welfare

[RiverOfIce]

I've got to agree. For example, if your polling 100 women and 100 men about their salary, theres a good chance, a portion of those 100 women might be working less hours, spending more time with their children, decreasing their salary and skewing the statistics.

But there is nothing against the men?

I guess you feel that a woman has to take care of the kids, the guy does not.

If fact if you look at the stats, you will see that men that have children make more money, but women that have children make less.

But reread the report, they adjust for children and marriage.


You guys are going to believe what you believe and there is nothing that can be done about it.

 

[cipher6]

I guess you feel that a woman has to take care of the kids, the guy does not.

No, I feel statistically, its more often the women that takes extra time off to take care of kids than the men.

If fact if you look at the stats, you will see that men that have children make more money, but women that have children make less.

Again, poll 100 men their salary and 100 women their salary and yes, chances are the women will make less... but do the same poll and ask hours worked, chances are the men work more hours, which, in part, contributes to their higher salary.

But reread the report, they adjust for children and marriage.

But did they adjust for hours worked?

You guys are going to believe what you believe and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Yup...

Look, I don't disagree there is a bit of a salary gap, part of it is attributed to women having children. Thats not a bad thing. Another part is attributed to what jobs they choose. A women is more likely to be a teacher than a engineer or stock broker, and will have a smaller salary.

And a small bit (very small) of that statistical gap is probably due to some lingering gender discrimination.

 

[Tempusfugit]

First of all, men in general are better at certain jobs. Someone mentioned blue collar wage gaps.. I'm guessing by blue collar, this means something somewhat physical. I'm not saying women can't be as physically tough or strong, but if you pick 100 women at random, and we're loading boxes on a truck, I'm gonna move more boxes than 90 of those women, guaranteed. Should all 90 make the same wage as me?

I hear a lot of complaints for equal job rights, but not so much in the equal draft rights. Surely if women are equal to men in every way they could be drafted, no?

What does this have to do with welfare though?

You guys are going to believe what you believe and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Considering the about.com was the most reputable link you posted, I'll go ahead and keep believing what I believe.

 

[batgeek]

women are only equal when it benefits them. gender bias goes both ways.

 

[Tom Ace]

First:


Your making the flawed assumption that people that don't kick drugs or poverty didn't because they were incapable.

I'm saying many (admittedly hard to quantify) could, they posses the the ability, but fail to use those abilities. THATS what I think everyone is getting at, to some degree.

Everyone that remains poor doesn't remain there out of some lack of ability to work and support themselves... many stay there because of a lack of desire to improve themselves.

I didn't say everyone who is poor is that way due to lack of ability. Some of them are, some aren't. But your wording seems to indicate that you think poor people don't work or support themselves at all. I hope that's not the case. Many poor people do work and support themselves. What I'm saying is not everyone has the ability to get themselves of poverty.

Yes, I've read it, and I've heard it a million times. To think poor people just don't have the ability to not be poor, so must be supported, I think is an insult to poor people, and part of the mentality that perpetuates generations of welfare culture.

I think the problem is that you're not reading or hearing it correctly. It's not that I'm saying the poor don't have the ability to not be poor. I'm saying some of them just aren't cut out to get themselves out of poverty. That's why I compared them to me. It's possible I wouldn't have what it takes to get myself out of poverty. I'd like to think I do, but I can't say for sure. Growing up in a different culture without all of my current advantages, who knows where I would have ended up? I'm not where I am because I'm better than poor people. I'm here mostly because of the advantages I've had. I've only had one job that I didn't get through someone I know.

An analogy would be climbing up a mountain, where the mountaintop is a good, comfortable life involving working a good job. I started near the top of the mountain, and only had to climb 100 feet. Many poor people would have to climb 1,000 feet. Some of them are capable of doing that, while others aren't. Now, if the same group of people started where I did, most of them would be capable of getting to the top.

Advantages and abilities are two different things. A female minority growing up poor, and a white male growing up middle class... they both posses the ability to work hard and support themselves. But the female minority might have to work a bit harder to reach the level of the middle class male. She might have to study harder at home because she goes to a crappy school. Might have to take out more loans and get out of college with higher amount of dept. Might have to work harder at her job to get the same salary... Its not fair, but its life, and it doesn't mean because your advantaged, others don't have the ability.

