|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 31, 2017 21:42:56 GMT
FilmFlaneurExcept it suggests no such thing. But disprove me, show why any female BBC star should be on that list. You can't. Since I've already cited examples of women who earn more than co stars because of their worth, to keep making this claim about me is frankly stupid. That is just Rabbit level evasion. Yes, I'm sure there are simply loads of incredibly talented BEM's at the BBC, who's shows earn the BBC a fortune, but I've just never heard of them and it's only me that hasn't heard of them. See you simply cannot be consistent can you? The NBA is 20% white, but white players only occupy 10% of the top 20 earners. Why is this any different to the BBC? If you contend the BBC is being racist and sexist, then you have to say the same about the NBA, do you not? If not, why not? And do you think by me saying that the guys at the top of the NBA are paid their worth, why am I not suggesting here that white players are NOT worth as much as black players? All questions you refuse to acknowledge. In that pay period, Bruce hosted the news and a quiz show on BBC four. Edwards did the news, the 2015 election, the EU referendum and hosted a documentary. On top of which he has five years more service. So the person with the longest service and most presenting credits gets paid most. Shocker. Strawman again. I never suggested anything of the sort. I asked why a racial disparity is problem in one instance and not in another. You have failed to address this in any way. I think we know the answer though. You have spectacularly failed to point to any inequality. You have pointedly ignored the reasons why the top earners get what they do. You have ignored the amount of work done, the length of service and the commercial value of the projects the top earners are involved it. If the top ten were women and all held demonstrably more value than the next ten men, I would be saying exactly the same thing, whereas you wouldn't be complaining. Where is the BEM outrage? I haven't seen it, is it because they don't have the media apparatus to invoke mass outrage over perceived inequality the way feminists do?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 31, 2017 22:59:56 GMT
That is just Rabbit level evasion. Yeah! Almost thor-timid level of "ignoring" yet constantly mentioning! Ain't nobody can help that you ignore whatever you can't face in order to try to repeat-peddle your narrative. History is not to be factored in, at least if you "totally fair" double-good merit guys think you can name-call it away. The history of the NBA is that it was once segregated with blacks being prohibited; very different from the BBC where men have been favored for promotion and exposure over it's history. Also time, exposure and promotion create and solidify the draw of BBC personalities, whereas NBA shelf-life is based primarily on performance on the court. If there hadn't been such an overt and intentional imbalance in the BBC over time this would be less of an issue. Masculinity was just fine until regressives decided White Straight Men were somewhere between Hitler and fecal matter.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 1, 2017 12:00:55 GMT
That is just Rabbit level evasion. Yeah! Almost thor-timid level of "ignoring" yet constantly mentioning! Ain't nobody can help that you ignore whatever you can't face in order to try to repeat-peddle your narrative. History is not to be factored in, at least if you "totally fair" double-good merit guys think you can name-call it away. That's why this sack of human excrement isn't worth engaging. You can cite a serious, peer reviewed study showing obvious discrimination against women (as I did), and he'll completely ignore it. These types are basically about as intellectually honest as a young earth creationist. . .except their beliefs make them awful human beings, which just compounds the problem.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2017 16:04:41 GMT
disprove me, show why any female BBC star should be on that list. You can't. Since I've already cited examples of women who earn more than co stars because of their worth, to keep making this claim about me is frankly stupid. Worth is subjective my friend. But perhaps you can explain why nearly all of the top earners at the BBC are so much 'worth more' than any other black or female employee 'hitherto' and 'just now' - or whatever your current reference frame is? (And, ad hominems tell more about you than they would ever do me.) No; my reply merely suggested that you would need to have a complete knowledge of the talent pool and the BBC's efforts to 'bring them on' in the same, equal way in order to make anything like the sweeping suggestions about the organisation that you have. So I guess you don't, then? I have already explained why this is a false equivalence, and why one could find an organisation which conversely, in having a fully equitable salary spread would show the BBC up in an opposite light. Repeating yourself does not make it any more convincing. One also notes this argument of yours is not one advanced as a reason for accepting the situation at the BBC by any of the concerned parties. One is not surprised given the likely reaction- so it is just you, making what you think is an argument by suggesting that what is bad there is acceptably bad here too. But keep going.
