NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is an interesting article that says the fact that women make 81% of men’s full-time wages is not because of discrimination but due to many other factors such as full time vs. part time work, working fewer hours, and career choice. So, if women want to make as much money as men it looks like they should make different career choices, stay in the labor market rather than jump in and our, and work full time as opposed to part time.
Here are some excerpts from the article:
“June O'Neill, a certifiably female economist who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office under President Clinton, wrote a peer-reviewed paper for the American Economic Review (May 2003), trying to account for the pay gap. What she found was that women are much more likely over the course of their lives to cut back their hours or quit work altogether than men. That matters, because even though the BLS was comparing full-time workers, if you go part-time or take years out of the labor force, that has an effect on earnings down the line, due to loss of seniority or missed promotions.
More precisely, of women aged 25-44 with young children, more than a third were out of the labor force; of those women who did have jobs, 30% worked part-time. (The comparable numbers for men were 4% out of the labor force and 2% working part-time).
All told, women are more than twice as likely to work part-time as men and over the course of their lifetimes, work outside the home for 40% fewer years than men. That accounts for a significant chunk of the pay gap. Then there is a more subtle factor. …the sexes continue to choose different avenues of study and different types of jobs.
…. The college majors with the top starting salaries…: chemical engineering (almost $60,000), computer engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering. Men make up about 80% of engineering majors. Women predominate among liberal arts majors - whose salaries start at a little more than $30,000. Putting it all together, O¹Neill figures that these differences - in choice of work, years in the workforce, and hours of work - could account for as much as 97.5% of the differences in pay between men and women. "The unadjusted gender gap," she concludes, "can be explained to a large extent by non-discriminatory factors."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortune/muphy_payact.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007060507

Here is an interesting article that says the fact that women make 81% of men’s full-time wages is not because of discrimination but due to many other factors such as full time vs. part time work, working fewer hours, and career choice. So, if women want to make as much money as men it looks like they should make different career choices, stay in the labor market rather than jump in and our, and work full time as opposed to part time.
Here are some excerpts from the article:
“June O'Neill, a certifiably female economist who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office under President Clinton, wrote a peer-reviewed paper for the American Economic Review (May 2003), trying to account for the pay gap. What she found was that women are much more likely over the course of their lives to cut back their hours or quit work altogether than men. That matters, because even though the BLS was comparing full-time workers, if you go part-time or take years out of the labor force, that has an effect on earnings down the line, due to loss of seniority or missed promotions.
More precisely, of women aged 25-44 with young children, more than a third were out of the labor force; of those women who did have jobs, 30% worked part-time. (The comparable numbers for men were 4% out of the labor force and 2% working part-time).
All told, women are more than twice as likely to work part-time as men and over the course of their lifetimes, work outside the home for 40% fewer years than men. That accounts for a significant chunk of the pay gap. Then there is a more subtle factor. …the sexes continue to choose different avenues of study and different types of jobs.
…. The college majors with the top starting salaries…: chemical engineering (almost $60,000), computer engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering. Men make up about 80% of engineering majors. Women predominate among liberal arts majors - whose salaries start at a little more than $30,000. Putting it all together, O¹Neill figures that these differences - in choice of work, years in the workforce, and hours of work - could account for as much as 97.5% of the differences in pay between men and women. "The unadjusted gender gap," she concludes, "can be explained to a large extent by non-discriminatory factors."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortune/muphy_payact.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007060507

yeh, they're more likely to cut back hours or quit altogether because they are expected to be the caregivers in the family. there's your discrimination. there also are still instances of women earning lower salaries than men in the same job. my mum for instance, who, until she retired at the beginning of this year, regularly worked 12-16 hour days for a salary below that of her male counterparts.

Perhaps I should have said "Discrimination is not the major cause of..." Although there probably cases of outright discrimination as the article clearly points out that is not the major cause of the pay gap.

Also, I don't believe that who the primary care giver in a family is because of discrimination. It is a personal choice between the parents and their decision is usually based on the norms of the society.

yeh, they're more likely to cut back hours or quit altogether because they are expected to be the caregivers in the family. there's your discrimination. there also are still instances of women earning lower salaries than men in the same job. my mum for instance, who, until she retired at the beginning of this year, regularly worked 12-16 hour days for a salary below that of her male counterparts.

While there are cases of genuine discrimination, are you sure it wasn't a case of seniority/time spent working at the firm?

