Women CEOs make more than Men

[SunsetBengal]

How can this possibly be? According to politicians on the Left, we are led to believe that Women are underpaid. Buh, buh, but income inequality, war on women!

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2016/may/25/female-ceos-make-more-men-second-straight-year-overall-numbers-remain-small/367696/

[BmorePat87]

It's a shame the article went on to explain that a small sample size (women only make up 5% of all CEOs) is contributing to the skewing of data and that there still remains an issue of gender parity in the corporate world...

It also fails to address the implied claim that women are not underpaid as this is only dealing with 17 of the 72 million women currently working in the US. There are some legitimate argument against the claim that women are underpaid, and many focus on the psychology of men versus women (women are less likely to negotiate or ask for higher pay or raises, etc), but that's also not addressed by the article.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-28-2016, 09:28 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's a shame the article went on to explain that a small sample size (women only make up 5% of all CEOs) is contributing to the skewing of data and that there still remains an issue of gender parity in the corporate world...

It also fails to address the implied claim that women are not underpaid as this is only dealing with 17 of the 72 million women currently working in the US. There are some legitimate argument against the claim that women are underpaid, and many focus on the psychology of men versus women (women are less likely to negotiate or ask for higher pay or raises, etc), but that's also not addressed by the article.

No sir.  What this actually shows, is that Women who indeed want to be at the top, do very well, when they get there.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2016, 10:03 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No sir.  What this actually shows, is that Women who indeed want to be at the top, do very well, when they get there.

So the problem is women don't WANT to be at the top.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2016, 11:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: So the problem is women don't WANT to be at the top.

Not all women. Some find fulfillment in being a homemaker, serving in lower-level positions, or positions of less responsibility/workload to obtain an equal balance in quality of life;  similar to some men. I actually have a retired COL (one step from General) who works for me and has zero desire to progress because he is a huge advocate of Boy Scouts and is always taking time off. But that was a valiant attempt to paint someone a sexist. Keep fishing, sooner or later you are bound to catch something. 

[GMDino]

(05-28-2016, 11:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not all women. Some find fulfillment in being a homemaker, serving in lower-level positions, or positions of less responsibility/workload to obtain an equal balance in quality of life;  similar to some men. I actually have a retired COL (one step from General) who works for me and has zero desire to progress because he is a huge advocate of Boy Scouts and is always taking time off. But that was a valiant attempt to paint someone a sexist. Keep fishing, sooner or later you are bound to catch something. 

Thanks for this.


Solid post.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I think everyone deserves to be treated fairly.  I'm sure you feel the same way.

[GMDino]

From the linked article:

Quote:But only a small sliver of the largest companies are run by women, and experts say gender parity at the top remains way off.

The median pay for a female CEO was nearly $18 million last year, up about 13 percent from 2014. By comparison, male CEOs' median pay was $10.5 million, up just 3 percent from a year earlier, according to an analysis by executive compensation data firm Equilar and The Associated Press.

A pay hike doesn't tell the full story though.

The jump is largely due to the small sample size: only 17 of the 341 CEOs analyzed by Equilar and the AP were women. That means any one CEO's compensation — Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer's nearly $36 million package, for example, or Mary Dillon's 200 percent raise at Ulta — can skew the results.

Of the 10 highest paid CEOs on the list, only one was a woman: Yahoo's Marissa Mayer, whose own position is in jeopardy amid questions about the company's future.

The next highest-paid woman was Indra Nooyi, Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo Inc., who earned $22.2 million. General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic came in third at $20.4 million. The lowest-paid female CEO on the list was Lauralee Martin of HCP, a health care real estate investment trust, whose pay package was valued at $800,000.

The only black woman to make the list — Ursula Burns of Xerox — is giving up her CEO role soon to serve as chairman of the document technology company after the business splits in two.

Women led companies in a variety of industries including technology, defense and aerospace and retail. While there are few women at the helm, they tended to be in higher paying industries or positions — making up 10 of the top 100 highest paid overall.

A recent report by S&P Global Market Intelligence highlights the gulf between words and actions in hiring women as CEOs.

"Despite all of the attention placed on increasing the number of female executives at American companies, the needle on the gender gap has hardly moved," the report's author, Pavle Sabic, wrote.

Sabic looked at the entire Standard & Poor's 500 index from 2006 to 2015 and found the number of female CEOs rose from 16 to 21 — an increase of one new female CEO every two years.

"The gender gap at the CEO level ... is not closing," he wrote.

It's an issue of both corporate and community culture, says Serena Fong, vice president of governmental affairs at Catalyst, a nonprofit that aims to expand opportunities for women in business. She said there are unconscious biases against women in the workplace that work their way into hiring and development practices.

Proponents of equality say female CEOs can help the reputation, recruitment and bottom line of businesses.

The data is there to support the hires but change is happening slowly, said Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputation strategist at Weber Shandwick, which studied the reputation factor of female CEOs.