Bruce also does the Antiques Road Show, and at least two or three other high profile assignments. We can argue relative merits all day. All this shows is that individual cases rely on subjective value judgements, while the overall snapshot of the BBC's salaries that we now have is a better indication of affairs, since we can use averages as a yard stick of inequality which evens out oddities. But, even with yourcontinued insistence on a case-by-case comparison, I think you really know this by now - but one guesses it is all you have.
It was you that was referring to the inequalities among the representation of players that can be seen in football, was is not? QED. I point to the now-transparent salary structure which not only, I feel, represents inequality between white males and the rest of the staff but which is accepted as being unbalanced both by the BBC, staff and many commentators. But, my big question to you is: can you point to the equality in this situation ? I hope that will not be a problem. And you ignore a plain state of affairs that stares anyone in the face, but which you prefer to argue away with special pleading, and a number of reasons - each one I have shown to be either dubious or untenable, or just reaching. In fact this refusal to accept the obvious is unique; I have not seen any one else who claims that the salary situation within the BBC is equitable, especially anyone professionally associated with the BBC and might be best placed to know, which is significant. So it is just you, who often argues against the idea of white male privilege on these boards. But no doubt you have your own reasons. Find a report about the issues at the BBC, from anyone, which says all is good and as it should be. Go! So then: women and ethnics don't 'just happen' to be at a salary disadvantage as you originally said? It is deliberate? Really? What was it you just said about Straw men? All of which may be applicable to some degree - but saying they are the chief reasons for demonstrable inequality between whole groups of employees who, when categorised by race and sex - when such considerations should be blind, by law - are disadvantaged, is asking one to believe too much. But of course since you presumably now say that these things actually don't 'just happen', are have done 'hitherto', then we can see that causes are more systematic than I first thought. I have - we know now that these things don't 'just happen' it appears. So will that 'just happen' to Clive Myrie then? I think him (he has won several nominations for his work, most significantly for his role in the Bafta-nominated team behind coverage of the Mozambique floods. He was awarded the Bayeux-Calvados Award for war correspondents for his reporting and so on) much better than Humphries, say - who bumbled through the Today programme this morning, I noted. Because this is a disputation over the inequality of salary over all, not the subjective assessments of individuals or the justified payment for the very top talent like Le Blanc and Evans. But I have said that umpteen times already. But since you like to consider these things, why does the actor bloke on Casualty, who has only appeared in Casualty for years, and does not particularly impress as a talent get so, so, much more than any other female on the show? He will, I suggest likely get more than the new Dr Who - but time will tell. Corrected. It 'just happens' that way doesn't it? Oh no, you have changed that view. And yet, over all, women and ethnics either don't appear on the high earners list or get paid on average 10% less. You can't escape though your special pleading for the inequitable state of affairs generally is touching. I have already suggested Mr '500K' Humphries is over-priced - so I can think of a good few who are underpaid compared to him. Or the male Casualty actor. Or, the balance between Huw Edwards and other BBC presenters, like Myrie and his female co-workers. But as already mentioned, over and over, a subjective consideration of individual worth is just a diversion from the overall regressive picture. But implying that women and ethnics generally cannot match up to the 9 out of 10 white male top earners, whether 'hitherto' 'just now', or ever, still doesn't look good. To be frank, it smells. I am not sure this relevant as just the same focussing on individuals at the expense of an overall picture of white male dominance in the earnings table, but whatever. Let me know though, if the BBC actually, ever, do approach a high earning female star for this show LOL
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 1, 2017 22:59:01 GMT
No, it just isn't. The worth of an employee can be measured. And h many times do I have to repeat the same things before you stop asking the same question?
