Gender Pay Gap - Not Actually that Big?

[ronburgundy]

Some sort of feedback loop seems to be involved. Most couples, when they have a kid, would expect the one making less money to take time away from their career since the sting of losing the lower amount of income would sting less. So women make less than men because they take more time off work to raise families and they opt to be the ones to stay home and raise families because they make less than their partner.

Hell, if my wife made more than me I'd be her house husband in a NY minute.

Gonna be tough to reconcile that with the data that say young single women make more than men.

Not tough at all, I already did it in my prior post quite easily and thoroughly using simple facts far more empirically established than the numerous assumptions you are making.

 

[Kusa]

Women that are skilled make as much or more than men.

My wife and I work for the same company and have similar jobs (sales). She makes about 50% more than I do.

 

[ronburgundy]

Women that are skilled make as much or more than men.

My wife and I work for the same company and have similar jobs (sales). She makes about 50% more than I do.

I'm glad for wife, but anecdotes are not data.

I am sure that there are workplaces and even some fields where there is an advantage to the females. The data show that there are more workplaces and fields where women are paid less for doing the same job just as well. That is why the study in the OP had to add extra variables to try and make the difference go away, those included time in the workforce or at a particular job, because actual quality and type of work could not account for the difference.

The problem is that discrimination is predicted to lower hours at work, time at job and in workforce, in addition to pay. So, it is invalid to "control" for them as though they are merely alternative causal factors.

 

[Kusa]

Women that are skilled make as much or more than men.

My wife and I work for the same company and have similar jobs (sales). She makes about 50% more than I do.

I'm glad for wife, but anecdotes are not data.

I am sure that there are workplaces and even some fields where there is an advantage to the females. The data show that there are more workplaces and fields where women are paid less for doing the same job just as well. That is why the study in the OP had to add extra variables to try and make the difference go away, those included time in the workforce or at a particular job, because actual quality and type of work could not account for the difference.

The problem is that discrimination is predicted to lower hours at work, time at job and in workforce, in addition to pay. So, it is invalid to "control" for them as though they are merely alternative causal factors.

Seriously, how can you prove that the lower paid women are worth more than what they get? I'm not being sarcastic, real question. I know my wife is better than me at sales and her paycheck shows it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Here i another way to think about everything I already said regarding the inability of this data to test a discrimination theory.

Multi-variate analysis of correlational data cannot possible test all potential causal models. There are numerous assumption laden decisions to how such analyses are done, and how the analyses are performed determine which subset of causal models they can be used to evaluate.
In these analyses, the methods used mean that the following causal models are compared:

1. The control variables (time in workforce, etc.) have some unspecified relationship (either causal in either direction or non-causal) to gender and to pay.

2. The control variables (time in workforce, etc.) have no relationship of any type (even the most indirect correlation) to either gender or pay, or both.

The results rule out #2 and only #2. And #2 is a good label for it because its a bullshit strawman model that no viable theory of discrimination would presume.
Discrimination models coherent with other supported basic assumptions of human behavior predict #1, just like a theory that say it isn't discrimination does. The real discrimination and non-discrimination models differ in the different causal relations all subsumed under #1, which the data is incapable of distinguishing.

So, we must turn to other types of data that are differentially predicted by these models. I described those in my reply to dismal and they include experimental evidence of the causal impact of gender on job-related decision making, and the variability over time and between people in whether men make reduced employment choices similar to what is more typical among women. That data strongly favors a causal role of gender discrimination in which "choices" to reduce employment are as much an effect as a causal factor in wages.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm glad for wife, but anecdotes are not data.

I am sure that there are workplaces and even some fields where there is an advantage to the females. The data show that there are more workplaces and fields where women are paid less for doing the same job just as well. That is why the study in the OP had to add extra variables to try and make the difference go away, those included time in the workforce or at a particular job, because actual quality and type of work could not account for the difference.

The problem is that discrimination is predicted to lower hours at work, time at job and in workforce, in addition to pay. So, it is invalid to "control" for them as though they are merely alternative causal factors.

Seriously, how can you prove that the lower paid women are worth more than what they get? I'm not being sarcastic, real question. I know my wife is better than me at sales and her paycheck shows it.

