#genderpaygap

One of the best interviews on identity politics you’re likely to see

Probably one of the best interviews of liberal logic being tipped on its head. The interviewer Cathy Newman defines everything about why identity politics is so divisive. From 22 minutes on you can see the guest, Jordan Peterson, utterly (but politely) destroy her illogical and hypocritical arguments after enduring 22 minutes of her nastiness. A joy to watch.

Oprah – fantastic delivery to those lost in fantasy

793B184A-1AC1-4534-B290-05D68F701A07.jpeg

One can’t fault Oprah for delivery. Her Cecil B. De Mille award speech justifies her position as the highest paid performer in Hollywood. She’s eloquent! Despite her speech to an audience full of hypocrites who applauded every aspect of the victim culture that has not held 99% of them back. She is unsurprisingly lighting up liberal social media feeds. Hail the identity politics!

Oprah is the poster child of how America rewards talent no matter what background one comes from. She earns $140mn a year. While she can talk of the importance of the civil rights of the 1960s from a lino floor watching Sidney Poitier win the same award, the America today (and decades ago) hasn’t  held her back. She should be celebrating and acknowledging that change not rattling off how unjust the world still is. Sure it isn’t perfect but the injustices of the 1960s are virtually non existent by comparison. Show me a perfect society and we’d all move there.

After all a black president served two terms in America. Had he not won those elections would civil rights in America been immeasurably worse off since 2009?  Would parents of African-American descent have told their children to hold tight to their injustices had he lost? Or did they tell them to chuck them away when he won? Why wouldn’t Oprah cheer that? Afterall the virtue signallers in the audience would smile, cry and swoon on anything she said so out of touch with the world they are

While the washout from the Weinstein saga has yet to finally flood them out, here was Hollywood trying to sell themselves as paragons of virtue. Champagne socialism is alive and kicking.

It was so ironic that immediately after the Oprah speech Natalie Portman introduced the “all male nominees for best director” which only amplified how full of it Hollywood is. Could it be that most directors are male? The Golden Globes said that Barbara Streisand was the only female winner of a best director award in 1984. Could it be that Spielberg or Ron Howard pulls movie financing  more adeptly than others regardless of gender? Previous track record -> future sales expectations -> higher financing -> better cast -> more sales etc. it’s based on economics not gender.

Then Jennifer Chastain jumped in with the 23% gender pay gap quip in a room where they all get paid millions. Leading actors get paid more depending on movie, budget and a whole host of issues. I doubt Meryl Streep has suffered a 23% pay gap to her male actors in any of her movies since Sophie’s Choice or Kramer vs Kramer. Geena Davis added to the pay gap nonsense in her introduction. Yawn.

Yes, Oprah grew up in Jim Crow times. Indeed she witnessed first hand those injustices. Once again isn’t a night of virtue signaling better served by focusing on positives than nothing but negatives. Of course not. It’s terrible being a multi millionaire.

Frances McDormand talked of the time for a female president. Barbara Streisand banged on about gender inequality. By her own admission she won an award 33 years ago.

So the Golden Globes was all the same rubbish. 100s of Hollywood celebrities thinking their words carry any meaning or weight. Every social justice case was put to full effect. If they actually believed their own nonsense they’d do their utmost to repeal the very civil rights thy fight so vigorously to defend.

Iceland legislates equal pay for women

FD6A0813-35BF-444A-8544-C58363BEACB0

Google statistics on the gender pay gap and you can find an endless supply of stats supporting women earning a fraction of that of men. Iceland has now made it law. Companies with 25 members of staff and over are obliged to obtain government certification of their equal-pay policies or face being slapped with financial penalties. It makes absolute sense to pay equally for identical work but we all know from our own experiences that all workers don’t perform equally in the same role. That goes for both genders.

Take two salespeople (ignore gender for now). They both work the same hours, are both the same age and have exactly the same qualities. Over whatever time period set the first outsells the second person on a 2:1 basis. Competition in their industry is rife and the employer is worried that it might lose one of is better performers if it can’t reward them appropriately.