Robert Downey Junior is not the highest paid actor in the MCU because his worth is subjective to the producers. Scarlett Johansson is not the second highest paid star in the MCU because of how the producers feel.
I have given you the actual figures regarding people like Chris Evans and Graham Norton and how their projects are worth millions to the BBC. And that is simply a commercial measure. You can also judge the amount of work they do. No female presenter has anywhere near the actual monetary value of those guys. that isn't a subjective measure.
No you wouldn't. Talent being "brought on" shouldn't be anywhere near the top earners. You appear to be arguing that the BBC doesn't attempt to bring on female and BEM talent now...
That you have explained it doesn't mean you're right. Do you think the people in the NBA are rewarded based on merit? Yes or no?
Do you not yet understand that the figures given are for total earnings and not individual contracts? Do you know that the figures given only represent the money paid out from the lincnse fee, which is why Matt LeBlanc isn't on it?
So to actually compare Bruce to Edwards, you would need the details of their individual contracts for their jobs as news readers, which you don't have?
I asked if you had a problem with it. You failed to answer. My point is that they are there on merit. So why are the top jobs at the BBC not earned on merit?
Jesus....you aren't seeing the salary structure. You are seeing the total earnings against a salary structure. Evans has more than one source of income from the BBC. What part of that can you not grasp? He isn't on a single £2.2m contract per year. For Top Gear he got a 3 year £5m contract. This was added to his earnings from his existing contracts with the BBC to get to £2,250,000 a year.
These people are not employees in the traditional sense. They are self employed and work for the BBC for the length of their contract. Which is why Clarkson is no longer there.
You don't know their salaries. You don't know why they earn what they earn. You do not know how much Dan Maguire is paid for Breakfast and Football focus individually, you only know how much he got in total. You know the total value of contracts held, but not how much those individual contracts are worth. You don't even know the actual totals earned as the BBC only had to reveal the portion it paid from the license fee.
You haven't debunked anything I've said.
You're the one claiming a racial problem.
No, what I originally said is that currently the best paid people are white men. Do you think Idris Elba will be on less than £150,000 for the next series of Luther?
Yes, amazingly, length of service, comicality, number of jobs worked have an impact on earnings. Its like we have a system where if you work two jobs, you get paid twice....
I never said that things just happen. This equivocation fallacy of yours is now boring.
No idea. But since we don't know what he earns, since he works for BBC World as well as the BBC there is no point discussing him is there?
This is getting boring. The list does NOT represent salaries. I can't explain this any other way.
As for the Actor? Maybe 30 years service has some impact upon contract? Or is length of service another thing that shouldn't be considered?
*yawn*
No, they earn on average 10% less. Unless you have access to the individual contracts of the people employed by the BBC, you cannot claim they are paid 10% less.
So name anyone you think is worth more than humphries and tell us why.
I neither said nor implied that. You are a liar.