I can't prove it, but unlike to OP and its supporters, I don't claim false proof. They are claiming evidence that their is another cause that fully accounts for the only certain fact we have, which is that the average pay of women is lower than of men better than a more direct effect of gender, namely discrimination.

The burden of proof is on those claiming their lower pay is not due to their gender. The most clear empirical fact is that gender is related pay. The "not gender" theory requires the non-parsimonious assumptions that the genders differ on other variables and those other variables are the cause of pay differences. There is nothing wrong with extra assumptions so long as you can account for extra data that theories without those assumptions cannot.
The OP claims evidence that proves this, but it only proves that whoever think that is proof is woefully uninformed about proper use of statistical analysis and using the results to test causal models. Their data is consistent with their assumptions, but equally consistent with the assumptions of a discrimination theory which includes more general establish facts about human behavior (such as that people tend to choose not to be mistreated).

 

[Kusa]

The burden of proof is on those claiming their lower pay is not due to their gender.

Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on those making the claim that it is gender?

The most clear empirical fact is that gender is related pay. The "not gender" theory requires the non-parsimonious assumptions that the genders differ on other variables and those other variables are the cause of pay differences. There is nothing wrong with extra assumptions so long as you can account for extra data that theories without those assumptions cannot.
The OP claims evidence that proves this, but it only proves that whoever think that is proof is woefully uninformed about proper use of statistical analysis and using the results to test causal models. Their data is consistent with their assumptions, but equally consistent with the assumptions of a discrimination theory which includes more general establish facts about human behavior (such as that people tend to choose not to be mistreated).

Answer me this. If you picked 100 random women and men all in the same age group and other variables being the same, and put them through a vast amount of tasks that simulate different work requirements, would the results be the same between genders?

 

[thebeave]

Well, there's always Jessica Valenti's solution for the wage gap "problem":

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/world-wage-gap-pay-women-more-men-less

The answer to the world’s grossly gendered wage gap finally may be within our grasp. Only problem is, half the population may not be too pleased with how we can fix it.

Over the last few years, disparity between men and women’s pay – and workplace gender inequality more generally – has inspired all sorts of solutions that focus on how women can rise in the ranks and make more money: Ask for raises! Don’t leave before you leave. Count on karma?

But what if the boldest solution for the wage gap isn’t about raising women’s salaries at all? What if we paid men less?

 

[Metaphor]

They are claiming evidence that their is another cause that fully accounts for

Except that's a mischaracterisation. No variables or set of variables would ever 'fully' account for a complex social phenomenon like income from wages and salaries.

the only certain fact we have, which is that the average pay of women is lower than of men

In what way is that the only certain fact? It's not even the demographic difference with the largest effect size: full time workers make more in wages and salaries than those working part time hours. Forty year olds in the labour market make more than twenty year olds.

The burden of proof is on those claiming their lower pay is not due to their gender.

No, it's not. The burden of proof of those claiming gender discrimination is on the people claiming it.

The most clear empirical fact is that gender is related pay.

That isn't the 'most clear' anything.

The "not gender" theory requires the non-parsimonious assumptions that the genders differ on other variables

It would be unalloyed madness to imagine that men and women do not differ from each other, on average, on an uncountable number of characteristics.

Note, for example, that men are taller than women. This is generally not regarded as due to discrimination (except by unhinged whacktivists who think that girls are socialised into being shorter -- note that this isn't satire of some position but an actually sincerely held belief).

Now, it may in fact be the case that not all of the height difference between men and women is due to non-discrimination reasons. For example, boys might be given more protein than girls. Or, boys might be encouraged in physical activities that have some bearing on final adult height.

But to look at the height difference between men and women and then to imagine that all of the difference is due to discrimination is the same as looking at the wage gap difference between men and women and then to imagine all of the difference is due to discrimination.

and those other variables are the cause of pay differences. There is nothing wrong with extra assumptions

Yet just because you can use a single term -- 'discrimination' -- does not mean your model is more parsimonious. 'Discrimination' is not a single definable act. You may as well say all the difference is due to 'gender preferences' and leave it at that, as if that explains things parsimoniously.

so long as you can account for extra data that theories without those assumptions cannot.

Of course, it already does. Gender discrimination does not explain why women with young children earn less than child-free women of the same age. Doubtless, you might say 'women with children are seen as more feminine, and more feminine women are discriminated against more'. Such a just-so explanation invokes another dimension to gendered discrimination (level of perceived femininity), reducing the parsimony of the model.

