>>And that's how you perpetuate the wage gap!
That is the only possible reason. Sexism.
There could be no other explanation as to why her counter offer was rejected including but not limited to completely inaccurate data on Glass Door...
That is the only possible reason. Sexism.
There could be no other explanation as to why her counter offer was rejected including but not limited to completely inaccurate data on Glass Door...
Then again, I wouldn't want to work for someone who doesn't understand basic negotiations.
And once we've expanded our model to include base human instincts over rational economic behavior, sexism isn't an implausible explanation at all.
Personally I hate negotiation, that is one the worst things about Human society IMO, offer me a fair wage, offer me a fair price, I do not understand people that want to haggle and negotiate over everything
The more I advance into higher and higher roles, and the more salary negotiation becomes a thing more I long for the days where it was just a job, the company was Paying $xx/hr and has 100 openings, if you wanted to work for XX/hr great if not there are 300 other people waiting to do the job.
That is interesting... I am sure the world would be a much simpler place if people can just make claims with out having to offer any proof of those claims...
Science for example would be much better if one could simply offer a hypothesis with no backing data, tests, or any research at all, just a wild thought enters your head and the burden in on others to disprove you....
I for one would love to see your source(s) and under lying data to where you have come to the conclusion that is "overwhelmingly happens only to one gender". I am an aware of any data sources on the level of rescinded job offers by sex in the market place. I would question how such data could even be collected...
That's exactly how forming hypotheses work. You run into a couple of isolated, non-rigorously-acquired observations / anecdotes, you form a hypothesis, then you formulate a way to test the hypothesis and gather data. Until you've run the experiment, your hypothesis is just a hypothesis, not concluded fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Scientific_Method_as_...
> * I would question how such data could even be collected...*
Well, that's the problem, right? If it's genuinely hard to gather data that would rigorously demonstrate either A or not-A, on what basis do we believe either A or not-A? It's sound to say, "I have no belief." It's less sound to say "A is the default; the burden of proof is on those claiming not-A."
Let me guess, you are a religious person...
That is the basic foundation of a religion, you can not disprove god there for god exists...
Sorry... no
>>That's exactly how forming hypotheses work. You run into a couple of isolated, non-rigorously-acquired observations / anecdotes, you form a hypothesis, then you formulate a way to test the hypothesis and gather data. Until you've run the experiment, your hypothesis is just a hypothesis, not concluded fact
Well that is a complete bastardization of the scientific method.... You completely discount the "way to test the hypothesis and gather data." part of it. If you can not test and gather data to support your hypotheses then your hypotheses has no merit and should be dismissed completely by any rational thinker. You the individual will entertain your own hypotheses privately until you devise a method of testing and proving your hypotheses with rational thought to others.
Not simply posting it out there and claiming anyone that can not disprove your hypotheses means your hypotheses is correct. Simply because it can not be disproven does not mean it is proven
No, this is neither scientific nor rational.
If you cannot gather data to prove your hypothesis, nor can you gather data to disprove your hypothesis, concluding that the hypothesis is false is exactly as unjustified as concluding that the hypothesis is true. "I have no informed opinion in on this" is a position you can take.
> Simply because it can not be disproven does not mean it is proven
I agree with this. But you keep conflating "not proven" and "should be assumed to be false."