But you don't have the overall picture. You don't even know all the top earners. LeBlanc and Elba don't feature because they are not paid by the license fee. You don't know the value of individual contracts. You don't know whether the contracts were accepted at face or negotiated. Again if Bruce and Edwards were offered £300k each and he negotiated, is that sexist? You don't know the number of contracts held. You don't know the length of the contracts. You don't know if any of those people are paid additionally from the BBC's commercial arm. Basically you literally do not know what Fiona Bruce's total earning from the BBC are. You do not know what she earns for each job. You do not know whether she took a longer contract at a lower rate for security over a shorter contract at a higher rate. You do not know whether she had a pay rise written into her contract. You do not know whether she has bonuses in her existing contract. You do not know whether she receives royalties from any project sold to other networks or shown on other BBC channels.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 1, 2017 23:00:37 GMT
Yeah! Almost thor-timid level of "ignoring" yet constantly mentioning! Ain't nobody can help that you ignore whatever you can't face in order to try to repeat-peddle your narrative. History is not to be factored in, at least if you "totally fair" double-good merit guys think you can name-call it away. That's why this sack of human excrement isn't worth engaging. You can cite a serious, peer reviewed study showing obvious discrimination against women (as I did), and he'll completely ignore it. These types are basically about as intellectually honest as a young earth creationist. . .except their beliefs make them awful human beings, which just compounds the problem. I didn't ignore it. I told you it wasn't relevant. Did you address my study that showed pro female bias? Wanna bring up your sexist hurricanes thesis, written by business students again?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 2, 2017 10:46:08 GMT
I didn't ignore it. I told you it wasn't relevant. Did you address my study that showed pro female bias? Wanna bring up your sexist hurricanes thesis, written by business students again? Saying it wasn't relevant when it damn well was is your pathetic way of ignoring it, and you're basically making shit up about the hurricane name study. You can basically just fuck off now. I'm putting your worthless ass on ignore.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 2, 2017 11:53:56 GMT
I didn't ignore it. I told you it wasn't relevant. Did you address my study that showed pro female bias? Wanna bring up your sexist hurricanes thesis, written by business students again? Saying it wasn't relevant when it damn well was is your pathetic way of ignoring it, and you're basically making shit up about the hurricane name study. You can basically just fuck off now. I'm putting your worthless ass on ignore. It wasn't relevant. It was about bias in hiring and promotion. That isn't what we were taking about. When I pointed that out, you had no answer but to call me sexist, like usual you vacuous tool. And I'm not making up anything about your sexist hurricanes. The "reserachers" were from the Departments of business, gender studies, psychology and statistics.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 2, 2017 13:39:59 GMT
If this were true (and I'm not saying it is), then people had themselves to blame if they took on risky jobs; so differences in workplace fatalities would be men's fault, not feminists' fault; so creating OPs about how men have it worse because they have more workplace accidents, is really just acting like a whiny snowflake. Was the thread about how men have it worse because of workplace fatalities? Or was that a single example in a long list? This is again a strawman by you. You introduced it, why can't he flip your silly examples back on you? Men are also just more physically aggressive and violent by nature. Not at all unexpected that they both instigate and participate in more risky and violent situations. Masculinity was just fine until regressives decided White Straight Men were somewhere between Hitler and fecal matter.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 2, 2017 15:56:44 GMT
So then, the big question still is: is the current system of remuneration (as shown at the higher earning levels) at the BBC is equitable, fair and balanced when comparing people by sex and race? Does Thorhairspray answer it here? I see. So does the consistent, overall undervaluing of women and ethnics (shown by their relative absence from the high earners table at least) reveal when measured an objectively fair and equitable state of affairs then? (And, if you now insist that such matters are not subjective, why have repeatedly asked me for personal opinions on the relative merits of BBC employees? No, I don't know, either.) And, on average, female actors are paid less in Hollywood than males too. Viz: www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2011/aug/03/forbes-list-hollywood-wage-gap www.forbes.com/sites/moiraforbes/2013/08/06/hollywoods-highest-paid-actresses-where-gender-bias-reigns-supreme/ etc etc So your point was? 'Chris Evans and Norton are paid loads 'cos they're just worth it' is still not an answer to: 'why on average are all non-white males at the BBC's highest levels paid less?' So I ask again, is this state of affairs objectively fair and reasonable? Well? Translation: I don't have that complete knowledge upon which to base my assertions. But I instead can suggest a new straw man. Yes, you might bear that in mind my friend when you explain how things are "presently". But without - so far - condemning the inequality.
I can't say, I have no interest in football. But the observation remains that whether something is deemed good or bad elsewhere does not mean we cannot necessarily condemn a present example, even if football was thought a logical equivalent to broadcasting. Of course, if one who does know says the NBA's claimed system of meritocracy works well, then the continuation is that, at the BBC, being your comparison, it can also be equally seen as being without fault. So - do you? If, on the other hand we see things wrong at the NBA then it can equally be condemned at the BBC - more so since women are also, it seems disadvantaged. So which would you have it? Don't take too long to decide.
