~ archived since 2018 ~

New report from Forbes: Female CEOs now outearn male CEOs.

BlueOrange22

December 21, 2017

11 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://archive.is/fJpLl

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	New report from Forbes: Female CEOs now outearn male CEOs.
Author	BlueOrange22
Upvotes	11
Comments	13
Date	December 21, 2017 12:58 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7l9aof/new_report_from_forbes_female_ceos_now_outearn/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/new-report-from-forbes-female-ceos-now-outearn.908959 https://theredarchive.com/post/908959

Comments

[–]Dembara 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...bad numbers often take on a life of their own: they continue being repeated, even after they have been thoroughly debunked. This is particularly true in the Internet age, when it is so easy to circulate information. A bad statistic is harder to kill than a vampire.
Joel Best (14 September 2013). *Stat-Spotting: A Field Guide to Identifying Dubious Data.* University of California Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-520-95707-7.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redroguetech -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mallago 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]redroguetech -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

Do you really not think it's obvious that today is a coordinated attack on the subreddit from you guys?

No matter how much a victim you are, math still works the same. I presume you are not a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, so it doesn't even change whether you are a victim. Maybe it's because one of those 23 women stole the job from you because of "affirmative action". Maybe it's because every time you get a management position, some woman screams "harassment". Maybe it's because women are better than you.... Doesn't matter. Math doesn't care. 23 is way less than 500, so this does not fit your narrative. Ergo, the article (which actually says 21¹ ) should be avoided! I'm sure there's another source saying that the gender wage gap favors women among 500 cherry-picked individuals without mentioning they're an extreme minority.

You can't blame the math. Even if the system tries to keep me down, I'm part of solution, not the problem. I keep my bitch on a tight leash. No woman of mine is going to make more than I do! But how much of my woman's paycheck she needs to give me so that I have more is still basic math.

The sample size doesn't change that a female CEOs of the largest companies in the world face a pay disadvantage, because the average salary is higher for female CEOs.

Regardless of how victimized you are by women, it doesn't change how "margin of error" works. The smaller the sample size, the more random anomalies might effect the outcome. Again, this is basic math - math isn't sexist.

¹ edit: The difference is because the article refers to S&P 500 (what with Forbes being a competitor of Fortune), and I conflated that with Fortune 500. Whether Fortune 500 women CEOs make more money hasn't been established. I presume they don't, since not only is the Forbes a reprint of a Fortune article, but Fortune did a previous one using Equilar 100... I gotta assume they haven't used their own list because the answer is an anomaly for male victimization.

[–]Mallago 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

This post wasn't about the number of CEOs that are female, it was about how there is no lower average wage for female CEOs at the highest level. Female CEOs are not paid less, that's all this article is about. You're just derailing with something completely irrelevant.

I'm sure there's another source saying that the gender wage gap favors women among 500 cherry-picked individuals without mentioning they're an extreme minority.

But it's not cherry-picked if those are the numbers. The data makes it clear than female CEOs of fortune 500 companies earn more than male CEOs of fortune 500 companies.

The smaller the sample size, the more random anomalies might effect the outcome. Again, this is basic math - math isn't sexist.

But it's clear that female CEOs do not earn less than male CEOs. There is no social trend or factor causing female CEOs to be paid less.

Your math is bad and your post doesn't make any sense :)

[–]redroguetech -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

This post wasn't about the number of CEOs that are female,

Exactly! It's about how a couple women skew the results of a small cherry-picked sampling, and yet.... There it is! Third paragraph, first sentence, "Comparing median compensation packages of S&P 500 leaders who held the job for a year, 21 female CEOs..." Really, how hard is it to find a source that conveniently leaves the number out??

Female CEOs are not paid less

Well, actually.... Yes, they are. S&P 500 women CEOs don't, assuming we don't control for education, experience or performance.

Women CEOs make less money. Seriously, keep this shit on the DL!!

But it's not cherry-picked if those are the numbers.

