age descrimination Options

[iheartsimba]

do you think society has age descrimination?
(with laws, or parent rules, or school rules, ect)?

[Aesirus]

"Men get higher pay than women" is quite possibly the worst proof of sexism that exists.

When a company hires a woman, it must pay the woman for maternity leave, for the greater tendency among women to retire earlier than men, work fewer hours, and take greater advantage of medical benefits.

Thus, there are many hidden costs in hiring a woman. If a company hires a man, a $50,000 salary plus $10,000 in benefits means $50,000 in salary, and $5,000 in benefits. If a comapny hires a woman, it means $50,000 in salary, $10,000 in benefits, $50,000 for a year's paid maternity leave as mandated by law in several states, not to mention thousands more in the fact that women, on average, work fewer hours. Thus, a company will have to pay women less than men, or not hire women at all.

That isn't prejudice, that's minding the hidden costs.

Prejudice isn't always a bad thing. A movie clerk is going to ask someone who looks like a teenager for ID, but not someone who looks 50. That is prejudice against people who look young, but once again, is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Nashvixen]

"Men get higher pay than women" is quite possibly the worst proof of sexism that exists.
When a company hires a woman, it must pay the woman for maternity leave, for the greater tendency among women to retire earlier than men, work fewer hours, and take greater advantage of medical benefits.
Thus, there are many hidden costs in hiring a woman. If a company hires a man, a $50,000 salary plus $10,000 in benefits means $50,000 in salary, and $5,000 in benefits. If a comapny hires a woman, it means $50,000 in salary, $10,000 in benefits, $50,000 for a year's paid maternity leave as mandated by law in several states, not to mention thousands more in the fact that women, on average, work fewer hours. Thus, a company will have to pay women less than men, or not hire women at all.
That isn't prejudice, that's minding the hidden costs.
Prejudice isn't always a bad thing. A movie clerk is going to ask someone who looks like a teenager for ID, but not someone who looks 50. That is prejudice against people who look young, but once again, is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't think so... You see if there was a woman who didn't want children (therefore didn't need maternity leave), should she still get lower pay just because there's some chance? Even if she's celebate? That doesn't make sense in this instance.
Not hiring women at all is sex discrimination.
You can call it "minding hidden costs", but notice, this doesn't apply to all people. So, you see your proof can't always be truthful either. Tendancy doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
Prejudice is a bad thing, but discrimination is not. If a teenager isn't allowed in a certain movie, there may be reason. Plus, 50-year-olds don't "tend" to go to limited-admission movies that a 17-year-old couldn't go to. Discrimination is like categorizing, which isn't always bad. It helps our brains interpret how a person may behave, by how they look or a trait about them. Prejudice is pre-judging them, similar to discrimination, but it means, "irrational suspicion or unreasonable preconceived convictions".

[Aesirus]

You can call it "minding hidden costs", but notice, this doesn't apply to all people. So, you see your proof can't always be truthful either. Tendancy doesn't cut it, in my opinion.

Many women make more than their husbands. It is a tendency for women to make less money, just as it is a tendency for there to be hidden costs of hiring women as opposed to men.

I don't think so... You see if there was a woman who didn't want children (therefore didn't need maternity leave), should she still get lower pay just because there's some chance? Even if she's celebate? That doesn't make sense in this instance.

There are more laws governing workplace safety when women are involved. The fact is that there are hidden costs of hiring women. Maternity pay is the single biggest one, but there are smaller ones that tend to justify giving women lower pay. It's still true that women, for the most part, work shorter hours and use benefits more often. Thus, for the most part, they have lower salaries. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, and those women generally make salaries that are just as high as comparable male salaries, or almost that high.

Not hiring women at all is sex discrimination.

Not necessarily. If companies are forced to pay women equally as men, then they will hire men out of economic logic, not sex discrimination. Similarly, a company that produces a product that might require a certain sex -- an NFL franchise, for example, will hire more men than women. Or companies that do things that are physically demanding might find MORE qualified men than women. Thus, they will obviously hire more men.


There was one point that I didn't bring up. One major reason women make less than men is because more women go into lower-paying fields. The highest paying college degrees are chemical engineering and biochemistry, both of which are predominantely male. Whereas many lower paying degrees have predominately female student bodies. According to TIME magazine, the number one degree that female PhDs had was psychology, which pays a lot lower than engineering.

So if more women choose to go into lower-paying fields, then they will obviously be making less money. That doesn't prove sexism at all.