And, as already noted, in real life no one else has used the rather forced argument that 'if it works well enough for footballers it's good enough for us' to justify the situation. Only you, it seems, do that. So then, this distraction aside: is the salary situation at the BBC overall objectively fair and equitable - or not? Keep thinking.
It is true that the BBC revelations don't include things like payment from outside production companies. But is there any real reason to think that, even when such extra factors are taken into account, women and ethnics as a group would make up, or equalise, their average salary shortfall against all the white males of their bracket? You are rather reaching again lol You'd be much better off answering the question: objectively, is the salary distribution between the sexes and races at level discussed at the BBC fair and equitable? Keep it in mind. I will ask again shortly. The problem is that, when merit may normally be expected to be blind, those considered for rewarding the most appear to be 'currently' or 'hitherto' predominately white, and male - even now (as you tell me here, above) you don't even say now this is "just the case". Is this a fair and equitable state of affairs? None of which effects the question of whether, objectively you think that the current balance between payment to white males vs women and ethnics as high earners overall at the BBC is fair and equitable. (Remember two-thirds of the top earners at the BBC are men.) Well? ... And don't call me Jesus. Not seen the bands published, eh? I have. So is it your view than when all these unknown factors are taken in to account then and assumed positives, that there will be no overall earning gaps between white men and the rest? That the current system is fair and equitable over all? Translation: I can't find anything like requested. On the contrary it's all bad news for the Corporation. If this actually happens, there still needs to be good few more Elbas to affect the overall imbalance. Does this mean you think that the current imbalance is just 'currently' unfair and inequitable over all then, Thor? I love your continued implication btw that things are bad for women and ethnics by comparison currently i.e. 'just now' - as if it just a passing bad patch of inequality like a rain shower, rather than something systematic (even if increasingly not overt) and continuous down the years. But perhaps you can point to a golden time when every work member was rewarded equally, across race and gender? No, I don't think you can either. All of which would apply to all employees equally overall. So the question still is: do you think the current salaries based on what should be a blind mechanism of remuneration are, objectively fair and equitable overall in their working, based on what we can now see? So then: if things like comparative wage inequality don't just happen, then they must be, well, deliberate. Are you saying now that the state of play at the BBC is done through decisions to make it that way? Of course if you really did think that, objectively speaking, the current salary imbalance overall is yes, fair and equitable, then this would be consistent. Do you? Well you did ask, and you didn't impose a restriction. Is there any real reason to believe that things are fairer in other parts of the BBC? Sadly, others appear to disagree viz: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/24/publishing-salaries-bbcs-highest-paid-talent-will-prove-uncomfortable/ www.theguardian.com/media/live/2017/jul/19/bbc-publishes-salaries-of-highest-earning-stars-live-updates etc etc Since, as above with the consideration of Clive Myrie, you now specifically exclude discussions of unknowns as pointless, then try and learn from your own advice, my friend. As at 31 December 2016, women earned an average of £34,400 at the BBC, while men earned an average of £37,971. I have also linked to several references to the salary gap. Do you think that this difference overall, whether expressed as salary, earnings or pay represents objectively a fair and equitable state of affairs, Thor? Women aren't doing equally as well in any of them Still thinking? Loki got your tongue? This discussion is about the overall salary gap between the sexes and races at the BBC my friend, not the perceived worth of individuals - and besides, just above you said these matters are not to be taken as subjective; so now you here asking my opinion is not consistent. But there is nothing to stop you, as an example of your technique in answering charges if inequality, going through every high earning white male at the BBC, as an example which proves your rule, and explaining why, in each individual case, they merit more than either a woman or an ethnic. As previously mentioned this would inevitably, and significantly, lead to intolerable amounts of special pleading and perceptual bias, the more it was attempted. Far better to look at overall averages of groups when drawing a view, and not to argue from special cases, and individuals, all the way down the line. But I know you will anyway. In which case then if ethnics and women can generally match up, and the system is fair and even, why are they not there salaried in equal merit? Is it that they 'just don't' in all these cases? An ad hominem by the way tells one more about the giver than the target. To be an insult, a remark has to be untrue. And it was certainly true that that was exactly the implication I am getting, no matter how you may not wish it. I know that you haven't answer whether you think the salary range in the BBC overall at the highest level is objectively fair and equitable (and if it is, why?) that's for sure. You know I will keep asking. Time to step up to the plate.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 3, 2017 0:30:28 GMT