"We are going to see ... more progress because companies care about their reputations and boards care about their reputations," Gaines-Ross said. "It's going to happen, it's just not going to happen fast enough."

Equilar only looked at companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index that filed proxy statements with federal regulators between Jan. 1 and April 30, 2016. To avoid the distortions caused by sign-on bonuses, the sample includes only CEOs in place for at least two years.

That methodology means some CEOs, such as Mary Barra of General Motors, were not included.

To calculate pay, Equilar adds salary, bonus, perks, stock awards, stock option awards and other compensation. To determine what stock and option awards are worth, Equilar uses the value of an award on the day it is granted. For options, this includes an estimate of what the award could be worth in the future. Their actual value in the future can vary widely from what the company estimates.

So a slightly misleading title....

[fredtoast]

(05-28-2016, 10:03 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No sir.  What this actually shows, is that Women who indeed want to be at the top, do very well, when they get there.

Fewer women who want to be at the top get there than men.

Reminds me of when Cincy's Best tried to prove that slavery was not that bad for black people becaue some black people owned slaves.

[Brownshoe]

Meh, I hate this gender wage gap stuff. Yes, women earn less than men on average, BUT they don't get paid less for the same work. The gender pay gap is made by comparing all earnings of men and women even if they have completely different jobs. GENERALLY speaking women take more jobs like, nurses, social workers, ect... while men normally take jobs in manual labor, or STEM (which normally pay more). Men also statistically work more OT than women too, which makes the gap even farther. There are already laws in place that force employers to pay women the same as men.

Should we force more men into jobs dominated by women, or force women into more jobs that are dominated by men? I think that people should be able to choose what job they want, even if they get paid less for said job.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2016, 04:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Meh, I hate this gender wage gap stuff. Yes, women earn less than men on average, BUT they don't get paid less for the same work. The gender pay gap is made by comparing all earnings of men and women even if they have completely different jobs. GENERALLY speaking women take more jobs like, nurses, social workers, ect... while men normally take jobs in manual labor, or STEM (which normally pay more). Men also statistically work more OT than women too, which makes the gap even farther. There are already laws in place that force employers to pay women the same as men.

Should we force more men into jobs dominated by women, or force women into more jobs that are dominated by men? I think that people should be able to choose what job they want, even if they get paid less for said job.

Quote:Of the 10 highest paid CEOs on the list, only one was a woman

[Aquapod770]

(05-28-2016, 04:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Meh, I hate this gender wage gap stuff. Yes, women earn less than men on average, BUT they don't get paid less for the same work. The gender pay gap is made by comparing all earnings of men and women even if they have completely different jobs. GENERALLY speaking women take more jobs like, nurses, social workers, ect... while men normally take jobs in manual labor, or STEM (which normally pay more). Men also statistically work more OT than women too, which makes the gap even farther. There are already laws in place that force employers to pay women the same as men.

Should we force more men into jobs dominated by women, or force women into more jobs that are dominated by men? I think that people should be able to choose what job they want, even if they get paid less for said job.

And here in lies the biggest problem I have with people who spout off constantly about the "wage gap". They offer no real solutions. So what should we do? Give men pay cuts across the board, cuz you know equality   or just require all female employees to get a raise over their male coworkers just because they have different genitals? Genius. 

[SunsetBengal]

(05-28-2016, 11:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: From the linked article:


So a slightly misleading title....

Well then, here.  Read it from another source.

http://http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/04/30/surprise-women-trump-men-on-ceo-pay/

[Brownshoe]

(05-28-2016, 04:35 PM)GMDino Wrote:

You do realize that different companies pay differently, right? It's not based on the sex of the person. That's pretty much common sense, no?

A "cook" at McDonald's is going to get paid less than a cook at a fancy restaurant.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2016, 05:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well then, here.  Read it from another source.

http://http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/04/30/surprise-women-trump-men-on-ceo-pay/

However the title tot he OP  is still misleading based on the article itself.

how do you print screen

[GMDino]

(05-28-2016, 05:41 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You do realize that different companies pay differently, right? It's not based on the sex of the person. That's pretty much common sense, no?

A "cook" at McDonald's is going to get paid less than a cook at a fancy restaurant.

So you are just gonna not read what the article said and give your own "argument".  OK. 

[Brownshoe]

(05-28-2016, 05:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you are just gonna not read what the article said and give your own "argument".  OK. 

What? That the average female CEO makes more than male CEO? How does that go against my argument?

[GMDino]

(05-28-2016, 06:02 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: What? That the average female CEO makes more than male CEO? How does that go against my argument?

Yeah, not reading it.  Makes sense.

[Brownshoe]

(05-28-2016, 06:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, not reading it.  Makes sense.

I did read it, but nice defection.

[Benton]

CEO pay is a bad example. The vast majority are grossly overpaid, regardless of how they pee. And given the snowball effect of pay at the top over the last 20 years, you won t get a viable comparison. By the time someone gets fired or removed, they've already made (usually) much more than their predecessor.