This just in!!

PepsiCo today named President and Chief Financial Officer Indra Nooyi as chief executive, effective Oct. 1. Pepsi will be the second-largest U.S. firm to be headed by a woman, behind Archer Daniels Midland, where Patricia Woertz is CEO.

How does this work again? Weren't these two socially-conditioned not to succeed? Wasn't the board socially-conditioned to crush these two? Because they're eeeevil?

Oh I feel so much better about earning less than men who have the same qualifications and experience now, they've let a woman run a big company. Woo hoo. We have total equality. <---Very heavy sarcasm.

(But seriously, good for her)

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oh I feel so much better about earning less than men who have the same qualifications and experience now, they've let a woman run a big company. Woo hoo. We have total equality. <---Very heavy sarcasm.

If you thought you were worth more, you should have contracted for more. That, of course, assumes that someone else was willing to pay more...

If she is getting paid less than her predecessor, then her powers of negotiation failed her.

Frankly, if it were true that women of comparable age, experience, education, seniority, time in position, et cetera really were paid significantly less than men, any smart board of directors would hire nothing but women. And move their companies to Burma or Burkina Faso. Hell, they could cut their payrolls by 30% easy, right?

Edit: Seems she is getting paid less, $750K vs. $1000K, base salary. Is that discrimination, or is it reflective of the fact that he has 22 years at the company as compared to her 12? You be the Judge!

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Oh I feel so much better about earning less than men who have the same qualifications and experience now, they've let a woman run a big company. Woo hoo. We have total equality. <---Very heavy sarcasm.

If you thought you were worth more, you should have contracted for more. That, of course, assumes that someone else was willing to pay more...

If she is getting paid less than her predecessor, then her powers of negotiation failed her.

Frankly, if it were true that women of comparable age, experience, education, seniority, time in position, et cetera really were paid significantly less than men, any smart board of directors would hire nothing but women. And move their companies to Burma or Burkina Faso. Hell, they could cut their payrolls by 30% easy, right?

This works in theory, but the practice is a bit more complicated.

The employers out there are not in perfect competition for a given woman's labor. If all of the employers (or even just the vast majority) "expect" to pay a woman less, they will make employment offers accordingly. The woman will have a finite number of job offers from which to choose, and will likely have her compensation curtailed as a result. Think of the woman as a supplier of labor and the companies as potential customers for that labor.

The reverse also works. Consumers "expect" to pay less for certain products than they pay for others. For example, we expect to pay less for generic store-brand cereals than we do for Famous Brand cereals. The local grocery store is free to put any price tag on his store-brand cereal that he wants, but he is unlikely to sell many units unless the price is in line with customer expectations. The customer will either buy the Famous Brand or he will shop elsewhere. Note that store-brand and Famous Brand cereals are extremely substitutable, just like the labor of a woman compared to the labor of a man.

EDIT: typo

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Oh I feel so much better about earning less than men who have the same qualifications and experience now, they've let a woman run a big company. Woo hoo. We have total equality. <---Very heavy sarcasm.

If you thought you were worth more, you should have contracted for more. That, of course, assumes that someone else was willing to pay more...

If she is getting paid less than her predecessor, then her powers of negotiation failed her.

Frankly, if it were true that women of comparable age, experience, education, seniority, time in position, et cetera really were paid significantly less than men, any smart board of directors would hire nothing but women. And move their companies to Burma or Burkina Faso. Hell, they could cut their payrolls by 30% easy, right?

Edit: Seems she is getting paid less, $750K vs. $1000K, base salary. Is that discrimination, or is it reflective of the fact that he has 22 years at the company as compared to her 12. You be the Judge!

..but why would they employ only women who are going to go and get pregnant as soon as they can? I was once told by a man that he'd never employ a woman for that very reason.

Perhaps more woman should do what I heard one woman did, produce a jar with a womb and ovaries in it at the beginning of her job interview. ;-)

---

Reality Internet Personality

..but why would they employ only women who are going to go and get pregnant as soon as they can? I was once told by a man that he'd never employ a woman for that very reason.

It's been discussed here before that you advocate the initiation of force via laws and regulations to rectify what you see are inherent disadvantages women must cope with because of their biology. You also have stated you have no reservations about using 'artificial means' to adjust society for this inequality. As Rush pointed out a few days ago, people aren't equal in regard to skills, ability, habits, physical attributes, and any other number of things. Equality in the eyes of the law should not be equated to equality of outcomes, income, etc etc. There's just no way to make it so even if one could avoid the gag reflex while attempting to morally justify a goal like this if he assumed it WAS possible to achieve.