…. The college majors with the top starting salaries…: chemical engineering (almost $60,000), computer engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering. Men make up about 80% of engineering majors. Women predominate among liberal arts majors - whose salaries start at a little more than $30,000.
The fact that they included this in the argument makes me question the honesty of the piece on the whole. The gender gap argument isn't talking about dollars per hour over the entire range of the wage-earning scale--it's dollars per hour in the individual jobs, so engineers are being compared with engineers, and liberal arts majors with liberal arts majors. English teachers aren't being compared to engineers when we're talking about wage discrimination.

...Also, I don't believe that who the primary care giver in a family is because of discrimination. It is a personal choice between the parents and their decision is usually based on the norms of the society.

I hate to be a pedant, but if the decision is strongly influenced by societal norms, is that really a free choice? In that someone might not want to be the primary care giver, but feel compelled to by societal pressures?

I hate to be a pedant, but if the decision is strongly influenced by societal norms, is that really a free choice? In that someone might not want to be the primary care giver, but feel compelled to by societal pressures?

You're not being a pedant when you point out that societal norms is a nice way of saying institutionalized discrimination. I mean, you're crazy if you don't thnk that those women who decide not to take time off to take care of children don't face a backlash in the workplace for having made that decision. The situation is not as bad as it was twenty or thirty years ago, but it's still there.

While there are cases of genuine discrimination, are you sure it wasn't a case of seniority/time spent working at the firm?

well considering my mum was a civil servant and the most senior member of staff and had been in the job over 20 years i rather think not. she is entitled to claim the pay she's owed (in the 10s of thousands of pounds bracket, i worked it out for her) but she won't because "she doesn't want to cause a fuss".

Perhaps I should have said "Discrimination is not the major cause of..." Although there probably cases of outright discrimination as the article clearly points out that is not the major cause of the pay gap.

Also, I don't believe that who the primary care giver in a family is because of discrimination. It is a personal choice between the parents and their decision is usually based on the norms of the society.

exactly, there is discrimination in the norms of society. there is no reason to suggest that women are better at caring for children than men, just we are bought up to expect that that's what will happen and thus women get more informal 'training' in it simply because they are expected to be the best at it.

The fact that they included this in the argument makes me question the honesty of the piece on the whole. The gender gap argument isn't talking about dollars per hour over the entire range of the wage-earning scale--it's dollars per hour in the individual jobs, so engineers are being compared with engineers, and liberal arts majors with liberal arts majors. English teachers aren't being compared to engineers when we're talking about wage discrimination.

yeh, i thought that was a bit disingenuous.

pay gap

Why do I keep reading that as "gay pap"? *meanders on*

pay gap

Why do I keep reading that as "gay pap"? *meanders on*

couldn't possibly imagine.

yeh, i thought that was a bit disingenuous.
And why is it that 80% of all engineering students are men--something to do with the long-standing belief that women, for some reason, don't handle math and the hard sciences as well (read: education discrimination) perhaps?

And why is it that 80% of all engineering students are men--something to do with the long-standing belief that women, for some reason, don't handle math and the hard sciences as well (read: education discrimination) perhaps?

i don't doubt it at all. we need Luipaard back here to stand up for the female engineers i reckon. i'm sure she'll know a thing or two about it.

Perhaps I should have said "Discrimination is not the major cause of..." Although there probably cases of outright discrimination as the article clearly points out that is not the major cause of the pay gap.

Also, I don't believe that who the primary care giver in a family is because of discrimination. It is a personal choice between the parents and their decision is usually based on the norms of the society.

or perhaps "outright discrimination is not..."

more subtle forms of discrimination may well come into the decisions a woman makes throughout her life that also affect her wages.

it is important to know that its not just a matter of not wanting to pay a woman as much. its much harder to get at the subtler forms of keeping women away from full time paid work, away from higher paying jobs, and into being the caretaker of both the young and old members of the family. an individual woman might still make the choices that keep her in the lower wage brackets but at least she can know that that is part of her decision.

