women and minorities who are equally (or sometimes more) qualified regularly get paid less on average than their white male peers. you claim to be unbiased, yet this information is neither new, nor it is uncommon knowledge. still, you continue imply that these people are paid less because they are worth less.
I am, once again, asking you to explain why you believe that’s the case.
How am I implying this? I don’t know how else to put this into English words.
I’m simply voicing my opinion. Sex/gender and skin color should have nothing to do when it comes to choosing winners and losers. How is this a controversial opinion?
I said this before, and I’ll repeat since you still haven’t answered:
You said that people should be paid what they’re worth and then said people with “a vag” or different skin color shouldn’t get more money because of that. It’s well-known that equally-qualified women and minorities get paid significantly less than their white male peers on average.
So, logically, your implication is that women and minorities are paid less because they’re worth less. I’m asking you to explain why you believe that. It’s not that complicated.
You keep saying it’s well known. By who? Who cares? I don’t own the businesses. I’m simply pointing out that sex or gender or skin color should have no effect on promotions and pay. What else do I need to say? I’m sorry the word vag triggered you but that’s how I talk sometimes.
Anyways, whatever you’re trying to bait me into isn’t working so roll on.
You keep saying two contradictory things while evading a simple question and then blaming me for pointing that out. Why is that? And why do you think that’s “bait”?
women and minorities who are equally (or sometimes more) qualified regularly get paid less on average than their white male peers. you claim to be unbiased, yet this information is neither new, nor it is uncommon knowledge. still, you continue imply that these people are paid less because they are worth less.
I am, once again, asking you to explain why you believe that’s the case.
I’m not sure what else to say. I don’t look at race and genitals as a qualifying factor in pay.
Yet you clearly keep implying women and minorities are worth less. I’m just wondering why that is.
How am I implying this? I don’t know how else to put this into English words.
I’m simply voicing my opinion. Sex/gender and skin color should have nothing to do when it comes to choosing winners and losers. How is this a controversial opinion?
I said this before, and I’ll repeat since you still haven’t answered:
You said that people should be paid what they’re worth and then said people with “a vag” or different skin color shouldn’t get more money because of that. It’s well-known that equally-qualified women and minorities get paid significantly less than their white male peers on average.
So, logically, your implication is that women and minorities are paid less because they’re worth less. I’m asking you to explain why you believe that. It’s not that complicated.
You keep saying it’s well known. By who? Who cares? I don’t own the businesses. I’m simply pointing out that sex or gender or skin color should have no effect on promotions and pay. What else do I need to say? I’m sorry the word vag triggered you but that’s how I talk sometimes.
Anyways, whatever you’re trying to bait me into isn’t working so roll on.
You keep saying two contradictory things while evading a simple question and then blaming me for pointing that out. Why is that? And why do you think that’s “bait”?
Who’s blaming anybody?
I don’t believe that sex/gender and skin color should have any bearing on pay and promotions.
What’s wrong with that statement.