posted April 12, 2014 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibyl:
Is it fair to con someone just because they don't have the capabilities to recognize it?

---

posted April 12, 2014 07:48 PM            

It's not a con. It's the sticker price for the vehicle. That price is negotiable. For that matter, so is the price for any large retail item (to a lesser degree as far as being encouraged). A salesperson of appliances (just for one example) can cut into their commission to make the sale if asked. You cannot expect the salesperson to volunteer to do so.

posted April 12, 2014 07:53 PM            

The reason people don't do so, is because it's uncomfortable. So, they are not conned; they are settling for the price of least resistance.

Don't blame me for the way the business world is. Play by the rules, or don't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibyl:
Is it fair to con someone just because they don't have the capabilities to recognize it?

---

posted April 12, 2014 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
In what way is keeping someone employed comparable to the one-time purchase of a car, unless said "employee" is actually a slave?

But I guess for you, the only real issue may be, are Americans who serve jury duty so poor at differentiating between substantial and superficial reasoning, on average, that you will be more likely to win in court using irrelevant analogies like this, or less likely?

---

posted April 12, 2014 08:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
The analogy is quite fitting. That's the beauty of having differing opinions. Isn't the world grand?

It's not a con. It's the sticker price for the vehicle. That price is negotiable. For that matter, so is the price for any large retail item (to a lesser degree as far as being encouraged).

If you are told by the career center at your college to negotiate your job offer and you still do not, you can only blame yourself. It certainly isn't discrimination.

---

I think you are misguided. It is a fact that women need higher qualifications than men to perform the same jobs. You can just look at the statistical data for this, and it must be seen in light of the incidence of women performing the same jobs as men for less pay.

Although discrimination may only be part of the picture, it nevertheless plays an important role in the dynamics between men and women in the workforce.

The Gender Wage Gap is extensively studied by the OECD every year, and you can access their 2013 report here;

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/LMF1.5%20Gender%20pay%20gaps%20for%20full%20time%20workers%20-%20updated%20290712.pdf

The United States is currently experiencing an increase in the gender wage gap, rather than a decrease. This is in spite of the fact that more women get higher education.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb11-72.html

I do not believe you have a solid basis for making the conclusions you do. If, indeed, the survey you refer to is correct (and I would very much like to look at their method and scope of research, as well as the field and area in which it was conducted), it does not logically follow that the gender gap is due in sole part to women's inability or lack of interest in negotiating for higher salaries. Your assumption seems to be that men are more assertive/aggressive and therefore get what they want, however this assumption does not address the issue of why women are not so. Or indeed, if it is at all acceptable for them to be.

I think this commercial pretty much says it all;

posted April 12, 2014 08:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
A starting salary for a job offer and a new automobile purchase are both well-known negotiable activities. Men do it. Women don't. Both genders are aware that they can and should. It's a great analogy.

---

This, again, is another assumption. It is not clear that women can.

posted April 12, 2014 08:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I don't deny there's a gap. Liberals automatically cry foul and assume it's caused by discrimination, which is a violation of the law. Wouldn't there be lawsuits up the whazoo if that were the case? Men tend to negotiate their salaries, and women tend not to. Some women DO negotiate. And some men DON'T, and this is reflected in the data, as well. The reasons why are open to conjecture.

---

posted April 12, 2014 08:28 PM            

quote:

---

Your assumption seems to be that men are more assertive/aggressive and therefore get what they want, however this assumption does not address the issue of why women are not so. Or indeed, if it is at all acceptable for them to be.

---

posted April 12, 2014 08:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
A starting salary for a job offer and a new automobile purchase are both well-known negotiable activities. Men do it. Women don't. Both genders are aware that they can and should. It's a great analogy.

---

posted April 12, 2014 08:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sibyl:

You assume that women know they can, so you seem to think women are stupid not to. However you are basing this reasoning on the assumption that it is socially acceptable for women to negotiate in the same ways as men, and it is not clear that this is so. Nor is it clear, that when women do negotiate, that they harness the same respect that men do. As such, negotiating for a woman may not have the same pay-off as negotiating does for a man. You are making an awful lot of assumptions here without any research into social life to back it up.

---

Excellent point.

posted April 18, 2014 06:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
No, women who negotiate get the higher salaries, and men who don't have to settle for the advertised salary or lower job offer. Female bosses will tell you the same thing. Education has nothing to do with whether a person accepts a job offer or negotiates a higher salary. But job offers are negotiable. Period. You are making excuse after excuse, but it doesn't change the bottom line: Men negotiate their job offers while women do not.

---

posted April 18, 2014 01:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FruitTreeFresh:
Nobody is able to substantiate the point on why men should be paid more?

---

They shouldn't.

Never should have.

But that's not the point.

posted April 18, 2014 01:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Do you make formal job offers?

---

Me? I hire about 30 a year (if you count interns during summers/school year; otherwise it's about 12).

My entry-level starting base salaries are uniform. My bonuses are extremely large for top performers (>100% base pay) and zip for poor performers.

My company has a six month probationary policy. I drop the axe quickly. It's a right-to-work state anyway, and employment can be terminated with or without cause at any time for no reason.

By the second year, the top performers can be making double the marginal performers.

The large banks retain human resources compensation consultants on retainers, and all they do is collect data and opine on the recommended range of compensation. Institutions hardly deviate from this range in terms of base pay.