theredlion

> Strangely enough you were the only one to bring up anything about laws being passed.....

How else are you proposing that we mandate equal salaries?

> Are you also opposed to the government forcing products like cigarettes to have disclaimers where the buyer can decide to buy them or not knowing the risk involved?

I think it is strange how arbitrary it is to mark cigarettes like this.

Why not put domestic abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome, car accidents, and alcoholism pictures on every bottle of beer?

Why not put mutilated corpses of people who have died in the vehicle on the side of every car you look at buying?

Why is it just cigarettes that gets that treatment? Why should even cigarettes get that treatment?

There are a million things you can do that harm yourself and others. Freedom of choice + Education is key, NOT government mandate of whatever it decides is safe for your consumption.

> Would you be okay with all of the products you buy having no prices and people getting better prices based on negotiation?

That's exactly how the market works. You are constantly negotiating when you make any financial decision. If people decide that Store XYZ has bread that is too expensive, they can go to Store FGH. Just because many individual stores set prices doesn't mean that there aren't macro negotiations constantly happening. That's pretty much the definition of the free market.

Also micro negotiations are allowed to happen thanks to a free market. Sometimes you get ripped off, sometimes you get a good deal. Again, education is key. You get burned so you learn.

The people bringing this sort of thing up are not pretending that men have not enjoyed advantages in the past and present. They are simply pointing out the occurrences on the other side.

Just to point out that retributive social justice is a major factor in the ideologies which brought about Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Castro's Cuba, and so on. Millions of people died because of "justified" retaliatory ideologies. That's not a mistake that needs to be made again.

I am personally attempting to make sure that equality of opportunity, rather than retribution, is the motivating factor. The earlier down the slope we cement that, the better.

> Myers was amazed to find that a circle roughly 2,500 miles in diameter, when placed over the right part of Asia, could hold more than half the world's population.

The above is from the article. It says radius in the title and diameter in the article

To tack onto this: I know of mid level managers who are eagerly pushing their female direct-reports to higher positions in far less time and under far less qualification requirements than male counterparts in similar roles. The exact reasoning is because they are women.

Some of those women have expressed annoyance at this because they feel that they are being touted as poster-children for the managers. The women also express concern at how they are potentially being pushed into roles that they aren't necessarily qualified for and are unintentionally being set up to fail due to not having the necessary experience to fill a position.

It's important to remember that the women are absolutely not at fault for their managers' actions. Whenever this topic comes up in conversation, I always encourage them to learn as much as possible and jump on top of opportunities that come their way.

That said, I am lucky enough to be able to work with some incredibly respectable and talented women, some of who have skills FAR outshining mine.

It certainly begins to play into the realm of Socialism when one advocates that there should be laws in place which mandate salary laws which restrict an individual's ability to negotiate for themselves. I'm not saying that you're necessarily advocating for that because I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I have been involved in a number of discussions with people who are interested in exploring that path.

> In that case though since a free market is conditioned on both sides having equal knowledge would you be okay if employees were forced to disclose all employees salaries?

That is an interesting idea to think over. I would take out the word "forced". There are pros and cons to employees being knowledgeable about each other's salaries and many companies put the effort in to make salary discussion among employees a taboo.

The idea of a company reprimanding the mere discussion of salary is not a quality I would value, but would not necessarily turn me off to that company depending on numerous other factors: a prominent one being WHY that is the case at that particular company.

Also looking back at your comment again, I wouldn't say that I agree with the idea that "a free market is conditioned on both sides having equal knowledge". As a matter of fact, I don't see how that could be inferred. I would lean towards the idea that both parties should try and have as much information as possible. If that works out in my favor, then great. If it works out against me, then I obviously have more research to do.

> Their salary shouldn’t be affected by their negotiation ability.

I can't disagree more with this statement. Salary is a negotiation process between an employee and an employer. Employers are always trying to keep costs as low as possible and employees are trying to sell themselves to gain as high a salary as possible.

This sounds awfully close to ideas I've heard from pro-Socialist types who would like pure equality of income across job titles not just in a company, but ACROSS companies. That is a world you do not want to live in.

Not employees, employers, NOR the general public want that future regardless of how much they unfoundedly believe it is helping anyone.

Not just violating company policy; violating federal law.

There is little congruence between C-level and workers at a large company. It doesn't take many levels of separation for that to occur.

In this case, the discrepancy lies between people at the top saying that they value diversity and inclusion, then people who doing the hiring acting on that message based on their interpretation of it.

Companies do a LOT of things that are sketchy at best and overtly illegal at worst. The amount of time since the last public fiasco is generally a good indicator of how fast and loose they play (even more for companies which have never had a negative public incident).

Nobody's begging you to believe me. I'm just typing what I know from those involved

It's not the companies that are proud of it per se. Not directly at least. The people who are proud of it are the ones directly involved, typically lower downs in HR or the public facing department.

The message gets translated when coming from the top down or when going into the public. It turns into something to the effect of how inclusive and diverse the company is. The higher ups especially turn a blind eye (or are in complete denial) of the actual practices which happen.

Unless your company is blatantly paying women less, which is wrong, then there are more factors involved than simply sex and pay grade.

Your second paragraph is completely logically disconnected from your first

I know a lot of people. This is based on conversations with those involved in the hiring process at various companies. They are proud of it and see it as not only a plus, but a social benefit, which causes people to be very boastfully vocal in social situations

Very strange time we live in.

I do agree with your second paragraph, but this isn't regarding anything that has happened to me personally

That's an interesting question. I'm personally aware of several large companies in my area which, due to diversity pressure, blatantly discriminate in favor of minorities and women.

The performance required from a white man in an interview for the same job is higher. That is to say that a white man will be openly discarded in favor of a minority/woman with a similar background when applying for the same job.

This is a common occurrence.