See above. Women CEOs make less. S&P 500 women CEOs don't make more. Why are S&P 500 CEO's specifically important, rather than CEOs, or for that matter... people in general?

But it's clear that female CEOs do not earn less than male CEOs.

See above. It's clear you're wrong, unless you specify S&P 500.

Your math is bad and your post doesn't make any sense :)

Divide 21 by 500... What non-feminazi number do you get? I get 4.2%. Apparently, that's a feminist number, but no matter how many times I try to get it to be non-sexist, the calculator keeps coming up with 95.8% of S&P 500 CEOs are men. Maybe Microsoft programmed it to be sexist?

edit: Correct "Fortune" to "S&P", and reduced the number of women represented from 23 out of 500 to 21 out 500.

[–]Mallago 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

The number of female CEOs is not what is the point of the post,

"But it's clear that female CEOs do not earn less than male CEOs."

I just corrected your error. When you're cherry-picking data to support why we need to blame feminists for all of our problems, like not being paid millions like CEOs, you need to be careful to get it right because it's cherry-picked. Obviously I'm not saying to NOT cherry pick. How the hell else we going to justify we're victimized by women?!

it is the fact that there exists no factor that created a trend of lower pay for female CEOs.

See, you did it again! I point out the error, and you admit that being honest by saying "21 women" don't get lower pay than men doesn't change the point... And you go and do it again!

Female CEOs get paid LESS than men! That doesn't fit our narrative! The - I'll be generous - "mistake" demonstrates that you ARE cherry-picking. It suggests that "[all] CEOs" would be far more relevant. Why else would you keep saying it?! So by stating an obvious fake fact, you're inviting some feminazi to come in here and make us look stupid for trying to blame shit on them. S&P 500 female CEOs make more than men.

To be blunt, the entire "point" is to control the narrative... It's not to talk about facts or reality; it's to control the male narrative. You've lost control of the narrative, because you mistated it as applying to all female CEOs. Ergo, it NOT being true for all female CEOs is the point, because you made it the point, by letting the focus become not men. I hope you don't think I enjoy needing to provide facts!! Rather, we need to resort to facts to prevent feminists from introducing all the other facts that make us look bad.

23 is more than enough for such a factor to manifest itself.

Again, that's simply not true! A 95% confidence rate is considered the MINIMUM, and yet.... That says it holds true 19 out of 20 times. Your sample size is 21. You obviously can't get a 95% confidence rating with a sample size of 21, unless it's just grossly disproportionate (like if all women were paid a hundred times more than men). To put it bluntly, if you remove one (of 21) of the women from the list, the effect disappears. This is basic math. We can blame feminists for a lot, but we can't blame them for math.

It should be noted that many fortune 500 companies were founded by the male CEOs that preside over them. There's no sexism at play in Mark Zuckerburg and Bill Gates being CEO of the companies they found.

Careful there... You're getting close to that which is taboo to say. It's fine to say men start more companies.... It's still ok, if barely, to say more companies founded by men are successful, so this is just a friendly reminder to be careful not to step over the line to actually saying that it's women's fault for not starting successful companies, what with being too stupid and lazy baby-makers.

Note, it's 21.... 95.4% of the Fortune 500 are men; 95.8% of S&P 500 CEOs are men. I conflated the Fortune 500 with the S&P 500 what with the OP citing an article by Fortune. Also, just FYI, the Fortune 500 are people. S&P 500 are companies. Saying "Fortune 500 CEOs" implies the subset of rich people who are CEOs. My mistake.

[–]Mallago 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I just corrected your error.

No, you didn't. You still haven't said anything that changes the reality that at the very highest level, female CEOs are the higher earners. Even if this trend was reversed at companies 501-1000, it still means that there is no prevailing factor that results in female CEOs being paid less than their male counterparts. It that was a widespread societal phenomenon, you'd absolutely see it at the highest levels. So, small as a sample size as it may be, it is enough to safely conclude that such wage gap among CEOs does not exist.