In a previous role as head of a sales department, the top saleswoman was paid considerably more than male counterparts for “performance”. Same role, same rank, similar age and tenure. Better pay. It was rational. Gender was irrelevant. Performance was what mattered. Would the Iceland law makers censure the gender discrimination against the men in the team? Not likely. Surely it would turn a blind eye and inwardly celebrate an overturn of decades of perceived injustice!

Companies will get tied up in irrelevant, costly and onerous red tape to defend common sense. That is time consuming. Companies will need to hire a whole department to protect them from behaving too commercially or rationally. All of a sudden instead of dealing with customers staff and management spend a growing amount of time ticking internal boxes so the company doesn’t get into any trouble. Customers lose and ultimately the company becomes less profitable as a result. Lose lose.

Take it a step further. If companies could hire one group for 20% less than another for exactly the same output why would they bother paying a premium for it? Makes no sense. So the argument that women are paid less for the same role is nonsense. Why would companies bother to hire men?

Take the world of super models. The top 20 females get paid north of $1mn per annum. There are two males that achieve it. Where are the masculinists screaming for equal pay? Is it not the corporation that sees more value in having Giselle Blundchen’s sultry looks than some 6-packed dude from the Polo Ralph Lauren catalogue? Same work? Not same pay! Still Giselle’s agents know her value to the ultimate revenues of a cosmetics company that Joey Sixpack simply can’t generate. Is that unfair? Surely if Giselle has her pay capped at 1/10th current pay she might refuse to work.

Regardless of the debate over gender balance, it is not strange to see men dominate the numbers in the military, emergency services and construction. These are workplace choices. If 80% of the people who want to apply for a particular industry are men or women then why force gender balance? Doesn’t the sheer number of men or women applying for a particular type of job speak volumes about real interest? Should army recruiters in Australia face demotion if they don’t hit gender targets? Should we want our military to be a social experiment or the most capable force of defending a nation? If more men are willing and capable to serve in artillery battalions why should we deny them? Isn’t motivation a desirable trait?

Another flaw in the gender pay argument is that of classification. Stanford Professor Thomas Sowell suggested personal and workplace choices account for much of the gap…perhaps the biggest reason is biology. Women make up 50% of the workforce but give birth to 100% of the babies. And if women choose to have children, their incentives change and this affects their choices of jobs, careers, continual service and hours spent on the job…and data compiled from the Census Bureau, unmarried women who’ve never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men…according to the Labor Department, “of men and women who work 30 to 34 hours a week, women make more, 109 percent of men’s earnings.

Of Sowell’s points, continual service is important. If a woman takes 10 years out of the workforce to raise kids while her husband is able to continue in his job one would imagine prospects for promotion would be on balance higher than hers if she returned to the workforce after a long absence. It doesn’t preclude women couldn’t climb a ladder or overtake her hubby but on balance this is but one factor.

The gender pay gap is a statisticians dream. One could slice and dice it to get the result one wants. However isn’t it an insult to women to think they need a regulated leg up in life? Some of the most successful women Known to CM are determined and the last thing that crosses their mind is that being a women is an impediment. Their drive and determination was an inspiration.

The left leaning Fairfax Media is already pointing fingers at Australia to adopt Iceland’s lead. Just what Australian industry needs. More red tape.

Kathy Griffin’s most hilarious black humour yet because the truth really hurts

73408AA1-B647-4265-AC20-0D384A6339D4.jpeg

Kathy Griffin has made a video pleading for networks to put her on shows and value her two Emmys. It is perhaps the funniest thing she’s ever done in comedy given she is being serious about how inhumanely the system that she’s made $20mn out of is now treating her – blacklisted as she calls it. Watch her go through the routines of how she is a woman and deserves to be paid as much as men if she gets another go. She should consider herself lucky to get a 30 second snippet on an unknown local network for free such is her poor form and complete lack of understanding of why no one will touch her because networks know audiences won’t bother watching and no advertisers will back her. Perhaps she needn’t have abused Aussie breakfast TV hosts with “you’re full of crap”. She openly admitted she showed no remorse for what she did yet now begs for forgiveness because her brand of apology is unaccepted by the main. Pass me the Kleenex.