And note that the just-so explanation can apply (with a little modification) if the exact opposite were true. If women with young children earned more than child-free women, someone might say 'this is because child-free women are seen as unfeminine, and the market punishes them for their lack of gender conformity'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would you assume women and men would choose to work equal hours on the job if it were not for discrimination?

Given observable reality.

But why do you assume it's discrimination?

What you're referring to is mommy track--women who spend less time working to have more time with their children. Of course their income suffers for it. That's not discrimination.

You both make the same error, so I'll give one reply.

You have presented zero observable reality that women would choose the work less in the absence of discrimination. That would require data from a non-existent world in which it has been proven that there is no discrimination. You cannot get to that conclusion based on the observed data from the real world. You are making an assumption as or greater than the one you claim I am making. And I am not actually making any assumption because I, unlike you, am not arguing that one causal model is true and the other false. I am merely pointing out the the presented data is incapable of discerning between the causal alternatives, because they are equally consistent with the differences and co variances observed and your preferred interpretation is as assumption-laden as any.

Dismal already addressed this here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ually-that-Big&p=276727&viewfull=1#post276727

 

[EricK]

Metaphor's bringing up height differences as a comparison raise an interesting point. There is a well evidenced height pay gap, whereby eg men who are 6 feet tall earn more on average than men who are 5 feet 7 inches etc. The difference is a few hundred dollars per inch, I think.

Now men are also taller than women on average, so why shouldn't the height prejudice partially, or completely explain any gender difference?

It could even be the case that it more than explains it! Eg women of any height could, on average outearn men of the same height, but overall women would earn less on average just because they are shorter on average. If that were the case (and I'm not saying it is - I haven't found any studies which look at this), then one could say that height prejudice is the causal factor, but, when it comes to gender, men are being discriminated against.

 

[thebeave]

Metaphor's bringing up height differences as a comparison raise an interesting point. There is a well evidenced height pay gap, whereby eg men who are 6 feet tall earn more on average than men who are 5 feet 7 inches etc. The difference is a few hundred dollars per inch, I think.

Now men are also taller than women on average, so why shouldn't the height prejudice partially, or completely explain any gender difference?

It could even be the case that it more than explains it! Eg women of any height could, on average outearn men of the same height, but overall women would earn less on average just because they are shorter on average. If that were the case (and I'm not saying it is - I haven't found any studies which look at this), then one could say that height prejudice is the causal factor, but, when it comes to gender, men are being discriminated against.

Possibly. Tall height makes men more attractive, and attractive people are generally more successful. For women, height is generally not a factor in attractiveness (except at the extremes). I think you may be comparing apples and oranges here.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor's bringing up height differences as a comparison raise an interesting point. There is a well evidenced height pay gap, whereby eg men who are 6 feet tall earn more on average than men who are 5 feet 7 inches etc. The difference is a few hundred dollars per inch, I think.

Now men are also taller than women on average, so why shouldn't the height prejudice partially, or completely explain any gender difference?

It could even be the case that it more than explains it! Eg women of any height could, on average outearn men of the same height, but overall women would earn less on average just because they are shorter on average. If that were the case (and I'm not saying it is - I haven't found any studies which look at this), then one could say that height prejudice is the causal factor, but, when it comes to gender, men are being discriminated against.

Possibly. Tall height makes men more attractive, and attractive people are generally more successful. For women, height is generally not a factor in attractiveness (except at the extremes). I think you may be comparing apples and oranges here.

Not necessarily. It may not be about 'attractiveness' but about perceived authority, assertiveness, and power.

 

[ronburgundy]

But why do you assume it's discrimination?

What you're referring to is mommy track--women who spend less time working to have more time with their children. Of course their income suffers for it. That's not discrimination.

You both make the same error, so I'll give one reply.

You have presented zero observable reality that women would choose the work less in the absence of discrimination. That would require data from a non-existent world in which it has been proven that there is no discrimination. You cannot get to that conclusion based on the observed data from the real world. You are making an assumption as or greater than the one you claim I am making. And I am not actually making any assumption because I, unlike you, am not arguing that one causal model is true and the other false. I am merely pointing out the the presented data is incapable of discerning between the causal alternatives, because they are equally consistent with the differences and co variances observed and your preferred interpretation is as assumption-laden as any.