I know. This is my point. Of course life isn't fair, but I'm not saying everyone should be well off. I'm saying everyone should at least have a decent standard of living. Some people will have to work harder than others, which is fine. But working hard should entitle you to at least a decent home in a decent neighborhood with plenty of food and clothing.

Regardless you illustrate my point. One person has to work harder to achieve the exact same thing as someone else. Some people are capable of doing that extra work, and some aren't. That doesn't mean the ones who aren't should have a nice house, nice clothes, etc. all on the taxpayers dime. It does, however, mean that that person should get some help.

 

[Tom Ace]

I've got to agree. For example, if your polling 100 women and 100 men about their salary, theres a good chance, a portion of those 100 women might be working less hours, spending more time with their children, decreasing their salary and skewing the statistics.

Any given raw wage gap can be decomposed into an explained part due to differences in characteristics such as education, hours worked, work experience, and occupation, and an unexplained part which is typically attributed to discrimination (e.g., Eagly and Carli, 2007[23]). The U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee shows that

 

[lordofthereef]

But there is nothing against the men?

I guess you feel that a woman has to take care of the kids, the guy does not.

If fact if you look at the stats, you will see that men that have children make more money, but women that have children make less.

But reread the report, they adjust for children and marriage.


You guys are going to believe what you believe and there is nothing that can be done about it.

FWIW, I personally DO NOT think that women should have to be the ones stay home with the kids (and frankly I don't think Cipher was implying that either). That said, STATISTICALLY, more of them do, which is what I believe Cipher was pointing out. Those factors are generally not considered when gathering statistics like this.

I honestly don't know what anyone can tell you. I, along with others, have agreed that statistically this is a problem. You are turning a statistic into an absolute. You are saying that woman on average make x% less than men, therefore if you are a woman, you will make x% less than a man in any job. We are simply arguing that this is not the case, perhaps not even the majority. Does that mean it isn't a problem? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Honestly, if it is not clear to you where the people active in this thread stand when we are literally laying it out in black and white, I am not sure there is a point (for me, anyway) to continue this discussion with you.

 

[cipher6]

I didn't say everyone who is poor is that way due to lack of ability. Some of them are, some aren't. But your wording seems to indicate that you think poor people don't work or support themselves at all. I hope that's not the case. Many poor people do work and support themselves. What I'm saying is not everyone has the ability to get themselves of poverty.

First, lets quit trying to boil everything down to absolutes. I think we're both smart enough to realize, anything you say about a group doesn't apply 100% to everyone in that group. I had tried to make that clear.

And by "support themselves" I mean being self sufficient, without the need for welfare of some type. And I do know many poor people who don't accept welfare... most are single, when a child is involved, I'd rather that poor person take the help, to help the kids, while also working to improve their situation to get to a point they don't need welfare.

I think the problem is that you're not reading or hearing it correctly. It's not that I'm saying the poor don't have the ability to not be poor. I'm saying some of them just aren't cut out to get themselves out of poverty.

How is that not the same thing? "Not cut out for" is a colloquialism for doesn't posses the ability.

That's why I compared them to me. It's possible I wouldn't have what it takes to get myself out of poverty. I'd like to think I do, but I can't say for sure. Growing up in a different culture without all of my current advantages, who knows where I would have ended up? I'm not where I am because I'm better than poor people. I'm here mostly because of the advantages I've had. I've only had one job that I didn't get through someone I know.

I don't think your abilities are something given to you by the culture you grow up in. Your born with your abilities. Desire and will to use those abilities to improve your life, on the other hand, I think, is more related to culture. Culture can be overcome much more easily than lack of ability.

An analogy would be climbing up a mountain, where the mountaintop is a good, comfortable life involving working a good job. I started near the top of the mountain, and only had to climb 100 feet. Many poor people would have to climb 1,000 feet. Some of them are capable of doing that, while others aren't. Now, if the same group of people started where I did, most of them would be capable of getting to the top.

I don't think thats a good analogy, but lets go with it. You both would posses the necessary abilities, walking up hill. For you, the walk was a bit shorter. So, for someone who has to walk further, they don't require some ability you already posses (walking up hill) just the desire to keep walking further than you had to.

I know. This is my point. Of course life isn't fair, but I'm not saying everyone should be well off. I'm saying everyone should at least have a decent standard of living. Some people will have to work harder than others, which is fine. But working hard should entitle you to at least a decent home in a decent neighborhood with plenty of food and clothing.

