We should be celebrating GM's new sensitivity towards workers pay vs. CEO pay, not upset that a female *AGREED* to lower pay.

Come on my Liberal friends -- aren't any of you going to educate me? Who wins? Feminism? Or the move towards reducing that evil CEO pay gap with the workers?

This one has *got* to be driving the left-wing social engineers just *nuts*! (Which is why they are so silent...)

OK, I'll bite. I don't understand why any of the GM workforce would give half their pay to Gap. Their clothes aren't *that* good.

Awww...don't be scared 2WL...

"We should be celebrating GM's new sensitivity towards workers pay vs. CEO pay, not upset that a female *AGREED* to lower pay."

Who's upset? The stupid reporter who wrote an incomplete article that doesn't even attempt to get a comment from Barra, the main source of the supposed controversy?

You don't think the reporter's opinion reflects that of other feminists? I mean come on...you are being grossly disingenuous if you think that "First Female CEO of GM makes 48% of Male Predecessor" isn't pissing off the feminists.

My wife is conservative,and no "feminist" in the liberal sense of the word - but we both know she gets screwed in the workplace and has been overlooked because of her gender...and she was *pissed* when she read this -- asked me to send her the story link, and she forwarded it her female co-worker so they could discuss it. (They are currently reading a book by a former female high-ranking executive at Google and Facebook discussing why women don't advance in the work place - and no, it isn't just "men are sexist"...but that's for another discussion)

So if you think this isn't a legitimate issue, then you have just exposed your own sexist attitudes, my friend...

But the real issue -- Liberals are an agenda drien, social engineering lot of people. When there is an "injustice", they like to force outcomes to correct the perceived injustice.

1. Liberals think CEO's are paid too high, and this is a huge issue in the media currently
2. Liberals think women are paid too little ($0.77 per $1 a man makes), and think women should be paid more

So how would a Liberal policy-maker resolve this issue?

Or does this sort of issue truly expose the faulty logic of Liberalism, and demonstrate that, when you take Liberalism *as a whole*...instead of as sound-bite issues...Liberalism fails?

The 77 cents per dollar figure isn't accurate anyway. When you exclude professional sports (which are dominated by men due to physical reasons ) it's more like 92 cents per dollar. Still bad, but not nearly as bad.

The 77 cents also isn't broken down by race, which complicates the picture massively.

...and neither post has anything to do with the topic or question that has been posed. Quibbling over how many pieces the egg shell is broken in to does not change the fact the the egg is broken...

...or that liberals advocate contradictory things in the topic before us.

Haha come on now krellin, these are two non-intersecting wage disparities...

a) The disparity between workers and CEO's wages
b) the disparity between men's and women's wages

Now, it sounds like what you're saying is that a woman was given a job as CEO, and the wage for that position accordingly dropped. Now, some people are pissed off, even though the disparity between workers and CEO wages decreased!

And your conclusion from all this seems to be, "fuck the liberals, no matter what you do you can't please them."

Am I with you so far?

YJ - I didn't say "fuck the liberals" at all -- I asked how a Liberal would address this problem.

The left-wing of american politics is often made up of contradictory philosophies, that are able to co-exist....most days...because the issues do not overlap.

Today, we have two very politically powerful ideas crashing in a great big conflict.

The Liberal solution is often to turn to legislative solution....mandatory wages, wage caps, etc. Well, how do legislatively fix - as is the general liberal approach (as opposed to a fre market solution) - an issue in which two factions of the Liberal wing of the Democrat party have absolutely conflicting view points.

This isn't some devious krellin plot to destroy Liberalism, YJ...I didn't create the problem. I didn't define the (now conflicting) issues that many Liberals -- including liberals around here -- hold fast to.

It's interesting that such a great topic - CEO wages and female wage disparity - goes almost completely untouched by the local liberal crowd. What a grand opportunity to vilify me as some bastard elitest sexist so-and-so...

I think the silence on this issue from our usual liberal suspects is quite telling...

OK, so your argument though does presuppose that these two viewpoints are necessarily conflicting. I would say that they are not. Again, the worker/CEO and woman/man dichotomies are not intersecting. There is a separate solution to both "problems" simultaneously (not saying you'll LIKE the solution, merely that one exists).

Now, because a single decision (the hiring of this woman) has both helped the worker/CEO gap, and harmed the man/female gap, it gives the impression that the issues are irreconcilable or intertwined, but it would be quite possible (again, not saying it should be done) to reconcile both disparities independently and simultaneously.

In other words, I think you are conflating two distinct issues because they happen to overlap here.




Your argument would have some teeth, I think, if you could show that:

1) Liberals are more interested in equalizing pay by any means rather than increasing the quality of life of the worker class.

and more importantly -

2) this newfound CEO wage will stay where it is after this woman is gone and a man becomes CEO again. If it doesn't stay where it is, GM isn't "sensitive toward the women issue," GM is an opportunistic fuckstain :)

"Today, we have two very politically powerful ideas crashing in a great big conflict"

You are a sucker Little Lord Fauntleroy ..... the battle is not about the right and the left, that is just to keep the ignorant like you busy, to mentally assuage the chattering classes. The REAL battle is the Super-Rich vs Everyone Else, and they hold all the aces.
By pretending the Liberals are the enemy you just sound like a victim ..... lost in ignorance, a bit like a bible basher always trying to re-affirm your shaky beliefs by putting others down, you're not fooling intelligent people though.
Debates of quality are not a barrage of words and insults, you still have not learnt this simple truism, sometimes less is more.
The level of debate here is akin to smart bombs with targeted strikes where as you are relying on the battering ram approach, old-fashioned and out-of-date.
Raise your game mate ....

