfinterested when manipulating those they see as 'useful idiots', outright liars, or people who don't themselves understand the statistics but think they do.
(this isn't pointing any fingers at any specific people here btw) more, as a general principle relating to statistics themselves. 74% of all statistics are bollocks, if your talking about external genitalia that might possibly be about correct. But otherwise its still bollocks.
Statistics can be made to say what the person coming up with them WANTS them to say, all too often.
Statistics aren't bollocks; they're facts, often important and useful facts, and shouldn't be dismissed because sometimes there's fault in the analysis.
-
Statistics are all too often either the tools of the selfinterested when manipulating those they see as 'useful idiots', outright liars, or people who don't themselves understand the statistics but think they do.
(this isn't pointing any fingers at any specific people here btw) more, as a general principle relating to statistics themselves. 74% of all statistics are bollocks, if your talking about external genitalia that might possibly be about correct. But otherwise its still bollocks.
Statistics can be made to say what the person coming up with them WANTS them to say, all too often.
Statistics aren't bollocks; they're facts, often important and useful facts, and shouldn't be dismissed because sometimes there's fault in the analysis.
True. And there can also be faults in the methods used to gather the statistics.
-
Statistics are all too often either the tools of the selfinterested when manipulating those they see as 'useful idiots', outright liars, or people who don't themselves understand the statistics but think they do.
(this isn't pointing any fingers at any specific people here btw) more, as a general principle relating to statistics themselves. 74% of all statistics are bollocks, if your talking about external genitalia that might possibly be about correct. But otherwise its still bollocks.
Statistics can be made to say what the person coming up with them WANTS them to say, all too often.
Statistics aren't bollocks; they're facts, often important and useful facts, and shouldn't be dismissed because sometimes there's fault in the analysis.
True. And there can also be faults in the methods used to gather the statistics.
You mean like opinion surveys, or small sample sets?
-
You mean like opinion surveys, or small sample sets?
Both. And then some.
Unrepresentative samples can occur either due to small sample size or due to poor sampling methods.
Conscious or subconscious bias on the part of those gathering the stats can play a role.
Questions that are deliberately worded or structured or sequenced so as to be leading can produce misleading outcomes.
Unclear definitions of terms can be an issue. "Have you ever cheated on your partner", for example, could mean many things.
I'm referring to statistics in general, not to this specific case. Which I only shared in order to rile the broflakes.
-
You mean like opinion surveys, or small sample sets?
Both. And then some.
Unrepresentative samples can occur either due to small sample size or due to poor sampling methods.
Conscious or subconscious bias on the part of those gathering the stats can play a role.
Questions that are deliberately worded or structured or sequenced so as to be leading can produce misleading outcomes.
Unclear definitions of terms can be an issue. "Have you ever cheated on your partner", for example, could mean many things.
I'm referring to statistics in general, not to this specific case. Which I only shared in order to rile the broflakes.
Yes, I see. My response may have been more related to state of mind. Today it reads like a funny joke. 74% if all statistics are bollocks. Really? Is that one of them? :laugh:
-
You mean like opinion surveys, or small sample sets?
Both. And then some.
Unrepresentative samples can occur either due to small sample size or due to poor sampling methods.
Conscious or subconscious bias on the part of those gathering the stats can play a role.
Questions that are deliberately worded or structured or sequenced so as to be leading can produce misleading outcomes.
Unclear definitions of terms can be an issue. "Have you ever cheated on your partner", for example, could mean many things.
I'm referring to statistics in general, not to this specific case. Which I only shared in order to rile the broflakes.
What is a broflake?
-
The BBC numbers tell a different story.
Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.
You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.
BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.
THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!
How do you explain the fact that there is a 6.8% gap, then, according to their own numbers? How do you explain the fact that they will cut the salaries of some of their male journalists following the publication of their own study, the one where they claim there is no gender bias?
If you scratch below the surface a bit, you'll find a lot of criticism aimed at their studies. Yes, it's easier to just claim it's fake news but I'm guessing that you wouldn't if you were paid 6.8% less than a female colleague.
As for the Google numbers, you were the one to miss the division between tech and non-tech employees. Statistics are so easily misunderstood, aren't they? It happens to the best of us so it goes without saying that it happens to you. Happy to revisit the discussion if you can produce sources that back up your claims.
I dunno? Fear? Public outrage? Allaying the sponsor's concerns? Being seen as Progressive?