Dismal already addressed this here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ually-that-Big&p=276727&viewfull=1#post276727

Dismal's post does not address anything in my post or any of my objections to the OP.

The women "choosing" not to work in those studies can all be doing so because they get paid less and are tired of discrimination in the workplace. IOW, that data is perfectly consistent with a model in which discrimination is the main causal factor of both lower pay and leaving the workforce.

Like I said, you must show that women would be the parent to choose not to work in a world absent of discrimination, which requires first proving that the current world lacks any discrimination (which none of your data comes close to doing).

 

[ronburgundy]

Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on those making the claim that it is gender?

I explained why in the next 3 sentences.

The most clear empirical fact is that gender is related pay. The "not gender" theory requires the non-parsimonious assumptions that the genders differ on other variables and those other variables are the cause of pay differences. There is nothing wrong with extra assumptions so long as you can account for extra data that theories without those assumptions cannot.
The OP claims evidence that proves this, but it only proves that whoever think that is proof is woefully uninformed about proper use of statistical analysis and using the results to test causal models. Their data is consistent with their assumptions, but equally consistent with the assumptions of a discrimination theory which includes more general establish facts about human behavior (such as that people tend to choose not to be mistreated).

Answer me this. If you picked 100 random women and men all in the same age group and other variables being the same, and put them through a vast amount of tasks that simulate different work requirements, would the results be the same between genders?

Who knows. Women may very well do better than men on most tasks for the jobs where brute strength is not an factor. Also, doing well at a job requires more than how well you perform a specified task when actually trying your hardest. As important as that is whether you can figure what task to do when, whether you bother to stay on task and put forth your best effort, how you interact with co-workers to either improve or hinder overall productivity, etc..

 

[ksen]

But why do you assume it's discrimination?

What you're referring to is mommy track--women who spend less time working to have more time with their children. Of course their income suffers for it. That's not discrimination.

You both make the same error, so I'll give one reply.

You have presented zero observable reality that women would choose the work less in the absence of discrimination. That would require data from a non-existent world in which it has been proven that there is no discrimination. You cannot get to that conclusion based on the observed data from the real world. You are making an assumption as or greater than the one you claim I am making. And I am not actually making any assumption because I, unlike you, am not arguing that one causal model is true and the other false. I am merely pointing out the the presented data is incapable of discerning between the causal alternatives, because they are equally consistent with the differences and co variances observed and your preferred interpretation is as assumption-laden as any.

Dismal already addressed this here:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ually-that-Big&p=276727&viewfull=1#post276727

Well, he may have quoted a post about that but I doubt he addressed it. That would be out of character for him.

 

[ronburgundy]

Except that's a mischaracterisation. No variables or set of variables would ever 'fully' account for a complex social phenomenon like income from wages and salaries.

And yet, that is what you must do to claim there is no evidence of discrimination. More importantly, they aren't even able to "account" for any of the gap because accounting for it requires demonstrating particular causality, and all they have done is show overlapping correlations which do not favor a non-discrimination account over a discrimination account.

the only certain fact we have, which is that the average pay of women is lower than of men

In what way is that the only certain fact? It's not even the demographic difference with the largest effect size: full time workers make more in wages and salaries than those working part time hours. Forty year olds in the labour market make more than twenty year olds.

It is the only fact about the relation between gender and pay, namely that their is a relation favoring men. Any causal account for that relationship is not a fact but an inference based on a host of assumptions.

The burden of proof is on those claiming their lower pay is not due to their gender.

No, it's not. The burden of proof of those claiming gender discrimination is on the people claiming it.

The most parsimonious explanation for the observed covariance between gender and pay is a causal influence of one on the other and pay cannot cause gender. Any other explanation for it requires positing at leas one and probably many other variables that have particular causal relations to both those variables. Unless compelling evidence of such causal relations is established, the most plausible account is the simpler one of gender impacting pay.

The "not gender" theory requires the non-parsimonious assumptions that the genders differ on other variables

It would be unalloyed madness to imagine that men and women do not differ from each other, on average, on an uncountable number of characteristics.

And among the countless ways in which they differ is likely to be the different responses they evoke from their employers related to pay.