In some cases an employer may deem it a liability to have a woman as a hire because of these existential factors. Susceptibility to frivolous lawsuits over imagined sexual harassment are another factor that EXISTS (created largely by feminists) that employers will consider when making hiring decisions. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You don't like the hand of cards nature has dealt women so you advocate force upon the wills and minds and property of others to satisfy your resentment at mother nature and complain when the employer uses his naturally gifted mind, deals with reality, and adjusts his behavior in response to your heavy handed policies.

Insurance companies generally set higher rates for their younger male drivers than their female counterparts. There are a plethora of similar examples. Why should the insurance companies not be forced to ignore THESE aspects of reality like employers should have to do in your view?

I'd have more respect for your claim that all you want is equality if you actually adocated it for men as well as women and advocated it across the board EQUALLY.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

It's been discussed here before that you advocate the initiation of force via laws and regulations to rectify what you see are inherent disadvantages women must cope with because of their biology.

I don't see them as disadvantages, but it seems that you do.

You also have stated you have no reservations about using 'artificial means' to adjust society for this inequality. As Rush pointed out a few days ago, people aren't equal in regard to skills, ability, habits, physical attributes, and any other number of things. Equality in the eyes of the law should not be equated to equality of outcomes, income, etc etc. There's just no way to make it so even if one could avoid the gag reflex while attempting to morally justify a goal like this if he assumed it WAS possible to achieve.

Never said it would, but why should I be refused a job because I'm of childbearing age? I have no intention of having any more children, so why should it be an issue?

In some cases an employer may deem it a liability to have a woman as a hire because of these existential factors. Susceptibility to frivolous lawsuits over imagined sexual harassment are another factor that EXISTS (created largely by feminists) that employers will consider when making hiring decisions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

That's a pathetic bullsh*t excuse and you know it.

You don't like the hand of cards nature has dealt women so you advocate force upon the wills and minds and property of others to satisfy your resentment at mother nature and complain when the employer uses his naturally gifted mind, deals with reality, and adjusts his behavior in response to your heavy handed policies.

Mother nature is not the problem here. It's a refusal to see that there are other business practices that can work just as well for everyone, womb or no womb.

Insurance companies generally set higher rates for their younger male drivers than their female counterparts. There are a plethora of similar examples. Why should the insurance companies not be forced to ignore THESE aspects of reality like employers should have to do in your view?

How are these comparable? Purleesse, show some common sense here.

I'd have more respect for your claim that all you want is equality if you actually adocated it for men as well as women and advocated it across the board EQUALLY.

Of course that's what I want, and right now we are all equal..it's just that some are more equal than others.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I read your previous post and wonder why some say women don't get hysterical.....

;-)

I read your previous post and wonder why some say women don't get hysterical.....

;-)

Oooooooooooh! You are sooooo dead.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Could somebody tell me why:
the headline is: "Pepsi Cola appointed a woman!"

Why could it not be : "Pepsi Cola appointed a man?"

[edit] WHAT has gender got to do with it? - and come to that, WHY is it that a womans age is always mentioned - as though it meant something 'sub-surface'? Gets me angry!!!

Could somebody tell me why:
the headline is: "Pepsi Cola appointed a woman!"

Why could it not be : "Pepsi Cola appointed a man?"

Because it's so unusual that it made the news. Doesn't that say it all?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Could somebody tell me why:
the headline is: "Pepsi Cola appointed a woman!"

Why could it not be : "Pepsi Cola appointed a man?"

[edit] WHAT has gender got to do with it?

Rarity=newsworthiness.

That is why you don't see headlines like:

"Mullah sentences woman to death"

or

"Dog bites teen who poked it with stick"

or

"John Kerry changes position on key issue"

or

"Water flows downhill"

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Could somebody tell me why:
the headline is: "Pepsi Cola appointed a woman!"
Why could it not be : "Pepsi Cola appointed a man?"

Because it's so unusual that it made the news. Doesn't that say it all?

Yep Es ... it does!
It shows how insecure Male society is.

Could somebody tell me why:
the headline is: "Pepsi Cola appointed a woman!"

Why could it not be : "Pepsi Cola appointed a man?"

