Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Women make $760,000 a year less than men throughout there career

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 7:13 p.m. EST by paulg5 (673)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

According to Diane Sawyer on the NBC Nightly News, “Women make $760,000 a year less than men throughout there career”. And I also just read that 50% of the American workers make only slightly over $26,000 a year......... Sorry no ones math is wrong, but she should have said “Women In The 1%”



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Check this out.

An actor pretending to be a firefighter gets paid $15,000,000.

A real firefighter gets paid $50,000.

[-] 1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 12 years ago

but they get laid the same amount so who cares.

[-] 2 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

"And I also just read that 50% of the American workers make only slightly over $26,000 a year."

I thought the median income was around 50K?


That would mean 50% earn less than 50K

[-] 1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Yeah but I am a woman and I don't mind. Let's have men retain some of their dignity or they won't be able to get hard... sorry to be blunt.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 12 years ago

HA HA thats funny!

Just pisses me off that even the national media is so full of shit!

[-] 0 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global.  These 'humanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base.  Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame.

This is why the rich and famous have all taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product. 

Charitywatch.org and Charitynavigator.org are both non-profit charity watchdogs. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money on private jet rides, five star accommodations, and PR crews.

The fans have been terribly misled. For example:

Virtually every penny 'donated' by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to date has come from repeated sales of baby photos. With each sale, the baby money goes to the 'Jolie-Pitt' foundation. A foundation which has never done anything but shelter funds. The 'donation' is immediately publicized worldwide.     

When Jolie or Pitt have a new movie to promote, a portion is then donated from their own 'foundation' to a legitimate charity. This leaves their ignorant fans under the impression that 'another' donation has been made. When in fact, its the same baby money being transferred again and again. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, super-exclusive accommodations, photo ops, and PR crap. This saves Jolie and Pitt millions in travel/stay expenses and their respective studios tens of millions in advertising. It's all very calculated. 

Of course, Jolie and Pitt could simply endorse any of the 1500 most efficient and effective charities. Of course, the baby money would go much further and do far more good if it were donated to such charities to begin with. 

But that would be too boring. 

The 'Make it Right' Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor, planner, or designer. He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more. Still, he has been showered with glorious praise by fellow celebrities and media outlets around the world. Again, the fans have been terribly misled. 

In order to move into a 'green' home, the innocent victims of Katrina are required to provide a property deed, meet a number of financial requirements, and pay an average of $150,000 UP FRONT. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion (according to the website) forgiven. To date, only a few dozen former home owners have qualified. 

The 'Make it Right' foundation was never intended to help the lower income residents of New Orleans reclaim anything lost in Katrina. In fact, 'Make it Right' is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward without them. Part of a calculated effort to raise property values in the area by displacing the poor. They are by design, excluded. Unable to qualify.   Of course, Brad Pitt could have simply endorsed 'Habitat For Humanity'. A well known, proven, and efficient home building operation. Of course, the tens of millions in funding would have gone MUCH further.

But that would be too boring.   Big name celebrities have no desire to make the world a better place. 

Their primary goal is to appear as if they do.

It's a sham. Good will has become big business.

[-] 0 points by nikka (228) 12 years ago

That's because they are taking an average of all women, including those who choose not to work after they have children, or only work part time, or only work a few years and then stay home with the kids. It also factors in maternity leave. There are more gaps in women's employment history then in men's. Men tend to enter the work force and stay in it continuously till retirement.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 12 years ago

Good point but those variables were not mentioned in the spot. I took 43 years as a career length for both men and women 18 years high school, 4 years college plus 43 to retirement =65 so I rounded it off to 26,500 as an annual income and multiplied by 43 and that equals 1,139,500 minus 760,000= 379,500 devided by 43 = 8825.58 annual salary So according to NBC nightly news women in the bottom 50% earn 8825.58 annually to a man who earns 26,500 annually this isn't including your variables. She must be talking about the 1%, but that doesn't suprise me because you know, it's all about them!