It does. Someone who dropped out of school and wasted early opportunities can still have a decent life. They might only be able to get a lower paying job, meaning they have to work some more hours, but its still possible, with hard work. And if they are actively try to improve their life, make the right decisions, and are patient they can move up to higher paying positions.

Regardless you illustrate my point. One person has to work harder to achieve the exact same thing as someone else. Some people are capable of doing that extra work, and some aren't. That doesn't mean the ones who aren't should have a nice house, nice clothes, etc. all on the taxpayers dime. It does, however, mean that that person should get some help.

This is where I think our disagreement comes from... you seem to think that there is some missing skill or ability that allows someone to do that extra amount of work... I don't. Work is work, the amount you do depends on your desire. Take your walking up a mountain analogy again. Walking is walking, if you posses the ability to walk 100' you also posses the ability to walk 200' if you really want to. There is no new skill or ability you have to learn to walk that extra 100', you just have to walk a bit longer.

I think many stuck in generations of poverty and welfare aren't there because they lack the ability to walk... they lack the desire to keep walking until they get to a better place. They see the top as too far away, they can stay at their current location and be somewhat comfortable (in large part thanks to welfare) so don't bother taking that long walk.

 

[lordofthereef]

Here is a scenario to consider, as we are talking about people working more.

Let's say you start out working at minimum wage, which is, I believe, around $7.25 everywhere. You are given 40 hours a week at this job, and you decide to work another job, same pay (to make calculating things easier), at 20 hours a week. That gives you $7.25 x 60 x 4 = $1740 before taxes. After taxes, let's say that is $1500. It may be a little more, or a little less, but it's a pretty decent estimate I think.

Since we are talking about wellfare, you likely have children. Let's say two kids. You are never home during the day (a reasonable assumption, being that you work 60 hours a week), so you have to pay for childcare for your kids. My mother is a licesned day care provider, so I know day care full time (8 hours a day or so) is about $200 per week, with discounts for multiple kids. Let's call that $250 for the two kids. There goes $1000 of your $1500 monthly pay. Let's then say you are sharing a small apartment with three people, so you are only paying $250 for the month. Somehow this includes utilites, etc. We are now down to $250 left for the month. You are thrifty and clip coupons on what little spare time you have, so you manage to feed your family on $100 per month. This leaves you with $150 per month for things like clothing and other necessities.

I think the above scenario is a pretty decent one. You may say I was too liberal with childcare costs. Fine. I personally think I was too conservative with rent/utilities costs, so let's lower the childcare, and raise the rent/utilities to a more reasonable level. You are now exactly where you started again.

My question is this. Is the person in the above scenario incapable or unwilling to do what it takes? It seems to me he/she is doing everything possible. Even looking for a higher paying job is tough/impossible with the given time constraints of a 60 hour work week and kids to feed. All this, and the family is JUST BARELY getting by. What if someone is sick? What if they get laid off or hours cut (this is a real problem in today's economy)?

The above scenario is very real for a number of people, especially in the neighborhood where I grew up. These people are just praying they don't get sick, their car doesn't break down, and their crappy job is still there for them tomorrow. They are hard workers, working harder than most, but are barely able to keep their heads out of the water.

 

[Tom Ace]

How is that not the same thing? "Not cut out for" is a colloquialism for doesn't posses the ability.

The difference is that I'm talking about getting out of poverty versus supporting themselves.

I don't think your abilities are something given to you by the culture you grow up in. Your born with your abilities. Desire and will to use those abilities to improve your life, on the other hand, I think, is more related to culture. Culture can be overcome much more easily than lack of ability.

I consider it all together. It's actually a lot like weight. Some people are born with good metabolisms and don't have to worry about their weight. Some people have bad metabolisms and have to worry about it constantly. Almost all of the people with bad metabolisms have the physical ability to get to and maintain an average body weight. However, some of them lack the mental fortitude or will to do it. In that case, I would say they are unable to do it. You're right that culture can be overcome more easily than lack of ability, but culture does have a profound impact on people's ability to do certain things.

I don't think thats a good analogy, but lets go with it. You both would posses the necessary abilities, walking up hill. For you, the walk was a bit shorter. So, for someone who has to walk further, they don't require some ability you already posses (walking up hill) just the desire to keep walking further than you had to.