It's interesting how eventually, all ASPDs fall into exactly the same speech pattern- whenever I deal with people like you, it always sounds like talking to the same person. I know most of the time this works on people, but not for me :)

[–]redroguetech 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

No, you didn't.

You were wrong. I corrected you for it. Hence, I "corrected your error".

You still haven't said anything that changes the reality that at the very highest level, female CEOs are the higher earners.

Wrong. Female CEOs make less. Source. I've said this like three times.

Even if this trend was reversed at companies 501-1000, it still means that there is no prevailing factor that results in female CEOs being paid less than their male counterparts. It that was a widespread societal phenomenon, you'd absolutely see it at the highest levels.

Let's try this again, but this time, we'll treat the known fact as if it's... a known fact:

~~Even if~~ SINCE this trend was reversed at companies 501-1000, it ~~still~~ THEREFORE means that there ~~is no~~ are prevailing factor(s) that results in female CEOs being paid less than their male counterparts. ~~It t~~ [T]hat ~~was~~ is a widespread societal phenomenon, you'd absolutely see it at the highest levels.

Well.... Okay. According to see, we "absolutely see it at the highest levels". And since, according to you, that's absolutely true, wee need address why that might be.

So, small as a sample size as it may be, it is enough to safely conclude that such wage gap among CEOs does not exist.

No. Now you're going backwards. You absolutely refuse to see any gender bias in the compensation of the top, despite you claiming it to be a fact. Since you think you're missing something aside from a sample size of 21, then I'd recommend a few things.

1) Remove one woman - Safra Catz - and see if the results change. If they do, then the problem is sample size. Since I know you're so bad at math, I'll give you a tip.... Yes.

2) Take the list and adjust pay based on education, experience and performance, and see if that effects the outcome. If it does, then the problem is... guess! ... you can do it.... Sample size, that's right!

It's interesting how eventually, all ASPDs fall into exactly the same speech pattern- whenever I deal with people like you, it always sounds like talking to the same person.

It's interesting how... well, you fall into the same speech pattern of stating lies. Apparently, it's because you like variety in your "facts", so you think that saying "female CEOs" instead of "S&P 500 female CEOS" is more creative...? Well, I'm glad you have a mind that's easily amused.

I know most of the time this works on people, but not for me :)

That's what I'm trying to tell you. Even though you can convince yourself using creative lies, most people aren't So, by lying, you've taken an open and shut "argument" that 21 women in the world aren't bad off what with being filthy rich, and allowed the discussion to turns into "why are women CEOs paid as much as 45% less then men for the same job" (source). And that isn't what we need. We need to keep the discussion on talking-points - and the more irrelevant the better. Keep it honest, and we could keep it irrelevant. Don't expect most people to be able to convince themselves of your lies.

[–]Mallago 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You were wrong. I corrected you for it. Hence, I "corrected your error".

No. What was I wrong about? I said female CEOs of fortune 500 companies earn more, which they do. You failed to provide any source that corrected that, you just started pointing out how there are only 21 or so female CEOs of fortune 500 companies. Nothing I said was wrong, you didn't correct anything.

Wrong. Female CEOs make less. Source. I've said this like three times.

A 12 year old source is out of date when talking about salaries. 12 years is too significant of a time to use for data. New hires, new promotions, especially given the attention given to women in the workplace in the last decade, there are more female CEOs now than in 2005.

No. Now you're going backwards. You absolutely refuse to see any gender bias in the compensation of the top, despite you claiming it to be a fact. Since you think you're missing something aside from a sample size of 21, then I'd recommend a few things.

No. What you just said is nothing. If societal factors contributed to female CEOs earning less due solely to their gender, then you would see this reflected at the highest levels. The oppressed, economically disadvantaged class of a society does not have higher average earnings at the highest economic level. That just doesn't make sense.

"why are women CEOs paid as much as 45% less then men for the same job" (source).

That source was from 1992-1997, and is thus obsolete and irrelevant. Most people who held a CEO position in the mid 90s is likely retired by now, so the vast majority of that data set is obsolete.