Draug I love how every solution you have ever proposed to any problem is a solution that doesn't require you personally to change a damn thing.

The system is fine for Draugnar, therefore anybody who the system isn't fine for is quite simply "doing it wrong."

Life is a bit more nuanced than that.

I know it is, YJ. But not at the CEO level. Additionally, let's actually look at Barra's CV and Akerson's CV. Akerson may not have had auto industry experience, but he had been a managing director at The Carlyle Group. Bara had been an Executive VP at GM. Managing Director is more akin to CEO than exec VP so one would expect someone who had run an entire company to demand and receive a better compensation package.

Wage disparity between men and women honestly doesn't exist at the top levels of business. A bigger problem there is still the glass ceiling that women have a harder time breaking through. Is that sexism? Probably a part of it is, but another part is, as Krellin points out, a difference in approach to negotiation and pursuit. Men are raised/predisposed to be more aggressive in their pursuit of their dreams. Women are taught/predisposed to be more passive. Breaking the glass ceiling and making things more equal (where realistic, as others have pointed out, women are not as equipped, generally speaking, to handle a jackhammer on a construction site) means breaking the cycle of how we raise our youth. And making those changes won't show results for at least a couple generations. We are starting to do this now with the STEM programs and encouraging young girls to think outside the box, but we won't see these girls turn into women and reach the top echelon of business such that they are no longer the exception, but the norm, for another 40 years.

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

Nope. You ignored it so you wouldn't have to face the fact that you got all excited up about having found a conflict in liberal views and then it turns out to not even exist.

"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"


1. I have better stuff to do then letting you send me on errands.

2. I'm posting about my own views, not about the views of "random women".

3. Your "research" methodology is faulty. Why would you present half the data and ask for their opinion? Unless you are trying to lead them on and set them up, as is indeed your usual modus operandi. You shouldn't use biased questions when you do research. I'm not surprised that you're not aware of that.

4. You're still mistaken that it is inconsistent to, be in favor of both equal pay for men and reduction of the CEO-worker pay gap, which as I explained can both be achieved simultaneously.

5. You know jack shit about liberalism. All you have are invalid preconceived partisan prejudices that you are not willing to give up under any circumstances.

@krellin "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".
As a European I am going to pretend that I think you are being ironic when talking about "the left wing of American politics". You can't seriously believe such a thing really exists can you?

Lol. Yeah, it's what we Europeans would call the moderate right. But still, since it's more leftist than most politics in the US, in that context I'd say it makes sense to call it the left wing.

I take your point but if that's a left wing we are looking at one very lopsided bird!

@GenDonk - You confuse left with socialist. Socialism is far far left.

oscar - your refusal to actually attempt to learn something about other people's *real* attitudes on this matter is *highly* indicative of the type of person you are.

God forbid you actually let some facts get in the way of your perverse opinion.

I'll keep your refusal to explore the subject with real data in mind when we have future conversations. People that are just dead set in their opinions without regard to exploring facts around them are generally of no use to me...But I'm not shocked that you behave this way, as your entire presence in the forum these last three weeks since your arrival has been one of a loud-mouthed opinionated fool who knows *nothing* about what he is talking about. You might even be mute-worthy...

By the way, you can not "set up" somebody in a logical trap if their philosophies are solid and "un-trappable". The refusal of anyone to actually acknowledge a conflict in liberal philosophy here is *breath-taking* in its unspoken message...a bunch of noble white knights, fighting for the poor oppressed worker...fighting for women's rights....ignoring when those "rights" to fair compensation come in to conflict and ignoring it.

Way to go, my liberal friends. You never fail to please me in your oh-so-predicatable behavior.

@draugnar. You make my point for me. Thank you.

Krellin why not give your mouth a rest? It might give your brain a chance to mull over some of the tripe you spew out on a monotonously regular basis and moderate the output. If you haven't done so already please feel free to mute me as well.

"Wage disparity between men and women honestly doesn't exist at the top levels of business."

I smell another Draugnar "fact from the gut," here. You must know by now I'm not going to let you make a claim like that without showing something more than your opinion to back it up.

Wouldn't you assume wage disparities don't exist at that level until it's proven? Are there any examples other than this one that shows female CEOs getting regularly compensated less than their male counterparts? Am I right in assuming that most studies looking at the gender disparity of incomes look at lower incomes because not enough female top level income earners exist?

@krellin I'm pleased to please you. I cannot stand before your rapier wit and iron logic.

General donkey, you are actually telling me to shut up as you comment in the thread that I created, and as I am trying to discuss the actual OP. fuck off, douchebag. THIS is why I act like an asshole around here, because ridiculous fucktards like you apparently are only here to here yourself blather, and you get offended if someone dare express an alternate viewpoint. Seriously...fuck off if you don't like me posting is the fucing thread I created about the topic I posted. You are as ridiculous an assclown as has ever existed.

By the way -- since this topic is about *women's* perception of wages in large part, and worker's perception of CEO pay in large part, the idea that ((gasp!!!!)) someone might actually talk to <wait for it....> WOMEN about this issue should be obvious.