Note, for example, that men are taller than women. This is generally not regarded as due to discrimination (except by unhinged whacktivists who think that girls are socialised into being shorter -- note that this isn't satire of some position but an actually sincerely held belief).

You don't just have to assume that gender relates to other variables, you must assume that those particular variables it relates to also causally impact pay and are the only reason gender relates to pay.

But to look at the height difference between men and women and then to imagine that all of the difference is due to discrimination is the same as looking at the wage gap difference between men and women and then to imagine all of the difference is due to discrimination.

First, let's be clear that it is the OP and its supporters claiming that all or near all the wage gap is due to something other than discrimination. I am not saying that all of it is due to discrimination, just that there is no good evidence favoring other explanations for any part of the gap, let alone most or near all of it.

That aside, NO, your analogy is a total fail and a discrimination account for pay is pretty much the direct opposite of what it would be for height. In fact, assuming that their is no pay discrimination is more like assuming that gender is only related to height because women do not try hard enough to be tall. Gender/sex is biological and height is a feature of biology. has a direct biological impact upon height. Thus gender can impact one's height in a biology-to-biology relation within a person's body in just about as direct and parsimonious way possible. A direct effect of genes on height will always be more parsimonious that any other route, including discrimination or any other account involving people's behaviors (such as successful nutrition acquisition). In contrast to height variance, pay determinations are not a biological trait but rather inherentl the product of an employer's mental processes in which they distinguish between employees in deciding who gets what level of pay. IOW, by definition, all pay variance is the product of the mental act of discriminating between options. Thus, all possible models accounting for pay variance share the same presumption that discrimination in the general cognitive sense is happening, and they differ in what factors are assumed to impact those acts of discrimination.
Thus, the outcome to be explained is why are employers making discrimination in pay that related to the gender of the employees? Well, the most parsimonious account is the one that simply presumes only the variables in the question itself, gender and discrimination. The employer is factoring gender into their process of discriminating between pay levels for various employees. Gender directly impacting pay determinations (another word for discrimination) is as direct and parsimonious as it gets, and thus analogous to the biology that defines gender impacting the biology of height. In contast, any alternative account for why gender relates to height requires numerous additional variables and causal steps, just like adding a discrimination mediator to explain gender differences in height.

In sum, discrimination is the fat more parsimonious explanation for pay differences for the same reasons that it would be a far less parsimonious explanation for height differences.

and those other variables are the cause of pay differences. There is nothing wrong with extra assumptions

Yet just because you can use a single term -- 'discrimination' -- does not mean your model is more parsimonious. 'Discrimination' is not a single definable act. You may as well say all the difference is due to 'gender preferences' and leave it at that, as if that explains things parsimoniously.

I explain this above. All pay differences require cognitive acts of discrimination, so all explanations for pay differences make the same assumptions about that and differ in what the assume impacts pay differences. The gender discrimination account assumes that a person's biological manifestations of gender directly impact how the employers discriminate pay levels. Any other account presumes that the biolgical manifestations of gender impact some host of other variables that are directly relevant to job performance (without this latter part, it would still be gender discrimination) , and then those variables causally impact how employers discriminate pay levels. IOW, all alternative accounts are between twice as and many times more complex depending on the number of other variables requires to fully account for the gender - pay covariance (and yes, they must fully account for it (not just via shared variance but established causality), or any leftover variance represents evidence of discrimination).

so long as you can account for extra data that theories without those assumptions cannot.

Of course, it already does. Gender discrimination does not explain why women with young children earn less than child-free women of the same age.
Doubtless, you might say 'women with children are seen as more feminine, and more feminine women are discriminated against more'. Such a just-so explanation invokes another dimension to gendered discrimination (level of perceived femininity), reducing the parsimony of the model.

And yet it is just as theoretically plausible as your alternative and at least as parsimonious that your account. Also, that is not data directly relevant to the gender pay gap.
For example, relevant data would be why do gender pay gaps at time 1 predict the amount of child care related employment reduction for both parents at time 2? The timing rules out the possibility that these employment reductions are the cause of the pay difference, and support the reverse causality that pay differences impact employment reduction choices.

IT is no more a "just-so" explanation than all the non-discrimination accounts. In fact, there is massive evidence, including from controlled experiments) that female attractiveness causally impacts job-related treatment by others including compensation, and that perceived attractiveness declines from 18 to average childbearing years.
This is more of an empirical fact than any a data you have or could offer to support your non-gender account. Incorporating established facts is not adding assumptions but increasing coherence with other knowns.