Could be many reasons.
I take it that you don't have any sources either?
How does one quantify such things or measure them AND if one can't should one dismiss them to push a narrative bereft of any of these things? Seems odd.
-
So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?
-
So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?
So you are working on assumptions that do not lend themselves to the kind of critique such as I have offered.
That is okay. I do not mind assumptions. People can assume anything they want.
-
So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?
So you are working on assumptions that do not lend themselves to the kind of critique such as I have offered.
That is okay. I do not mind assumptions. People can assume anything they want.
Got it. You don't.
-
:dunno:
-
So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?
So you are working on assumptions that do not lend themselves to the kind of critique such as I have offered.
That is okay. I do not mind assumptions. People can assume anything they want.
Got it. You don't.
Neither does the odeot. :M
-
So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?
So you are working on assumptions that do not lend themselves to the kind of critique such as I have offered.
That is okay. I do not mind assumptions. People can assume anything they want.
Got it. You don't.
Neither does the odeot. :M
Brilliantly argued.
-
Considering how the BBC has a history of harbouring paedophiles among other sins...I mean, a pay gap isn't the worst thing they've done by a goddamn mile. :dunno:
-
True, but does it mean that you should only address one problem at a time?
-
Considering how the BBC has a history of harbouring paedophiles among other sins...I mean, a pay gap isn't the worst thing they've done by a goddamn mile. :dunno:
good point
True, but does it mean that you should only address one problem at a time?
also good point
-
THE PAY GAP ISN'T REAL!!!
Neither is ritualistic, Satanic, Child Abuse. :M
-
THE PAY GAP ISN'T REAL!!!
Neither is ritualistic, Satanic, Child Abuse. :M
Dude, there's a pay gap. Fact!
-
Scrap and facts tend to be mutually exclusive.
-
THE PAY GAP ISN'T REAL!!!
Neither is ritualistic, Satanic, Child Abuse. :M
Dude, there's a pay gap. Fact!
No, there's an earnings gap.
NOT the same thing.
-
These retards are a joke. Who gives a shit if some 'poor women' who are earning a fortune aren't earning enough of a fortune. Just bring all the men's salaries down to theirs.
-
I’m sure the men would love that, and wouldn’t be resentful of the women at all.
-
I have a theory that the very term "gender pay gap" is really a massive sexual euphemism.
-
THE PAY GAP ISN'T REAL!!!
Neither is ritualistic, Satanic, Child Abuse. :M
Dude, there's a pay gap. Fact!
No, there's an earnings gap.
NOT the same thing.
Correct.
-
THE PAY GAP ISN'T REAL!!!
Neither is ritualistic, Satanic, Child Abuse. :M
Dude, there's a pay gap. Fact!
No, there's an earnings gap.
NOT the same thing.
Sources for whatever definitions you are working off please. And "Scrap's butt" is, of course, a valid source.
I'm lazy so I used Wikipedia as a source. There are two types of pay gap: an adjusted pay gap and an unadjusted pay gap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
"Total Earnings Gap" is a thing. If that is what you are referring to, can you explain why it is relevant in the case of BBC?
-
I'd love to know, too.
I have to say, this turned out to be unexpectedly hilarious. The second thread in a row. Thanks, Benji. You should post more.
-
Neither is ritualistic, Satanic, Child Abuse.[/b][/size] :M
I never said it was ritualistic or Satanic. Just that the BBC covered it up when some of their staff fiddled some kids. :M
-
These retards are a joke. Who gives a shit if some 'poor women' who are earning a fortune aren't earning enough of a fortune. Just bring all the men's salaries down to theirs.
While I agree that it is difficult to muster a great deal of sympathy for a woman on big money making less money than a man on even bigger money, the real issue is that people shouldn't be paid less because they have boobs. Or because they don't have a penis. Whether they're reading the news or flipping burgers.
-
True, but does it mean that you should only address one problem at a time?
No, but my point was I was surprised that others were surprised at the BBC doing something morally questionable. With blatant misleading political bias akin to Fox News and a long history of protecting kiddie-fiddlers why is anybody actually shocked about the pay gap? It's tame in comparison to some of the other shit they've done. :dunno:
Oh and let's not forget making Cliff Richard's life a living hell during a police investigation into potential kiddie-fiddlers they protected for decades!
-
I can't say I'm shocked by that pay gap. It's not like it's unheard of.