Here is an interesting article that says the fact that women make 81% of men’s full-time wages is not because of discrimination but due to many other factors such as full time vs. part time work, working fewer hours, and career choice. So, if women want to make as much money as men it looks like they should make different career choices, stay in the labor market rather than jump in and our, and work full time as opposed to part time.
Here are some excerpts from the article:
“June O'Neill, a certifiably female economist who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office under President Clinton, wrote a peer-reviewed paper for the American Economic Review (May 2003), trying to account for the pay gap. What she found was that women are much more likely over the course of their lives to cut back their hours or quit work altogether than men. That matters, because even though the BLS was comparing full-time workers, if you go part-time or take years out of the labor force, that has an effect on earnings down the line, due to loss of seniority or missed promotions.
More precisely, of women aged 25-44 with young children, more than a third were out of the labor force; of those women who did have jobs, 30% worked part-time. (The comparable numbers for men were 4% out of the labor force and 2% working part-time).
All told, women are more than twice as likely to work part-time as men and over the course of their lifetimes, work outside the home for 40% fewer years than men. That accounts for a significant chunk of the pay gap. Then there is a more subtle factor. …the sexes continue to choose different avenues of study and different types of jobs.
…. The college majors with the top starting salaries…: chemical engineering (almost $60,000), computer engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering. Men make up about 80% of engineering majors. Women predominate among liberal arts majors - whose salaries start at a little more than $30,000. Putting it all together, O¹Neill figures that these differences - in choice of work, years in the workforce, and hours of work - could account for as much as 97.5% of the differences in pay between men and women. "The unadjusted gender gap," she concludes, "can be explained to a large extent by non-discriminatory factors."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortune/muphy_payact.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007060507

I assume someone was pushing an agenda. It isn't hard to see the statistics being deliberately blurred. Let's look at one little circular piece of logic that is being whitewashed.

A couple have a child. The woman earns less, so she takes the time off to care for the baby. Becuase women are more likely to take such time off, the industry uses that as an excuse to pay a lower scale. So.. women earn less and are more likely to be the person to take time off to care for the child...

See how the inherent bias is intrinsic, even if not explicit?

I assume someone was pushing an agenda. It isn't hard to see the statistics being deliberately blurred. Let's look at one little circular piece of logic that is being whitewashed.

A couple have a child. The woman earns less, so she takes the time off to care for the baby. Becuase women are more likely to take such time off, the industry uses that as an excuse to pay a lower scale. So.. women earn less and are more likely to be the person to take time off to care for the child...

See how the inherent bias is intrinsic, even if not explicit?

And it easily becomes explicit. I can't tell you the number of times that I've heard cases of men getting raises or promotions when there was an equally qualified woman simply because the person in charge felt that the male had a family to support. Like women aren't supporting families half the time, often on their own?

And it easily becomes explicit. I can't tell you the number of times that I've heard cases of men getting raises or promotions when there was an equally qualified woman simply because the person in charge felt that the male had a family to support. Like women aren't supporting families half the time, often on their own?

Very true. I've seen the exact same thing happen where I work.

i suspect that the penalty given to a woman who takes a few years off when her children are small is disproportionate to the lack of tenure aquired during those years.

if a woman takes 3 years out does her pay 20 years later come out to what the man who didnt take time to raise his children was making 3 years earlier?

i suspect not. has anyone seen a study on that?

i suspect that the penalty given to a woman who takes a few years off when her children are small is disproportionate to the lack of tenure aquired during those years.

if a woman takes 3 years out does her pay 20 years later come out to what the man who didnt take time to raise his children was making 3 years earlier?

i suspect not. has anyone seen a study on that?

I wish I could point you to a study, because I'm pretty sure they've been done--I just don't know where to find them. But I vaguely remember reading a synopsis of one which showed that the gap widened appreciably over that time period. It's similar to compound interest--if you take a hit early, it costs you a lot more down the line.

yeh, they're more likely to cut back hours or quit altogether because they are expected to be the caregivers in the family. there's your discrimination.

The point is, that "discrimination" is not by the government, it's a cultural thing.

I wish I could point you to a study, because I'm pretty sure they've been done--I just don't know where to find them. But I vaguely remember reading a synopsis of one which showed that the gap widened appreciably over that time period. It's similar to compound interest--if you take a hit early, it costs you a lot more down the line.

yeah i kind of remember that but im thinking that its discrimination not a normal factor of less time in a job.

once youve been in a job for ...20 years...you are pretty much at the top of the pay scale. so a woman who has been at it for 20 years after taking time off to raise her children to preschool age should be at about the same pay level as the man who has been at it for 23 years because he didnt take that time off.

at 10 years (certainly at 5), there should be a difference. the woman who has 10 years in the field vs the man who has 13 years. the difference between 25 and 28 or 35 and 38 should be negligible.

now if a woman ends up taking 20 years to raise her children then YEAH its hard to make up that time. the 20 year gap makes a big difference in pay scales.

yeah its discrimination not natural pay differences based on time at the job.

yeah i kind of remember that but im thinking that its discrimination not a normal factor of less time in a job...SNIP...