FilmFlaneurName a single person you think is being undervalued and explain why. I haven't asked for your subjective opinion. I don't care whether you think somebody should be better paid based on how much you like them. I have asked who is worth more to the BBC? Do you not understand how wages work? How many times do I need to point out the commercial value of the top earners before you understand what I'm talking about? How much either of us personally like Norton is irrelevant to his worth to the BBC in terms of how much his projects EARN for them. The point was clear. RDJ and SJ are the best paid people in the MCU because they are worth more to the MCU than anyone else. What part of that is difficult for you? If the people who are worth the most to the BBC are the best rewarded, then it is entirely equitable. You have failed to make any argument that this isn't the case. No it just isn't a starwman. I don't need to know every single BEM employed by the BBC as screen talent to make these claim. Do you know every single white male employee? To suggest their is tons of talent worth a boatload of money to the BBC but we just haven't heard of them, or seen them in anything is just stupid. Does a person complaining about a thing mean that thing is unfair? Does not complaining make it fair? There is a racial wage gap in the NBA, is that a problem for you? Don't underplay it. It doesn't include payments from the BBC itself. In the NBA they are black. That isn't a problem for you though is it? I wonder why? The fact we must return to is you simply cannot offer a single example of any BEM of female star who deserves to be in the top ten can you? You are simply pointing at skin colour and sayiong "no fair" without bothering to look at the reasons why the top earners earn what they do. I don't give a shit about the "balance" I'm not a Marxist, therefore don't accept equality of outcome as legitimate. You are yet to demonstrate any individual inequality. No you haven't. You have seen the bands on which contracts are paid. How are you not understanding this. Chris Evans is not on a £2.2m contract. They are not salaried employees. For fucks sake....No, when you account for all of that you would have an earnings gap. You are arguing that there is a pay gap. The two are not the same bloody thing. I just gave you the example of Dan WAlker and why he is higher on the list than his co-presenter, despite them being the same rate. Stop conflating pay and earnings. Why do I need to find it. You are claiming they exist. You've yet to cite any unfairness. They are wrong. Simply put. Again for the slow. Walker earns more than his co host. He has two jobs, she has one. What part of that means he is paid more unfairly? Being disingenuous doesn't suit you. The unknown regarding Myries earnings are his bloody earnings. Brilliant. Now can we have the breakdown of job held, length of service. Hours worked. Overtime worked. Time off sick taken. Experience. Or does none of that matter? Again, according to the ONS men take less time off and work more overtime. Note the word "earned?" that doesn't mean "paid" No it isn't. It is a discussion about the earnings gap. Since that is all we have to go on. And I'm not asking for a subjective opinion. If you had said "I think Fiona Bruce should get more because I like her" I would have laughed at you. The are objective measures to determine wages. For the many, many, many reasons I have repeatedly given you which you ignore because you are ideologically blind. It wan't an ad hominem. I didn't say your argument was false because you are a liar. I said you are a liar. It was an insult. Learn the difference or stop attempting to cite logical fallacies. Nice of you to completely ignore the fact that I just explained why it is impossible to garner whether the BBC discriminates based on an earnings list. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 7, 2017 13:18:17 GMT
So does the consistent, overall undervaluing of women and ethnics (shown by their relative absence from the high earners table at least) reveal when measured an objectively fair and equitable state of affairs then? Name a single person you think is being undervalued and explain why. No answer then, just a continued call to individual cases and not the overall average. I wonder why? Not like you just did immediately above then? I see.