And note that the just-so explanation can apply (with a little modification) if the exact opposite were true. If women with young children earned more than child-free women, someone might say 'this is because child-free women are seen as unfeminine, and the market punishes them for their lack of gender conformity'.

That is a completely different account, not a slight modification. We could just as easily make up the idea that if women with young kids earned more, someone might say that it because their employer sees them as even more hard working and committed to their job given they still show up with all those extra burdens, or if they take more time off, that employers think more highly of them for having priorities and being good parents (in fact, the coach for the Arizona Cardinals told all his employees he would fire them if they put their job before spending time with their kids, watching their games, plays, etc..)
I can just as easily take all of your preferred alternative variables and make up a story that would account for the opposite result. Being able to do so has no rational bearing on anything.

 

[Playball40]

MIght make breastfeeding difficult.

We have gone over this multiple times. Economic analysis that enter all kinds of control variables for correlational data are of valid causal attributions for the observed pay gap difference. They cannot tell us that the gap is due to something other than discrimination. They can only tell us that the data that is available does not allow us to attribute it to discrimination or to other causes.

The problem is that the people who do such research so frequently ignore the massive biases they are imposing on their interpretations via their presumed causal relationships.
In this case, a major presumption is that time in the workforce can only be a cause of pay differential and not an effect of pay differential. If women are discriminated against for being women by getting lower pay they are more likely to leave a particular job, a field of work, or either reduce their work hours or the workforce altogether and let their husband who get more because he is a man work while she raises the kids. All of these factors, which can be effects of getting lower pay, would wind up manifesting themselves as "less hours per week" and "less time on the job", which are the primary variables that the researchers are attributing the wage gap to.
Their economic analyses are incapable of distinguishing this causal pattern from these researchers assume is possible, which is that the women are paid equal but choose for their own various reasons to work less, switch jobs, leave the work force etc.. When you enter these variables as "controls" in the analyses and the most of the wage gap "goes away", that is what would happen for both of these causal scenarios.

BTW, this abuse of multivariate correlational analysis is not limited to those trying to discount gender discrimination in pay. It is a rampant problem in the social sciences where researchers, who were never trained in actual experimental scientific methods which allow for causal inference, learn complex statistical approaches to correlational data and get deluded into thinking they can use them to "reveal" the true causal relations among factors, which they cannot.
All these methods can do is show you patterns of shared and unshared variance that you then must interpret in terms of its consistency with the patterns predicted by various possible causal models. The number of and reasonableness of the possible causal models you consider will determine the validity of your causal inferences, which in most cases of non-experimental data can never be made with more than modest confidence.

In sum, what the OP and the Feakonomics data show is that the wage gap is AS consistent (not more consistent) with the cause being hours and time on job versus discrimination with those variables being effects of discrimination and partial mediators of discrimination.

Some sort of feedback loop seems to be involved. Most couples, when they have a kid, would expect the one making less money to take time away from their career since the sting of losing the lower amount of income would sting less. So women make less than men because they take more time off work to raise families and they opt to be the ones to stay home and raise families because they make less than their partner.

Hell, if my wife made more than me I'd be her house husband in a NY minute.

 

[ronburgundy]

Because they presume women are less competent,and they don't want to work with women. Many men have little interest in women they can't screw or at least would like to screw.
And yes, employers are human beings, most of them men, whose cognition does not follow the patterns of an emotionless robot whose sole directive is economic utility.

Don't buy into the religion accepted by conservative economists that all market participants engage in perfectly rational decision making to optimize their sole goal of increasing the economic gain. That faith was long ago falsified by behavioral science showing all people are highly prone to rampant irrationality.

Have you ever set foot in a workplace?

Yes, and I see rampant misogyny in nearly every workplace I have been outside of the leftist havens of academic social science departments. I have also just been around men in general and observe the fact that very few men choose to regularly hang out with women they are not screwing or trying to (this is not misogyny, just like-gender preferences that matter because most hiring is done by men.

I see supervisors and employers constantly making decisions based in their ideology or personal tastes that harm long term economic gain of the company.

Have you ever stepped foot outside of your fictional Universe?

 

[Trausti]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU[/YOUTUBE]