Perhaps one of these will help you answer the question about "time out" and the pay gap.

http://ideas.repec.org/cgi-bin/htsearch Bad link sorry. Here, try this

Effects of Comparable Worth Policy: Evidence from Washington State****
Downloadable ! Author(s): O'Neill, June & Brien, Michael & Cunningham, James. 1989 Abstract: No abstract is available for this item.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v79y1989i2p305-09.html

The Gender Gap in Wages, circa 2000****
Downloadable ! Author(s): June O'Neill. 2003 Abstract: No abstract is available for this item.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v93y2003i2p309-314.html

A Time-Series Analysis of Women's Labor Force Participation****
Downloadable ! Author(s): O'Neill, June A. 1981 Abstract: No abstract is available for this item.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v71y1981i2p76-80.html

You are overlooking an important concenquence of those three or so years (each) off during that period her spouse will (if he hasn't already) become the primary wage earner with the higher paying job. From then on any career decisions she has to make will have to be with consideration also of her spouses higher paying job. This will limit her ability to accept promotions which require a move or less accomodating hours.
It has also been my observation that women tend towards less risky jobs - choosing salary over commission and also choosing lest dangerous jobs (and most often air-conditioned). These decisions too have an impact.


i suspect that the penalty given to a woman who takes a few years off when her children are small is disproportionate to the lack of tenure aquired during those years.

if a woman takes 3 years out does her pay 20 years later come out to what the man who didnt take time to raise his children was making 3 years earlier?

i suspect not. has anyone seen a study on that?

You are overlooking an important concenquence of those three or so years (each) off during that period her spouse will (if he hasn't alread) become the primary wage earner with the higher paying job. From then on any carrer decisions she has to make will have to be with consideration also of her spouses higher paying job. This will limit her ability to accept promotions which require a move or less accomodating hours.
It has also been my observation that women tend towards less risky jobs - choosing salary over commission and also choosing lest dangerous jobs (and most often air-conditioned). These decisions too have an impact.

those are important considerations whether one parent takes time off or not.

pay gap

Why do I keep reading that as "gay pap"? *meanders on*

I read just "gay" the first time too.

“June O'Neill, a certifiably female ...

Hmmm, I wonder how you "certify" someone is female, eh? Sounds like a thorough news reporter to me!

Hmmm, I wonder how you "certify" someone is female, eh? Sounds like a thorough news reporter to me!

Good job of taking something out of context and trying to basdardize it, :rolleyes: or were you just 'funnin?'

Here is an interesting article that says the fact that women make 81% of men’s full-time wages is not because of discrimination but due to many other factors such as full time vs. part time work, working fewer hours, and career choice. So, if women want to make as much money as men it looks like they should make different career choices, stay in the labor market rather than jump in and our, and work full time as opposed to part time.
Here are some excerpts from the article:
“June O'Neill, a certifiably female economist who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office under President Clinton, wrote a peer-reviewed paper for the American Economic Review (May 2003), trying to account for the pay gap. What she found was that women are much more likely over the course of their lives to cut back their hours or quit work altogether than men. That matters, because even though the BLS was comparing full-time workers, if you go part-time or take years out of the labor force, that has an effect on earnings down the line, due to loss of seniority or missed promotions.
More precisely, of women aged 25-44 with young children, more than a third were out of the labor force; of those women who did have jobs, 30% worked part-time. (The comparable numbers for men were 4% out of the labor force and 2% working part-time).
All told, women are more than twice as likely to work part-time as men and over the course of their lifetimes, work outside the home for 40% fewer years than men. That accounts for a significant chunk of the pay gap. Then there is a more subtle factor. …the sexes continue to choose different avenues of study and different types of jobs.
…. The college majors with the top starting salaries…: chemical engineering (almost $60,000), computer engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering. Men make up about 80% of engineering majors. Women predominate among liberal arts majors - whose salaries start at a little more than $30,000. Putting it all together, O¹Neill figures that these differences - in choice of work, years in the workforce, and hours of work - could account for as much as 97.5% of the differences in pay between men and women. "The unadjusted gender gap," she concludes, "can be explained to a large extent by non-discriminatory factors."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortune/muphy_payact.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007060507

If this is true, it's good news... because it means that the upper executives aren't as sexist as we thought.

