Salary Not Specified

Yes but as with Canada the cost of living here is far higher


The word you're looking for is Capitalism;)

Not really. If we were really a capitalist country, then all of our big corporations wouldn't be on welfare right now.
 
Not really. If we were really a capitalist country, then all of our big corporations wouldn't be on welfare right now.
But it's the extremes of capitalism that's driven them there;)
 
But it's the extremes of capitalism that's driven them there;)

:confused:

So Exon makes the biggest quarterly profit ever, and that's why they need corporate welfare?
Well, it is extreme, I'll give you that . . .
 
:confused:

So Exon makes the biggest quarterly profit ever, and that's why they need corporate welfare?
Well, it is extreme, I'll give you that . . .
Are there any directorships on offer for retired senators?
 
What's a directorship? Is that like a spaceship?
A member of a group of persons chosen to control or govern the affairs of an institution or corporation.
 
A member of a group of persons chosen to control or govern the affairs of an institution or corporation.

Oh those, yep, in fact, you don't even have to be retired :)
 
Oh those, yep, in fact, you don't even have to be retired :)
Yes maybe one day politicians will be elected for our ends and not their own, but then again pigs will fly too;)
 
Here's an article from Time that attempts to explain the wage disparity:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1613829,00.html

FTA:
Part of the gap may be explained by the number of hours women work compared with men. But after controlling for all the factors known to affect wages — including occupation and parenthood — the study found that college-educated women still earn about 5% less than college-educated men one year after graduation and 12% 10 years after graduation. This gap, the study's authors go on to say, "remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination."

Even Time narrows it to 5% after the first year. The fact that it expands to 12% after 10 years just says that the problem may be that women don't climb the corporate ladder as quickly as men. That seems to be the real issue.

I don't think the study really goes far enough - and is largely just another example of "statiscal abuse". I'd like to see a comparison of, say... Accounting majors in like jobs for like size corporations after 1 year. Because of job descriptions (and pointing) as noted earlier, I doubt there's any discepancy.

Simple statistics tell you that OVERALL men will earn more than women, simply because they are more likely to work overtime. Many women get a job that is considered to be the 2nd income for the family, so they may take a lower paying job than their husbands.

I'll go out on a limb and say that the disparity DOES exist, but mostly at the upper management levels. Simply because it can take years of experience to get that far, and America is really only a few generations into the "working woman".

I'm not being a sexist, I'm all for equal work for equal pay. I just think these studies are skewed by organizations like NOW.
 
I think the reality is that a family can no longer survive on one person's wages, women HAVE to work, I know I do.

I know... My wife has to work just so we can afford things like:
A cabin in northern Michigan
A cell phone
A 2nd car (for her to get to and from work:rolleyes:)

We still can't afford cable TV... but I'm hoping the govt will turn that into an "entitlement" soon. It's got to be embedded in the Constitution somewhere.

Our standard of living is higher here than in other countries.
We like our toys, and we get so used to them that they become a necessity. Gotta keep up with the Jones's.

Our poor people now would be considered living "high on the hog" by 1940's standards.
 
everyone knows the reason brides wear white is so they match the other kitchen appliances
 
I know... My wife has to work just so we can afford things like:
A cabin in northern Michigan
A cell phone
A 2nd car (for her to get to and from work:rolleyes:)

We still can't afford cable TV... but I'm hoping the govt will turn that into an "entitlement" soon. It's got to be embedded in the Constitution somewhere.

Our standard of living is higher here than in other countries.
We like our toys, and we get so used to them that they become a necessity. Gotta keep up with the Jones's.

Our poor people now would be considered living "high on the hog" by 1940's standards.


My husband and I both work. We have one home, we don't have cell phones, we don't have cable TV, and we can't afford decent health insurance or to save money for college. We do have a telephone with long distance service though, does that mean we are living high on the hog??
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom