Gender Pay Gap
Offline Interested to see yalls take on this issue and your reasoning. The claim seems to be this gap is caused by discrimination against women.
My take: complete myth.
Reasoning: No rational argument has been put forth that would convince me otherwise. It makes zero sense in either theory or practice.
The argument seems to go like this:
Observation: Women make something like .77 for every dollar a man makes (complete nonsense apples to oranges comparison btw)
Hypothesis to Explain Observation: Discrimination
Evidence to Support Hypothesis: Women make something like .77 for every dollar a man makes
As an aside, this sort of nonsensical thinking leads to things like calls for "fair pay" legislation (see Lilly Ledbetter Pay Fair Act) which actually hurt women.
>inb4 er mahgerd you hates womyns
>inb4 herggle berggle evil, corporate republican, fascist ratsa fratsa ppppffftttt
- Login to post comments
Oh great, another Ayn Rand libertarian.
Bullshit. If you really think that women are not hurt by getting paid less you are a fucking moron. I could give a shit less if you are an atheist. Same patriarchal bullshit right wing Christians spew.
"Its a man's world".......
Any moron who thinks like that, can try making a baby without a female.
What's next? You going to show us how 30 years of trickle down has helped us?
I am really fucking sick of the economic right thinking it has the right to decide for the rest of society what workers get paid.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Bro, can you read? I clearly said "inb4 er mahgerd you hates womyns", so you cant use that argument, sorry.
Ayn Rand was a miniarchist, Im an anarchist. So again you fail to show even a superficial knowledge of Ms. Rand and presume to know more about me than you possibly could.
Patriarchy? *in my best Mike Goldberg voice* "AND HERE WE GO!"
"Try making a baby without a female." THAT'S your argument?
So the government mandating a wage isn't deciding for the rest of society what workers should be paid? Your arguments aren't even internally consistent.
You addressed ZERO points I put forward. ZERO. Let me repeat that: ZERO. All you did was serve up an emotional shit sandwich filled with adjectives and vitriol.
If this is the level of discourse and "logic" the atheist community wants to serve up consider me embarrassed.
Bullshit. If your bullshit worked our pay gap even for men would not keep exploding like it has.
Just like Beyond Saving who I have been blasting for years here, I can point out billionaires who KNOW our pay gap is a problem. But I am quite sure just like he masturbates over money like it is porn, you will ignor that too.
I really am sick of the fucking paranioa of business owners that if workers point out a real problem their dicks will fall off as if it is the end of the world. It is on par with the same paranioa as religious doomsdayers.
The rich ARE needed in society. But like political parties and religion, NO ONE SECT of society gets to dictate to the rest of society.
Go grow the fuck up, get over yourself. Women do not get paid enough on top of the middle class and poor not getting paid enough. Maybe you like the idea of becoming the same slave wage society as India and China, but you can blow me if you think that is sustanable, much less moral.
As NICK HANOURE A BILLIONAIRE has said, "The pitchforks are comming".
Now why did he say that? Not because he wants that to happen, AND neither do I. But when you squeeze enough of the population survival kicks in. FUCK politics, fuck class. Revolutions no matter which way they go, from more open to more closed societies, are a result of too much of the population getting squeezed.
I am no fan of Marx, or Che or Ayn Rand. The only sustainable economies are mixed where monopolies of power are banned. What we have now is one class dictating to the rest of us.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
It is too simplistic to attribute the pay gap solely to discrimination. Other factors to consider.
For example, there are many jobs where women are not well-represented, simply because they are not seeking employment in these fields; these tend to be jobs which are more dangerous and unpleasant. (Hence men suffer far more work-related injuries and deaths than women, which noone seems to complain about.) Equal representation is only sought in more comfortable, prestigious positions. Overwhelming male representation of men in less-pleasant jobs is going to increase the average, due not to discrmination, but the voluntary absence of women from these jobs.
If there are two equally skilled workers, male and female, and the female takes time off for maternity leave, the male worker is likely to advance more quickly than the female worker; not due to discrimination, but simply by putting in more time at work.
A company thrives when it rewards its best workers, rather than short-changing them. A skilled worker (male or female) who feels they are not being adequately compensated will likely seek employment elsewhere, where his or her skills are better appreciated. A company that favors gender over skill and committment will not fare as well as one that favors skill first. To insinuate the pay gap is due primarily to discrimination is to say companies in general would sacrifice business for the sake of maintaining gender inequality.
There are no theists on operating tables.
My bullshit system? What on Earth are you talking about? You don't even know what "my" system is.
I accept the N.A.P. as a moral principle (do you not?), as a logical and moral outgrowth from that I advocate for a Free Market (which is voluntary exchange). A truly free market has never existed so any example you come up with is not applicable.
Are you saying when that what we have now is a free market? Id like to see how you would justify such a claim considering that the State and a Free Market have exactly opposing moral qualities.
The State is a collection of people that have the legal right to initiate force in a certain geographical boundary. The free market is VOLUNTARY exchange.
To try and conflate the two is like saying love making is rape.
I see why you don't like Rand, you hardly understand her or any of her philosophy outside of the caricature of it you've been told.
Ive asked you before to give me a single example of a monopoly that has existed for any length of time without government intervention. Ill go even farther, explain in theory how a monopoly would be attained and maintained in a free market (as described above). Don't worry. I'll wait.
And if you're against monopolies I find it very strange you advocate for one. The government claims a legal monopoly on force. It IS a monopoly. Again not even internally consistent.
If you have any actual facts, any actual theory, anything at all id love to hear it because this is emotional drivel.
Any actual discrimination is probably too small to even quantify.
Plus this argument flies directly in the face of other arguments people of progressive leanings tend to use. Namely that all business cares about it profit.
If it is indeed true that women do in fact do the same exact work for less businessmen would hire ONLY women.
The original comparison is nonsense. A real apples to apples comparison in which other factrs are accounted for (age, college education, etc etc) the pay gap disappears and in some groups women make MORE than their male counterparts.
There are a variety of reasons for the overall gap including: education and career choice (men tend to go into fields with higher pay to start with), part time vs full time (men work more full time), overtime (men do more of that too), jobs in fields that are outside or dangerous which would increase pay (men dominate there as well), and finally marriage (which is probably the largest driver).
atomic,
take it from me, vastet, prozac, beyond, jeffrick, and digital: logic has no effect on brian. the piece of vitriol that he just hurled at you looks almost exactly like a great many he's hurled at me: e.g., beginning with "bullshit," telling you to "grow up" and "get over yourself," etc. i've often suspected he has templates he just copies and pastes, altering a few particulars here and there to at least slightly fit the discussion (you got his classic "ayn rand" attack. as you pointed out, he's obviously never read a word ayn rand wrote nor really even knows what she was on about.)
you certainly can't ever expect him to actually address your points because his knowledge of anything other than his own unfounded opinions and a few lightweight books by new atheist pundits is miniscule. if he really starts to annoy you, just introduce a lot of details and statistics to the conversation. he'll run for the hills, because not only does he know next to nothing about any of the things he rants about, but he's too lazy and/or proud to learn anything them either. and he has a major martyr complex, but certainly not the courage to ever actually put himself on the line. to hear him talk about his arguments with his christian coworkers, you'd think he was an atheist activist in pakistan or something.
he's never once admitted to anyone here even the possibility that he might be wrong about something, even easily provable things like his fake hypatia quotes or the fact that the bible does not endorse slavery anywhere. again, he just runs away.
so, in conclusion, if you want to join us down this rabbit hole, you've been fairly warned.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Ive seen it before so not surprised, rather amused actually, seeing an "atheist" take up theist arguments in favor of the state. Statheists.
The Bible doesn't endorse slavery? Doesn't it talk about the manner in which you should keep them and trade/buy them or something? Its been a while since ive read the passages but if that is the case, and I could be wrong, that would seem to be at the very least a tacit endorsement no?
i mean, if you see living with a universal status quo that no one could even conceive of challenging at that time as an endorsement, then sure. the bible does regulate slavery, but it provides no moral justification for nor commentary on it.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I can't remember the last time someone here actually said they were objectivist and/or followed Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is silly. Stop using Ayn Rand as an argument.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Turns out she was a closet socialist anyways:
http://www.cynical-c.com/2011/01/27/ayn-rand-received-social-security/
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Pfff, weakling. Why didn't she just produce and sell more things?
Lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
In your dreams.
hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/
By far the largest reason for the pay gap is a failure to negotiate. Numerous studies have been done proving that women negotiate less. The only pay you can control is your own. If you believe you are not getting paid enough, you have to push for what you are worth. No employer is going to go out of their way to give you a bunch of extra money. I am constantly stunned at how many people accept initial offers. No employer is going to offer the maximum they are willing to pay up front.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Well, I think the argument would be that God certainly approves of it seeing how there is no real instruction against it, only seemingly for it (in how it should be regulated). I think you can infer some things from this.
Besides, I mean its a bit of a copout no? God surely could have/would have told his creations that such a thing was evil.
I see what you're saying, but that's sort of mixing the historical truth with the mythology and trying to make them fit together. In the context of just the myth though it makes no sense.
Not saying youre wrong, but that's how I see it
Stupid argument.
That's like saying shes a socialist because she drove on govt roads.
No shit, she had no other choice.
So I guess she should have just let the govt steal her money then not try to get any back?
If you don't like Ayn Rand or her philosophy that's fine, but if youre going to argue against it or criticize it atleast know what it is and argue in a way that doesn't make you look like a demagogic moron.
I second that motion...
the argument is silly, Ayn Rand isn't.
god perhaps would have. the people who wrote the bible would have no reason to. i'm not arguing from a christian perspective. no "god" had any hand in writing the bible. the bible does not endorse slavery any more than a modern textbook on the circulatory system "endorses" oxygen. it was just the reality of things.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
No I absolutely agree, but in the context of the Christian perspective (which you would be arguing against if you were arguing against a Christian) I think my point holds. Also depends on the type of argument you're making against God as well. Existence vs Moral Quality.
Either way there's loads of other shit to hammer them over the head with in the Bible.
How the fuck did we get into slavery from the pay gap? lol
Lol. The women are the slaves.
Ah, looks like I spoke too soon. Or did I?
Would you consider yourself an Objectivist or do you simply respect a lot of her ideas? Or am I completely derailing this thread?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
No I'm not an objectivist, I'm an anarchist.
Rand was a miniarchist and believed in things like IP (intellectual property), I do not.
I do however respect the hell out of her.
Most people don't understand her, including the great Hitch for example.
The Randian view of selfishness and altruism are different from the sort of everyday usage.
For example, giving blood would be selfish in the Randian view.
K
Oooohhh, my blood is something that I've produced I suppose. Although, just donating the blood is a selfish act? I don't need to sell it, getting paid for what it's worth?
Along those lines, as I understand Objectivism, if I have O-negative blood, I have to sell it for more since it's more valuable.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
You might think it has something to do with producing but that's not it at all.
Giving blood is selfish in the Randian sense in that you get personal satisfaction from it. To say you give without getting anything in return is false.
Altruism in the Randian sense would be, using the giving blood example, giving blood to Charles Manson (for example).
Hopefully that makes sense, trying to use an analogy to get the point across.
Selfishness according to Rand only means you do something because you get something from it, even if that something is personal satisfaction and good feelings, you do it because it makes YOU feel good.
Altruism on the other hand would be giving of yourself with no return.
Ah, like going to the effort to vote for my favored political candidate ( giving of myself ) and having the opposing party win instead ( no return ). Altruism sucks.
Lol
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
well in the context of voting it would be you voting in the first place, the act of voting brings you satisfaction
Voting just makes me feel dirty and depressed.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
No. The satisfaction of voting is entirely dependent upon the desired result. For myself, voting in and of itself is completely devoid of any sense of reward and any satisfaction is exclusively outcome based.
Then why even vote?
I can see why your username is what it is. lol
Anyways, at this point the thread has gone off the rails and burst into flames.
"voting" is totally a euphemism isn't it.
Because I don't vote for symbolic or therapeutic reasons but instead to achieve a political goal. It's pure pragmatism.
Whaaa?? Did I just get pwnd?
I was under the impression that the only 'allowed' satisfaction under Objectivism was from the act of creating and achieving things and being awarded for my achievements. I.e. I shouldn't be satisfied by charity because that would be devaluing my own work. There is a principle of fair trade here. When I throw pearls before swine and get nothing but grateful snorts in return, I should not be satisfied because that was not a fair trade.
Do you have a source for this specific example? As a guide, I've read her four well-known novels: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and We the Living. However, I haven't read any of her non-fiction since I wasn't interested enough and don't usually have the patience for that sort of thing.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I can only see giving blood bringing "Randian" satisfaction if the recipient is specifically someone who you want to live. I doubt Rand would sanction donating blood if one of the looters stands to benefit from it.
There are no theists on operating tables.
christ, i cannot imagine devoting weeks of my life to reading novels of well over a thousand pages that i know are going to beat me over the head with a message. i can't stand fiction with overt, obvious messages (that's the reason i never finished the narnia books, and i was a christian then, btw).
i'm not going to give a firm opinion on rand because i haven't read her work, only about it. still, from what i've read, as a philosopher (or political/apolictical ideologue, or whatever), she just seems so damned dilettantish. i mean, the very name "objectivism" is so presumptuous, yet at the same time so meaningless. when you're a phd student with two kids and several jobs, working your way through a personal library of several hundred titles (maybe even topping a thousand soon), and you don't read that fast to begin with, you have to carefully vet what you're going to read. ayn rand just never made the cut.
(incidentally, when i was in america a couple years ago, my aunt, who's a rich, conservative christian, gave me a copy of atlas shrugged with her strong recommendation. i smiled and said it looks interesting and thanks. i've been back to the states once since then and i still haven't brought it back over with me.)
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.
It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .
To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such
-The Objectivist June 1966
The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.
To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)
If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable.
-The Virtue of Selfishness
Giving blood would certainly be in your rational self-interest, the time involved is minimal, you don't really lose anything as you regenerate the blood rather quickly, it feels good to do so, and in your self interest you know that in the future you may be in need of blood yourself.
Ooohhhh, well.......fuck me. I learn something new every day.
Man, I guess it's been too long since I read this book too. I mean, I read it in high school. I guess I always thought they expected to pay each other back or something....
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Heh, incidentally, I've read all of the narnia books too, but I couldn't even get through a few chapters of Mere Christianity.
At least, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe turned into one of very few instances where I actually like the movie more than the book...because the battle scene was entertaining.
My stepbrother didn't know the story was allegorical until I mentioned it. Somehow, I'm not sure if C.S. Lewis would have approved. Lol.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I was being Sarcastic to get Brian37 types off of his fixation with Ayn Rand. They hate her but at the same time claim she was a hypocrite for taking SS, which makes here a closet socialist.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
er mahgerd you hates womyns
Risk management. Right now there is a labour excess. Even if skilled labour is in high demand, labour in general is not. As such, one risks the job they apply to by asking for a higher wage, and that job may be desperately needed. Better to receive less pay than you are worth than to be passed up for the position and receive no pay at all.
True. Ayn was ridiculously stupid and ignorant, not silly. Silly implies her strategies were just bad and ineffective. But they were far worse than that. They were destructively ignorant.