If this is true, it's good news... because it means that the upper executives aren't as sexist as we thought.

But it doesn't change that they are overpaid.

Hmmm, I wonder how you "certify" someone is female, eh? Sounds like a thorough news reporter to me!

I run a service, work cheap, too.

But it doesn't change that they are overpaid.

They need to be...

They need to be...

Like fat kids need donuts?

Like fat kids need donuts?

More like how the Dohnut shop needs fat kids.

More like how the Dohnut shop needs fat kids.

If the donut shop got a healthier recipe, they could appeal to all kids and do a social good.



I don't want to take this analogy any further.

If the donut shop got a healthier recipe, they could appeal to all kids and do a social good.


If the donut shop made healthier donuts, it would loose the number of customers and profit, due to the donuts being worse tasting.


I don't want to take this analogy any further.

I do. :)

If the donut shop made healthier donuts, it would loose the number of customers and profit, due to the donuts being worse tasting.





That is an assumption.



Stop it.

That is an assumption.



Stop it.

Ok. But it's a hypothetical to illustrate my point, there is no truth in this scenario.

Ok. But it's a hypothetical to illustrate my point, there is no truth in this scenario.

Except the truth that (most and not all) CEO's need the massive amount of money beyond what they are entitled to like fat children need donuts.

Except the truth that (most and not all) CEO's need the massive amount of money beyond what they are entitled to like fat children need donuts.

I'm not saying they need it, i'm saying we need it. I'm saying CEO's should be free to control how much prophit goes to themselves, otherwise there is no incentive for entrepreneurialism and the economy declines etc...

Except the truth that (most and not all) CEO's need the massive amount of money beyond what they are entitled to like fat children need donuts.

Wow! Did you guys/gals get off post or what? I hope the donut shop pays equal wages for equal work. :p

I'm not saying they need it, i'm saying we need it. I'm saying CEO's should be free to control how much prophit goes to themselves, otherwise there is no incentive for entrepreneurialism and the economy declines etc...

Well, it'd be cool if there were some sense of honor or something. My position is idealistic.

Wow! Did you guys/gals get off post or what? I hope the donut shop pays equal wages for equal work. :p

Donuts are always on topic.

Well, it'd be cool if there were some sense of honor or something.

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

Like maybe making things nice for yourself but not taking the amounts some of these CEO's are taking for themselves.

Like maybe making things nice for yourself but not taking the amounts some of these CEO's are taking for themselves.

Yeah, but you can't really force them to give their money to people who arn't as well off. It just wouldn't work out well.

Yeah, but you can't really force them to give their money to people who arn't as well off. It just wouldn't work out well.

They already do that. It's called tax and welfare. :eek:

They already do that. It's called tax and welfare. :eek:

Good point. I meant to say it shouldn't be anymore then it is now.

Yeah, but you can't really force them to give their money to people who arn't as well off. It just wouldn't work out well.

They wouldn't have to give it directly... just not take it. Then that money would be put back into the company and hopefully, passed on to the lower level workers.

pay gap

Why do I keep reading that as "gay pap"? *meanders on*

I dunno, mebbe you're going through some sort of passing, subconscious daddy fixation.

Here is an interesting article that says the fact that women make 81% of men’s full-time wages is not because of discrimination but due to many other factors such as full time vs. part time work, working fewer hours, and career choice.

Actually, that is not what the article, or the study it relies on says.

It simply states that discrimination is not "the reason for all or most of the" pay gap. It implicitly admits that discrimination is a cause of the pay gap.

"The unadjusted gender gap," she concludes, "can be explained to a large extent by non-discriminatory factors."

See. Can be explained to a large extent by non-discriminatory factors explicity means that some extent can't be explained by non-discriminatory factors. In other words, when one looks at all the variables, one has to admit that pay discrimination exists.

Perhaps I should have said "Discrimination is not the major cause of..." Although there probably cases of outright discrimination as the article clearly points out that is not the major cause of the pay gap.

See above.

Regardless, you are relying on one editorial based on one study. And even that admits that discrimination is a cause of some of the pay gap.

And your article admits that other studies, like the AAUW study, have come to different conclusions.

Also, I don't believe that who the primary care giver in a family is because of discrimination. It is a personal choice between the parents and their decision is usually based on the norms of the society.