[edit] WHAT has gender got to do with it? - and come to that, WHY is it that a womans age is always mentioned - as though it meant something 'sub-surface'? Gets me angry!!!

In the business press, the ages of senior executives are almost always given right after the name. Investors want to have some inkling how long a director or CEO or whatever is going to be around.

In the "popular" press, you are correct that only woman and very young/old men have their ages reported. The information is always there, just the editor doesn't always think it's interesting.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Could somebody tell me why:
the headline is: "Pepsi Cola appointed a woman!"
Why could it not be : "Pepsi Cola appointed a man?"
[edit] WHAT has gender got to do with it?

Rariy=newsworthiness.
That is why you don't see headlines like:
"Mullah sentences woman to death"
or
"Dog bites teen who poked it with stick"
or
"John Kerry changes position on key issue"
or
"Water flows downhill"

yep ... 8-man I agree...
That is why : Man bites dog ... has it over Dog bites man
Every day!!!
[edit] ... I also agree with your last post ... the fault lies with the 'popular' press

Careful you two, you'll be accused of being one of tham thar feminists.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Careful you two, you'll be accused of being one of tham thar feminists.

This just in...

Sarcasm in Cafe Seti!

See? It just doesn't look like something you'd see across the New York Times or Wall Street Journal.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

right now we are all equal..it's just that some are more equal than others.

Did I just hear George Orwell? ;)

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
~ George Orwell - Animal Farm

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Could somebody tell me why the headline is:
"Pepsi Cola appointed a woman!"
Why could it not be : "Pepsi Cola appointed a man?"

Because it's so unusual that it made the news. Doesn't that say it all?

Yep Es ... it does!
It shows how insecure Male society is.

I've done a small informally survey on that Bodley, you and I are Australian, we are used to women being treated equally. I'm surprised by the number and calibre of women who moved to Australia from advanced nations, like the UK, US, Ireland (my dental nurse), Egypt (my dentist), China (my doctor), et el only to say they can obtain their career goals here, something they say could not be done at home.

I've had the opportunity to speak to three top female executives during the informal after party's.

I asked the first one about the glass ceiling. She said, "I've heard of that. What is it?" I thought she maybe having a lend of me but decided to continue my small survey.

I asked another and she said something like, "Heard about it, but don't believe it." The third one said something very similar, then added, "Besides, if the company was that stupid, they're not going to do any good. I'd look for a job elsewhere!".

Epiphany! I realised my own boss was an idiot and blamed everybody but himself for his stalled career!! At his level of management there were a lot of employee's winging about the obstacles the universe put in their way. If they were only a quarter as good as they said, they'd get another job, then quit!! They don't so they are full of crap and destined to a terrified mediocrity. To scared to put any faith in themselves.

Can anyone really imagine discrimination getting in the way of Margret Jackson?

This works in theory, but the practice is a bit more complicated.

The employers out there are not in perfect competition for a given woman's labor. If all of the employers (or even just the vast majority) "expect" to pay a woman less, they will make employment offers accordingly. The woman will have a finite number of job offers from which to choose, and will likely have her compensation curtailed as a result. Think of the woman as a supplier of labor and the companies as potential customers for that labor.

Well sure. That's a consequence of people thinking for themselves. Just like fund raisers "expect" that women are more likely to give to breast cancer causes over veterans affairs causes. Those expectations are often wrong and in no case do they apply to individuals.

However, it just further illustrates my point: did Pepsico "expect" to pay Ms. Nooyi less because she is a woman and thought they would get a deal? Or, did they pay her less because she had been at the company 10 years less than her predecessor? Or, did they pay her more than they would have paid someone else--her MBA coming from Yale(?) whereas her predecessor's came from UVa? How would you know? How would you weight such variables, when frankly the only variable that matters is that she stayed at the company as long as she has and that she contracted to work for salary.

Using what people "expect" is just another use of aggregate statistics. Those numbers are better suited to demonstrate that we simply are not equal and never will be.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

..but why would they employ only women who are going to go and get pregnant as soon as they can? I was once told by a man that he'd never employ a woman for that very reason.

Sure. Just as I've been told by a woman that she'd never hire a man for a particular position for any reason.

Perhaps more woman should do what I heard one woman did, produce a jar with a womb and ovaries in it at the beginning of her job interview.

Heh heh. That is one course of action that I personally find hilarious. Now I'll be glancing around, wondering who has a uterus floating in a baggie in their purse...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...