Equal pay for equal work

42C16F71-A4C3-426F-827C-882947E5F06A.jpeg

Australian Channel 9 TV Today Show host Lisa Wilkinson has quit the station after pay negotiations broke down. Her request to have her salary matched to that of her male side kick Karl Stefanovic was knocked back. Stefanovic is reportedly on a $6mn three year deal, contracted when he was about to quit and join another station. Call it unfair or whatever you will but Wilkinson was still paid ($1.1mn) but appeared on fewer shows than Stefanovic .The network upped it to $1.8mn (with the potential it would cause retrenchments) but it was not accepted by her. She walked to defend the gender pay gap to join a new show where she is paid 3x the salary of the male host. So the gender pay crusader is ok with earning more for equal work. How soon we forget that the station being pilloried for not paying fairly made Jana Wendt the top paid announcer 30 years ago. Commercial decision.

MotoGP is a great example of why equal pay for equal work isn’t always so simple. The Ducati Factory Team has two riders – a newly signed €25m 2-yr contract former 5x world champ Jorge Lorenzo and a €1.5mn pa 1x world champ Andrea Dovisioso. Now Dovi is in shooting distance of his first ever MotoGP crown while his overpaid team mate is ranked 8th with patchy performance. While no doubt the pay gap for the same work (riding a motorcycle as fast as possible and not crashing) will be addressed somewhat, satellite team rider Scott Redding has to “pay” for his seat. Not get paid, but pay. So much for equal pay! Yet Redding has made a conscious choice on the basis he performs and his fortunes change. He hasn’t demanded a €25mn deal because he’d be laughed at even if technically fair. Yes, the reality is that “performance” matters. If you’re a better rider, TV cameras are zoomed in on your sponsors for more of the race. That’s why the pay gap exists. Sponsors get their lick. Same job, unequal pay.

We heard similar arguments around the pay differences between the male and female national US soccer teams. The point was made that the women were more successful than the men (true) so it was absurd they were paid less.  The realities were simple. The women were paid healthy salaries whether they played or sat on the sidelines – win, lose or draw. The men were geared to pay on performance and those who were dropped on playing badly didn’t get a dime. Once again, as professional sports goes, male sports tend to be much better paid because of the revenues they attract (which is a reflection of commerciality). Lionel Messi earns 40mn euro a year. Is he worth 100x that of the highest paid female player, Alex Morgan. Well if you paid Messi $400k he probably wouldn’t play. It’s just the world of professional sports. Perhaps all players should be on $40m per year after all equal work, equal pay right? How would losing teams be able to attract superstars to help them win championships (they’re not in it to lose) if they paid them the same wage? They’d remain at the bottom of second division and go out of business because they couldn’t afford equal pay.

To turn the argument on its head, perhaps male models should have the right to protest that female supermodels absolutely trounce them for pay. Only three male models earn over $1mn while 5 times as many supermodels earn it. In the lower echelons female models get paid much more than the men. Probably because the companies that wish to advertise think their brands get more impact by using women! No problem – a commercial choice.

While there is no doubt that pay equality for the same work is fair in theory, the idea that women are deliberately discriminated against from a pure economic standpoint is irrational. If companies could hire women to do the same work as men for 25% less, why would any business hire men? If you work at Starbucks or as a bank clerk, on the same seniority, hours, effectiveness and efficiency then absolutely the pay should be equal .

For jobs that have equal output from equal time then absolutely equal pay is warranted. However workplace discrimination is an evil in almost every firm. Do we have half yearly evaluations where everyone gets the same grade and same bonus? Or do firms try to keep the best performers by incentivizing them to keep bringing in more dollars. For the record my top salesperson (female) in my former career was the best paid of all – gender irrelevant – output relevant. No complaints.

So we can howl at the gender pay gap but let’s get real with what is unfair and what isn’t. There is an idea that all have a right to equal pay but I will defend every woman who earns more than me if she legitimately beats my results – wait a minute I already did.