Anarchy cannot work and it never will. Anyone who embraces anarchy fails to account for its inevitable flaws; primarily the ability to defend anarchy in the face of an aggressor who cares nothing for anarchy beyond its necessary tendency to weaken defensive policy.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Not really (at least not intelligent risk management), by offering you the position and a wage, the employer has already indicated that they are more interested in you than anyone else they talked to so far, however many thousands they interviewed. It is foolish to not leverage an open display of interest and worse case scenario most of the time is they say a flat "no". As long as what you are asking for is reasonable, and going into an interview you should have done your research and know what reasonable wages are for the position, many will say yes or make a counter offer. No small business person I know is going to look at someone negotiating as a bad thing, my first thought is vindication that I made a good choice- I expect them to negotiate with my vendors, so negotiating with me is a good sign.
The only real exception is bottom level entry positions, especially in large corporations where the wage might be set in company policy as stone, although you would probably be surprised how varient even Walmart clerk starting salaries can be within the same store, I lost an employee to Walmart back when I ran the wine shop because I couldn't match $10/hr while I heard reports that Walmarts starting pay was a little over $8. Even if they are unwilling to budge on wage, they may have flexibility with benefits (start accruing vacation/sick immediately, flexible scheduling etc.) which don't cost the employer so much but are nice. You don't know until you ask, and I can't fathom an employer who spent a ton of money to find someone to hire getting so offended they rescind the initial offer unless you are asking for something so unreasonable that it shows you aren't serious about the job.
Of course, if you are desparate, the employer likely knows it and is going to be less willing to budge, knowing that you really don't have the power to walk away. That is why when you are employed, you should continue looking for work. Switching companies can be a great way to build your wage quickly, because coming in with a solid job already gives the potential employee the ability to walk away with few consequences. I poached a kid from another appraisal company last year and he negotiated the hell out of me getting a larger salary than people with significantly more experience typically get. I made him sign a do not compete clause, an oversight the company he worked for before no doubt regrets, but since they lowballed him, they couldn't really expect him to stick around when he got experienced.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I've never had an opportunity to discuss wages AFTER the position has been offered. It always comes up in the interview, when you're still one name in dozens (at best).
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The gender pay gap is a case of Simpson's paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_paradox
Just as in the case of UC admissions, there is no gender discrimination. The irrational amoung us are easily fooled.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Really? So if you said "yes" to the wage they would turn you away? Utterly bizarre way to talk about wages. The only wage discussions I've had in interviews is the employer asking what kind of wages the interviewee expects. And the main purpose of that question is to feel them out so you know what to offer.
At some point, you start ironing out the details of what hours you work and how much money. You have to, unless you are just going to walk in and accept whatever the employer gives you. That is the point you negotiate intelligently and well. If they refuse to hire you, so be it. Your time is worth whatever price you are willing to sell it for. If you sell it cheap, you are going to get paid cheap. Few employers are going to go out of their way to offer you extra on their own volition. Pricing your time is absolutely no different than putting a price sticker on a pack of gum. It is up to you what price you put on it.
And after you are hired, you don't stop negotiating. You ask for raises using well constructed arguments for why you earned one. Unless you are being overboard, rude and obnoxious, you aren't going to get fired for asking.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Probably a few were Winston Blackmore's kids you're competing against., many refugees from overpopulated nations as well.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Holy fuck....
This whole meme of 'GENDER PAY GAP' is bullshit. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is making you take that job. Some people think it is OK for government to stick a gun to the head of someone who owns a business and extort more. If the owner/manager and potential employee comes to a mutually agreed upon wage and the offer is accepted by the employee (man or woman), they are accepting of their own free will. Some on here want to use government as a thug, no different than if you are robbed at gunpoint and extorted for more, the reason is irrelevant, gender is irrelevant. That is the exact same thing the Nazis or Stalin's Soviet Union did. If you disagree and you resist, then the wage and labor people come out, close your business, causing people to lose their jobs but they don't really give a shit, and throw the owner/manager in jail. I dare anyone to explain how it is functionally any different than what old Adolf and Joe would have done other than in severity.
In the end, Godwin always wins.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
When there is no answer...the "Call Godwin" card is played. Never mind that the assesment makes sense.