Not just the desire, but the ability to do so. I possess the ability to run, but I don't possess the ability to run a marathon in 2 hours. I would classify them as two different abilities, or at least one includes more abilities than the other.

It does. Someone who dropped out of school and wasted early opportunities can still have a decent life. They might only be able to get a lower paying job, meaning they have to work some more hours, but its still possible, with hard work. And if they are actively try to improve their life, make the right decisions, and are patient they can move up to higher paying positions.

The problem is that this isn't always the case. There are many examples of people working hard and still living in poverty or near poverty.

This is where I think our disagreement comes from... you seem to think that there is some missing skill or ability that allows someone to do that extra amount of work... I don't. Work is work, the amount you do depends on your desire. Take your walking up a mountain analogy again. Walking is walking, if you posses the ability to walk 100' you also posses the ability to walk 200' if you really want to. There is no new skill or ability you have to learn to walk that extra 100', you just have to walk a bit longer.

Yes, and walking longer is a skill or ability in and of itself. Some people are able to walk a lot farther or run faster or whatever, and others aren't.

I think many stuck in generations of poverty and welfare aren't there because they lack the ability to walk... they lack the desire to keep walking until they get to a better place. They see the top as too far away, they can stay at their current location and be somewhat comfortable (in large part thanks to welfare) so don't bother taking that long walk.

To a degree, I agree. This is where culture is involved. The only difference for me is that I don't use the word "desire". I don't think that accurately describes it. If it's instilled in you from an early age that your situation is your situation, and there's nothing you can do to change it, it makes it even harder to improve. Some people are able to overcome that, and others aren't. This is sort of what I'm getting at with my comments about inability to get out of poverty. Some people might have the ability and the desire, but having grown up in this environment, they can't get past the defeatist mindset. That's why I think education should be such a huge priority. Giving kids from all different cultures a good education in general will make them less susceptible to this kind of mindset.

 

[ParishL31]

Link

It does show a smaller gap however it still leaves out personality. You can have a perfect resume but if you can't talk and fail the interview you still won't get it a high paying job. Also not all jobs pay equal which is another factor. Yes its all government jobs but different positions pay different amounts. While its good they reduced the study pool to eliminate other factors, with less people one high or low salary will have a bigger impact on the stats.

I'm just saying there will almost never be a time where a man and a woman are applying for the same exact position and they say you get less than him if we hire you because you're a woman.

 

[cipher6]

My question is this. Is the person in the above scenario incapable or unwilling to do what it takes? It seems to me he/she is doing everything possible. Even looking for a higher paying job is tough/impossible with the given time constraints of a 60 hour work week and kids to feed. All this, and the family is JUST BARELY getting by. What if someone is sick? What if they get laid off or hours cut (this is a real problem in today's economy)?

The above scenario is very real for a number of people, especially in the neighborhood where I grew up. These people are just praying they don't get sick, their car doesn't break down, and their crappy job is still there for them tomorrow. They are hard workers, working harder than most, but are barely able to keep their heads out of the water.

And thats why assistance is there... there is assistance for childcare, food, etc. and someone in that situation, SHOULD take that assistance. In fact, my best friend for about 15 years is pretty much in that exact same situation.

Now, what to do? Keep working the minimum wage job, giving it your best. Eventually you'll get raises. Learn everything there is to learn about your job. Eventually, a higher up position will open up. Fight for it, and there is a good chance you can get it.

Also, education doesn't have to be college. Part time technical/trade schools are great... and you can get assistance for those too.

Pick up some assistance, drop the 20 hr part time job and use that time to learn a trade. Then, move in to that field, with a marketable skill your wages will increase. As you become better at it, you get paid more.

Eventually, with hard work, persistence, and a bit of luck, you will increase your wages to the point you can support yourself and stop getting gov. assistance.

Thats someone doing everything right... working hard and going that extra mile to get where they want to be... Thats what assistance and welfare is for.

Now, what I don't like, is someone in that situation, who takes assistance with child care and food etc. and doesn't take that extra job, or doesn't actively work to learn a marketable skill to increase their wages... their happy and content just getting by, but they only get by with help from others. They will just accept their place, just "getting by" is all they desire, and if 40 hours at $7.25 and some welfare gets them by, thats all they'll do.

 

[lordofthereef]

And thats why assistance is there... there is assistance for childcare, food, etc. and someone in that situation, SHOULD take that assistance. In fact, my best friend for about 15 years is pretty much in that exact same situation.

