• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

Sure, but it is a cumulative effect. Yeah if you work 20 hours compared to someone who works 40 then you are going to make less, but the bigger issue is that if you work part time (or not at all) for 6 years until your kid is in school then your full-time salary in year 7 is going to be significantly less than someone who worked full-time for those 6 years due to a myriad of factors and lost opportunities.
 
PhDeac said:
Jennifer Lawrence made 77% of the back end points as Renner and Cooper for "American Hustle".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ists-even-jennifer-lawrence-was-shortchanged/
Click to expand...

Citing award nominations as the basis for pay is flawed. The measure that should be used is who puts asses in the seats in theaters and who drives DVD sales.

I'd definitely say that Lawrence should be paid at the same level as Cooper based on her body of work. One question should be whether her contract was negotiated before or after her star turn in Hunger Games.
 
Award nominations is one factor that puts asses in seats. That's why movies are advertised as featuring "Academy Award nonimee/winner [insert name here]."

I would assume the final contract was negotiated after Hunger Games. First, American Hustle started filming after Hunger Games came out. Second, the article states Lawrence's cut went up from 5 to 7 points at some point.
 
PhDeac said:
Award nominations is one factor that puts asses in seats. That's why movies are advertised as featuring "Academy Award nonimee/winner [insert name here]."

I would assume the final contract was negotiated after Hunger Games. First, American Hustle started filming after Hunger Games came out. Second, the article states Lawrence's cut went up from 5 to 7 points at some point.
Click to expand...

Sounds like she had a lot worse agent than the guys. Do you think Sony should have volunteered to pay more for her than her agent required. Maybe she really wanted to do the film and was happy to work for less while the other guys had projects that they had to be lured away from. There are a lot of factors that determine what you pay for someones services and sometimes it comes down to the priorities of the person being hired. It would be hard to conclude that Chris Bosh deserves twice the money that Tim Duncan makes, but that is how they are being payed. It is hard to glean a case of anti-woman bias from this, but people see what they are looking to see.
 
It's hard to glean a case of anti-woman bias from the fact that a woman is paid less than men?

That's certainly one take.

It may not be the best case of it ever (and it's anecdotal so of course it isn't going to apply to everything) but to look at the facts facially and then say that "it's hard to glean a case of anti-woman bias" from this incident is odd to me.
 
It's hard to glean a case of anti-woman bias if you believe that women are arbitrarily inferior in some respect like hiring an agent.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It's hard to glean a case of anti-woman bias from the fact that a woman is paid less than men?

That's certainly one take.

It may not be the best case of it ever (and it's anecdotal so of course it isn't going to apply to everything) but to look at the facts facially and then say that "it's hard to glean a case of anti-woman bias" from this incident is odd to me.
Click to expand...

So do you glean a case of anti-Virgin island born bias since Tim Duncan is so underpaid? I guess it is hard not to since he is paid less?
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
It's hard to glean a case of anti-woman bias if you believe that women are arbitrarily inferior in some respect like hiring an agent.
Click to expand...

I thought that was a well known fact. Women are incapable of hiring competent agents. Really, is that how you become undefeated?
 
Inequality and the American Child

Though an average American childhood may not be the worst in the world, the disparity between the country’s wealth and the condition of its children is unparalleled. About 14.5% of the American population as a whole is poor, but 19.9% of children – some 15 million individuals – live in poverty. Among developed countries, only Romania has a higher rate of child poverty. The US rate is two-thirds higher than that in the United Kingdom, and up to four times the rate in the Nordic countries. For some groups, the situation is much worse: more than 38% of black children, and 30% of Hispanic children, are poor.

None of this is because Americans do not care about their children. It is because America has embraced a policy agenda in recent decades that has caused its economy to become wildly unequal, leaving the most vulnerable segments of society further and further behind. The growing concentration of wealth – and a significant reduction in taxes on it – has meant less money to spend on investments for the public good, like education and the protection of children.
Click to expand...
 
Federal, state, and local governments in the US spent about $6 trillion in 2013. That is a huge percentage of everything that Americans produced in 2013. More class and race warfare pitting one American against another in an eternal fight to take each other's paycheck is most definitely not the answer to poverty.
 
There must be some rich people in your family somewhere, Townie. Find them. Take their money. Find a nice policeman to help you if necessary. Give that money to Nancy Pelosi. She won't take any of it for herself. She will use it for the children. She did not have enough last year with only $6 trillion.
 
TownieDeac said:
Nope. My dad was the first one on either side of my family to go to college. They're farmers and factory workers mostly. They generally vote outside their best interest because of Jesus and guns.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
KickballDeac said:
Inequality and the American Child
Click to expand...

Those policies are because Americans don't care about children. There's a disturbing survival of the fittest mentality when it comes to children. There's no urgency to address inequalities in child health or education to help give more kids a chance. We're content with mere survivors and those who grew up with advantage coming into adulthood prepared and leaving the rest behind.
 
TownieDeac said:
Nope. My dad was the first one on either side of my family to go to college. They're farmers and factory workers mostly. They generally vote outside their best interest because of Jesus and guns.
Click to expand...

Maybe they don't think it is in their long term best interests to fight with other classes and other races over their paychecks even if they win the first rounds of the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top