For those of you that think politics is about anything BUT perception, you have your head's up your asses (pardon my French). I have actually talked to women...you know, voters...about their opinion, and they seem pretty universally appalled (regardless of explanations such as Draugnar's) -- i.e. it is an *emotional* issue as much or more so than it is a fact-based, logical issue.

But, clearly none of you are actually interested in the opinion of women when discussing a curent-day, media-ready liberal political issue about women.

Wonderful.

I guess when it comes right down to it, Krellybelly is the only one senstive here to women's concerns.

#krellinknowswheretheclitorisis

y2k -- you, as everynoe else, are trying to justify this *obvious* (liberal speak) sexism. Looking at facts it's irrelevent, isnt' it?

I mean...in *fact*, women often have gaps in their resume from time they take away for child-care. Women often enter high-paying professions *by choice* at a lower rate than men. Women often simply don't even apply for high-level jobs at the rate that men apply to them. etc.

So why women, on average, make less than men is often-times *very easily explained* by facts and rational thought. But such facts have *never* stopped Liberals from crying foul when none exists...

....until today.

The only difference today versus any other day, is that THIS woman's pay, as represented in my OP, is in direct conflict with *another* liberal issue...thus making the knee-jerk, emotion0-based liberal response more difficult...and so you all are pretty much ignoring one issue completely (CEO wage gap) and defending the other.

It is simply astounding.

YJ - and your girlfriend will *never* forget it....

#krellinknowswheretheclitorisis <-- amen to that, brother. Sad so many of you liberal men, don't. heh heh.

It was you, you bastard!

#YJsGFleft4krellin

Yeah, but after I only offered to pay her half of what I usually pay Thucy, she got pissed and left me, too.

#YJsGFleftKrellin4EqualPay

Made this just for you krells

http://i.imgur.com/zGeDNz6.jpg

Awesome. Well, since men and women are equal anyway, paying special attention to the clitoris -- and obvious deformation, since equal men don't have one -- is kind of rude.

That's true. It's why I spend most of my time trying to stimulate the lower intestine.

Ah, Krellin you never fail to deliver. I wonder what it is that is missing from your life that makes you behave like this? Maybe some time with a therapist would be useful.

"oscar - your refusal to actually attempt to learn something about other people's *real* attitudes on this matter is *highly* indicative of the type of person you are. God forbid you actually let some facts get in the way of your perverse opinion."

Other people's attitudes are not facts. How typical that you would confuse the two.

"By the way, you can not "set up" somebody in a logical trap if their philosophies are solid and "un-trappable"."

What a ridiculous statement. Trapping people by framing the question is about as easy as feeding candy to a twelve year old (or horse shit to a conservative). Let me give you a simple example:

If you show two groups of people the exact same video of a car crashing into another car and ask one group to estimate what speed the car was going when it "touched" the other car and the other group what speed it was going when it "crashed" into the other car the latter group will on average give you a much higher estimate than the former. This by just changing one word in the question.

Similarly, if you inquire about people's opinion about the GM CEO pay it makes a world of difference how you present the facts to them. If you present half of the facts to one group and the other half to the other, then what you are measuring is not the inconsistency in their philosophies but the bias in your own questions.

"By the way -- since this topic is about *women's* perception of wages in large part, and worker's perception of CEO pay in large part, the idea that ((gasp!!!!)) someone might actually talk to <wait for it....> WOMEN about this issue should be obvious."

Neither the OP nor the article linked in it are about "women's perception" of the situation at GP. You're just trying to change the subject to keep your troll alive now that I have already debunked your first attempt by explaining how you can quite easily simultaneously reduce female-male as well as CEO-worker income inequality.

"For those of you that think politics is about anything BUT perception, you have your head's up your asses (pardon my French)."

You are the one with his head up his ass. Perception is quite relevant in politics but there's much more to politics than just perception. Unless your definition of perception is such that it includes everything, in which case your remark here is devoid of any real meaning.


"I have actually talked to women...you know, voters...about their opinion, and they seem pretty universally appalled (regardless of explanations such as Draugnar's) -- i.e. it is an *emotional* issue as much or more so than it is a fact-based, logical issue."

Your conversations with women are about as relevant as anecdotal reports of UFO sightings and most definitely insufficient and invalid to conclude that they are "universally" appalled. This is especially true due to your habit of only hearing what you want to hear, i.e. what fits well with your preconceived ideas.

Is oscar babbling something? Oh....not worth reading? Closed-minded, denies reality, etc? Ahhh...that's what a I thought.

By the way JoJoJo - you *are* my therapy.

YJ - I concede. You are, as always, the Master. <-your humble Padawan->

"Is oscar babbling something? Oh....not worth reading? Closed-minded, denies reality, etc? Ahhh...that's what a I thought."

I have noted that this is your peculiar way of admitting defeat. So thanks.

@krellin:

"Is oscar babbling something? Oh....not worth reading? Closed-minded, denies reality, etc? Ahhh...that's what a I though."

Rofl. How infuriating.