It's worth mentioning that assistance in some places (like CA) is abysmal. My mother has a client who is being given $180 per week by the state to pay for care (this money is a direct check from the state to my mother, the business owner). Sounds great in theory, but because of budget issues they are backed up THREE MONTHS on paying out. Mom feels bad, but she is going to have to let the client go if things don't change since she has to pay the bills herself...

 

[lordofthereef]

And thats why assistance is there... there is assistance for childcare, food, etc. and someone in that situation, SHOULD take that assistance. In fact, my best friend for about 15 years is pretty much in that exact same situation.

It's worth mentioning that assistance in some places (like CA) is abysmal. My mother has a client who is being given $180 per week by the state to pay for care (this money is a direct check from the state to my mother, the business owner). Sounds great in theory, but because of budget issues they are backed up THREE MONTHS on paying out. Mom feels bad, but she is going to have to let the client go if things don't change since she has to pay the bills herself...

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but there is a pretty ow limit on maximum income in order to be able to get help. The person in the situation I pointed out is definately making less than this, but I don't think by a whole lot. There is a point where your income becomes "too much" and you don;t get crap... and that is how you are paid off for trying.

I have a good example. I think we have already established that I wasn;t a wealthy id growing up. As such, I got a ton of financial aid to get through college (Bachelor's). I wanted to work, so that I could pay for small essentials, a luxury here and there, basic stuff that an 18 year old enjoys (I was never into drinking and never did an ellicit substance in my life, for the record). It turns out that I would need to make LESS than $1800 for the YEAR or else my government funding would be heavily cut. To this day I don't understand how this calculation plays out, but if I made just $1800 for the year, I would have lost something like $4000 in funding. The government was literally giving me incentive not to get that extra couple bucks each week because it would HURT me. How effed up is that?

 

[lordofthereef]

WTF? I don't know how that strange double post happened...

 

[cipher6]

It's worth mentioning that assistance in some places (like CA) is abysmal. My mother has a client who is being given $180 per week by the state to pay for care (this money is a direct check from the state to my mother, the business owner). Sounds great in theory, but because of budget issues they are backed up THREE MONTHS on paying out. Mom feels bad, but she is going to have to let the client go if things don't change since she has to pay the bills herself...

One of the pitfalls of TOO MUCH assistance. California is one of the worst. They want to give everything to everyone, and end up bankrupt.

I have a good example. I think we have already established that I wasn;t a wealthy id growing up. As such, I got a ton of financial aid to get through college (Bachelor's). I wanted to work, so that I could pay for small essentials, a luxury here and there, basic stuff that an 18 year old enjoys (I was never into drinking and never did an ellicit substance in my life, for the record). It turns out that I would need to make LESS than $1800 for the YEAR or else my government funding would be heavily cut. To this day I don't understand how this calculation plays out, but if I made just $1800 for the year, I would have lost something like $4000 in funding. The government was literally giving me incentive not to get that extra couple bucks each week because it would HURT me. How effed up is that?

Another good example of welfare and assistance hurting more than it helps... not all help really helps.

 

[lordofthereef]

Another good example of welfare and assistance hurting more than it helps... not all help really helps.

I agree, although in this example, the help actually did help, the way they calculated help was simply off. It doesn't take a college grad to see that reducing my "help" by $4,000 for making $1,800 makes no sense whatsoever. It wasn't like that $4k was extra spending money before. It was actually part of tuition, books, etc. Had I gotten a job at the time I literally wouldn't have been able to pay my tuition.

I agree on your statement on CA as well, but that still doesn't help the individual here. She is working hard, going for her CMA on top of a 40 hours work week (the mother of the child who the government owes my mother salary for). If my mother can't take care of her, she will likely have to stop most/all of what she is doing to get ahead unless she essentially finds someone to care for her baby for free. I point this out because she is obviously trying, but in these waters, she seems to be drowning, not because she isn't trying hard enough, but because there either aren't the necessary opportunities (or she hasn't found them yet) available to her. So, in short, she isn't where she is because she isn't trying her hardest to get out, but because she simply CAN NOT in this current climate.

 

[Tom Ace]

It does show a smaller gap however it still leaves out personality. You can have a perfect resume but if you can't talk and fail the interview you still won't get it a high paying job. Also not all jobs pay equal which is another factor. Yes its all government jobs but different positions pay different amounts. While its good they reduced the study pool to eliminate other factors, with less people one high or low salary will have a bigger impact on the stats.