Again, the wage gap is not nearly as severe as is let on. If you exclude physically demanding jobs (that women as a whole just aren't built for) the discrepancy is much less severe.

@Chaqa source please.

I got an extra 12K more a year in my new job through negotiation. 15k is nicer. Good job.

I find just as many contractions in the American Conservative side as the Liberal side. So the Liberals should split into two or more parties to be internally consistent. I think the Conservatives might have something of the same problem, too, no? A blackened pot & kettle.

I'm not sure what your point is. Two people negotiated two different contracts. And you want liberals to squawk about it, and they aren't. Maybe she was paid less because she had less experience, or her starting salary wasn't as high as the leaving salary of the previous person.

Maybe you can explain how saying the mantra "free market solution" like you did above solves sexism, a social problem.

Give me a few minutes to find it. I believe I read it on a post from this forum, or on Reddit. I'll post it as soon as I track down the post.

Chaqa and Teod - you are bringing up irrelevent issues. Neither of you denies what I say, you just ignore it and go off topic. Typical...and revealing.

I think they should be given benefit of the doubt, and save the outrage for when the next male CEO comes in.

But I'm not really liberal, so I can't exactly answer your question.

Sshocky, politics is a sport of the here and now....unless you are losing, as the liberals are on this one.

The super-rich at least have something to lose. I don't like them, but at least they're rational. It's the concentrate-power then fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants types like Hugo Chavez that are the (possibly even well-meaning) menace. Nobody's so powerful that they can make shit happen as they want it to happen; they can just make shit happen and look at the pieces afterward.

Regular people also have something to lose; for as bad as things can be, it's still much better than living 500 years ago, for people that are not in war zones.

Totally consistent solution to both issues: Reduce pay for male CEOs.

This would put the female GM CEO back at par with male CEOs while simultaneously reducing the gap between CEO and worker pay.

Sorry to have to disappoint you krellin, but your attempt to cast this as an example of conflicting liberal policies is an utter failure.

oscar - your dismissal of this as a conflict of liberal policies is just head-in-the-sand foolishness. I love love how when two *blatantly obvious* issues are in conflict, the liberals just pretend it isn’t an issue – I want to thank all of you who have participated so far for demonstrating your *gross* sexism and disregard for equal-pay for women.

I can assure you, the women I have spoken to are outraged – and they are mostly conservative women who generally don’t get hyped up about this stuff.
This is the very same vein where a general discussion of the increased use of steroids in youth would be perceived as a very bad thing…but if you point out that steroid use in bi/gay men is 6x that of straight guys, steroid use is suddenly a ho-hum non-issue (see other thread).

Ahhh….the liberals are doing quite a fine job of demonstrating their hypocrisy these past few days – fulfilling my personal predictions exactly (which I why I put these threads up to begin with…to expose said hypocrisy)


Come on -- just ONE liberal admit to me that this is a conflict of liberal policy and *may* expose a flaw in liberal thinking....just one brave little liberal....

Because oscar, where you say "Just reduce all CEO pay"...well, this isn't happening...isn't GOING to happen....this is a specific event:
1. CEO pay was reduced -- a true event, not related to any other CEO pay...cause for celebration
2. CEO of female is 48% of male prior to here. Appears to be gross sexism at play...cause for boycotting GM under any normal liberal circumstance.

this has nothing to do with what you said...it is what it is right now - a contradiction.

In truth, the silence of liberals regarding BOTH items indicates that they dont *really* care about either issue, unless it can be wielded as a club in an election cycle. this can't...so they are silent. Liberals don't care about reality...they care about politics and club-wielding.

I gave you a perfect explanation. You chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your ignorant prejudices about liberal policies. Am I surprised that you would selectively filter out whatever doesn't suit you. Nope. You're very consistent in that respect.

Do I feel sorry for a CEO that makes about $5 mil a year whether they are female or not. Nope.

Your explanation ignores reality - that's why I ignored your explanation.

I'm going to ask you to do two things before you reply:
1.Go find random women you know, and ask them how they feel about the first woman CEO of GM getting less than 50% of the last male CEO. Put it up on your facebook wall, but do NOT mention the CEO / Worker pay-gap issue.

2. Go to other people, and without mentioning the female aspect of the story, ask them if they are happy that GM is finally reducing the CEO / Worker pay gap

So instead of burying your head in the sand and pretending you know what others feel - go ask some people, do your social research, and then let me know what you find. Maybe you will be surprised.

Solution - teach women to be better fucking negotiators. CEO salaries are negotiated. For that matter, most white collar salaries are negotiated. I negotiated mine and I'm just a code head.