What you call "norms of society" others call "gender stereotypes"

The fact that they included this in the argument makes me question the honesty of the piece on the whole. The gender gap argument isn't talking about dollars per hour over the entire range of the wage-earning scale--it's dollars per hour in the individual jobs, so engineers are being compared with engineers, and liberal arts majors with liberal arts majors. English teachers aren't being compared to engineers when we're talking about wage discrimination.

Exactly. This doesn't deal with studies that compare pay gaps within a field.

And why is it that 80% of all engineering students are men--something to do with the long-standing belief that women, for some reason, don't handle math and the hard sciences as well (read: education discrimination) perhaps?

Having known people including my wife that studied engineering, I know first hand that there is gender discrimination in the engineering field.

Making the assumption that women are in lower paying fields because of choice is just that: an assumption.

The point is, that "discrimination" is not by the government, it's a cultural thing.

Sorry, but it isn't only government discrimination that matters. If our culture is discriminatory, that is a bad thing.

Perhaps one of these will help you answer the question about "time out" and the pay gap.

http://ideas.repec.org/cgi-bin/htsearch Bad link sorry. Here, try this

Effects of Comparable Worth Policy: Evidence from Washington State****
Downloadable ! Author(s): O'Neill, June & Brien, Michael & Cunningham, James. 1989 Abstract: No abstract is available for this item.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v79y1989i2p305-09.html

The Gender Gap in Wages, circa 2000****
Downloadable ! Author(s): June O'Neill. 2003 Abstract: No abstract is available for this item.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v93y2003i2p309-314.html

A Time-Series Analysis of Women's Labor Force Participation****
Downloadable ! Author(s): O'Neill, June A. 1981 Abstract: No abstract is available for this item.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v71y1981i2p76-80.html

So, have you actually read these studies or are you just throwing up articles by Ms. O'Neill?

Care to explain what each of these studies says that is relevant? (And how about linking articles that don't require a subscription.)

I dunno, mebbe you're going through some sort of passing, subconscious daddy fixation.

Don't be kooky. My daddy fixation is anything but subconscious.

Don't be kooky. My daddy fixation is anything but subconscious.

Heh, just so. For some reason I feel like listening to some Jacques Brel, now.

Except the truth that (most and not all) CEO's need the massive amount of money beyond what they are entitled to like fat children need donuts.

Actually most executives are not CEOs - and most CEOs do not make such grandiose amounts. (Nor are most CEOs the same persons who started the enterprise)

Being a CEO is also not quite as easy a job as most people are so misinformed as to believe. Were it so easy then Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison would have stayed retired - Lee Iacocca would not have been needed to save Ford or Chrysler. Sam Walton would never have been able to overtake Kmart. Jack Welsh would have never had an impact on GE. Etc. Etc.

The real trouble is that those CEOs whos comp is hyper-inflated are often put in place by executive boards who are disconnected from their responsibility to shareholders. These knobs often select a big pay package under the misguided belif that "If you pay it they will come". ie - paying someone the same as Jack Welsh will make them Jack Welsh. Most often these companies are run by people who are too risk adverse to make the tough decisions and beurocracy and mediocracy result. The best things anyone can do is avoid buying, working or owning a share of any companies like that. Eventually mediocracy sinks to the bottom - like Kmart did.

Like maybe making things nice for yourself but not taking the amounts some of these CEO's are taking for themselves.

Hmm...

I've never heard of a publicly traded corporation in which the CEO chooses his/her own compensation. Instead, the Board of Directors, who are elected by the shareholders of the corporation, decide who to hire as CEO. Of course, the potential CEO can always negotiate the terms of employment, but it's not like the CEO is some all-powerful corporate tyrant who decides unilaterally what he/she is compensated.

Shareholders make money = Board retained = CEO gets rewarded handsomely in the future (or rewarded presently, as oftentimes a corporate exec's compensation is based on performance). This is not to say that CEO base salary hasn't risen a great deal over the past several years. But alot of that is the unintended consequences of Sarbanes-Oxley (federal law passed after the Enron thing), since there is now personal risk to corporate execs for misdeeds of the corporation.

By the way, quick question for you all. Who owns Exxon? Thousands of people, maybe even millions, including the pension plan for California state employees.

I love articles which cite pervasive sexism and discrimination as proof that sexism and discrimination don't impact women's lives.

This "discovery" would only surprise the most self-deluded of feminazis.