I'm just saying there will almost never be a time where a man and a woman are applying for the same exact position and they say you get less than him if we hire you because you're a woman.

Wow. You'll pretty much rationalize anything away, huh? Look, they accounted for all of the factors that should have an impact on difference in pay. Obviously personality can affect pay, but we're talking about two groups of people. The assumption has to be that a similar amount of each group will have similar personalities.

It's pretty simple. Women generally make less than men because they're women. But you're welcome to continue justifying whatever you want to believe.

 

[cipher6]

Almost all of the people with bad metabolisms have the physical ability to get to and maintain an average body weight. However, some of them lack the mental fortitude or will to do it. In that case, I would say they are unable to do it.

So, someone that would rather eat pizza than exercise, is then considered "unable" to control their weight?

I don't see it like that.

We, as a society have a moral duty to help those that can't help themselves, that are "unable." Thats the purpose of welfare.

Under that thinking, anything you don't want to do, you are "unable" to do.

So, if I don't want to go to school, work a full time job, and quit spending my limited money on alcohol, under your thinking, I would then be considered "unable" to do so... making it a moral obligation of society to help me.


---

And if i don't want to get a job and make more money and dig myself out of poverty, because I accept and can deal with the status quo, I am then considered "unable" to get out of poverty.

----

I don't agree with this thinking.

 

[cipher6]

The assumption has to be that a similar amount of each group will have similar personalities.

Why does that have to be the assumption? You don't agree that men and women tend to have different, gender specific personalities?

And, what if the gap can be explained by a gender specific personality? Say, women are more nurturing and less likely to be an aggressive "go getter" in the work place, that translates to a lower salary. Would that still be considered gender discrimination?

 

[lordofthereef]

And, what if the gap can be explained by a gender specific personality? Say, women are more nurturing and less likely to be an aggressive "go getter" in the work place, that translates to a lower salary. Would that still be considered gender discrimination?

It would be considered gender discrimination if said person is paid what they are without knowing their abilities. It would be not if, say, starting pay is the same on day one between a man and a woman but 5 years down the road the man has received more in raises due to this personality (which makes the company more money). This is my opinion, anyway.

THAT is another aspect that raw data and statistics do not (and can not) take into account)

 

[ElasticNinja]

but there are huge disadvantages to a fast metabolism

 

[EarlyMon]

Why does that have to be the assumption? You don't agree that men and women tend to have different, gender specific personalities?

And, what if the gap can be explained by a gender specific personality? Say, women are more nurturing and less likely to be an aggressive "go getter" in the work place, that translates to a lower salary. Would that still be considered gender discrimination?

When such judgments are based on numbers, perhaps not.

When the go-getter aspect is judged subjectively, as is often the case, it's definite gender bias, covered by self-fulfilling rationalizations that perpetuate the inequity.

Factor in the opportunity to go after what can be gotten in the first place. How often is that given to new women where people here work?

 

[ParishL31]

Wow. You'll pretty much rationalize anything away, huh? Look, they accounted for all of the factors that should have an impact on difference in pay. Obviously personality can affect pay, but we're talking about two groups of people. The assumption has to be that a similar amount of each group will have similar personalities.

It's pretty simple. Women generally make less than men because they're women. But you're welcome to continue justifying whatever you want to believe.

Assumptions clear word. I doubt there has ever been a time where it's one single job opening up for grabs between a man and a woman and they make their decision on pay offer on the ONLY reason of being gender. If they did, they'd get sued.

And personalities will NEVER be the same. One person may be more aggressive and deemed a better leader. Clear example right now:

Cam Newton. On paper he is by FAR superior to Blaine Gabbert for the NFL. Cam Newton failed the interviews and has been decided he is not a leader and cannot present himself professionally. The better of the two candidates falls to the lesser because Blaine knows how to talk to people and lead. But according to stats, it's just plain racist.

Personality can have a MUCH bigger impact on getting a job and how much you get paid than you think. There's a reason there are interviews. If personality didn't matter as much they'd hire based off resume alone and never have interviews. There's a reason why a number of people are turned away after their interviews, because their personality isn't right. Personality can never be measured and will be hidden from stats.

 

[copestag]

plus what if its an UGLY woman...... surely she doesnt deserve as much money