The part where you continually try and ignore the overall clear unfairness or inequality as it is inconvenient. (And since you have raised the issue, does the fact than on average, female actors are paid less in Hollywood than males too seem fair and equitable to you?)
This seems to dodge the obvious question as to why the best rewarded would always be equally so. Does that happen at the BBC? Salaries say no. Is it fair and equitable that the people 'worth the most' to the BBC are overwhelmingly white and male? If so as you are here the one suggesting that those who are 'worth most' are best rewarded, in the case of all the white males who predominate the pay scales at the BBC mostly to the exclusion of women and ethnics, you rather need to show that as a group they are necessarily so 'currently' "worth it" all the way down, and why. I hope this won't be a problem...
I am afraid you do - or at least far more than the handful of just '"currently worth more" white males you represent at the moment. You have, above, now made a general statement about all those people 'currently' "worth more" to the BBC who are overwhelmingly white, male. No I don't. But I know the overall averages, which have shocked and surprised many. (Though obviously not you, lol) One can assume there might be one or two exceptions of special cases. But across the whole work force? Pleeeease. As noted before, even the BBC is not trying your flimsy excuses, and they might be expected to, they being closer to things than some guy on the interent. But keep trying... Incidentally, if we are to take your logic, it is just as stupid to suggest that females and ethnics are likely not worth more just because we (you and I) haven't heard of them which reveals the same rate of presumed ignorance - and so I thank you. See how it works? Is this another time when you are still not asking me to make a subjective opinion? I look at the averages, the clear imbalances, my friend - and know what I see, as does nearly every one else. You look and see what you want to think, and try and argue based on individual cases by way of special pleading. As mentioned umpteen times, this just doesn't work all the way down through the pay grades, at least without becoming stretched and uncomfortable in the making. And it is certainly not what the BBC has tried by way of mitigation for obvious reaaons. So it just leaves you, special pleading for what is, in essence, white male privilege and implicit discrimination at the BBC. Or arguing that the whole structure at the BBC is fair, well it must be, since Chris Evans deserves his salary over the nearest choice. I can see that, but plenty do away from white male commentators online (go on, tell me you are black and female lol). I am not sure though why you pull Marxism in. This is more about egalitarianism.
That's because we are - still - talking about the overall picture. You know the one which has proved so embarrassing for the BBC and which has been so roundly condemned?
Profanity is sign that one is growing desperate. I am sorry if the failure of your arguments has led to this. Is it likely you think that by any measure at the BBC for the top earning bands, women and black are equal or ahead of the white males, whether in pay, earning or salary? Why would that be so 'presently'? Since you don't feel the effort is worthwhile in disproving my claim, (presumably since the chance in finding anything is so unlikely), I will take that as a QED; that there is no report about the issues at the BBC, from anyone, which says all is good and as it should be (in terms of salary equality). And so thank you.. I cite the BBC's own disclosures which even they admit shows such. As we can see above, you have not been bothered, or able to, find anything to the contrary. I wonder why? I repeat from above what is more relevant here, that: even if we accept your point: is it likely you think that by any measure at the BBC for the top earning bands, women and black are equal or ahead of the white males, whether in pay, earning or salary? I do like it when you call everyone else but you wrong, though. It is very reassuring. Yes, it more befits your own arguments where you argue from the individual to overthrow the average, does it not? Whatever, you still said the unknown cannot be discussed. Please and try consistent, it makes things easier. Note today's big question for you: is it likely you think that by any measure at the BBC for the top earning bands, women and black, are equal or ahead, of the white males, whether in pay, earning or salary? Is that fair? Don't take too long on this one. Indeed and we have them by way of the current disclosures; and so is it likely you think that by any measure at the BBC for the top earning bands, women and black are equal or ahead of the white males, whether in pay, earning or salary? As your own ideology is well known here due to your defence (or denial) of white male privilege I will take this as ironic. Only I can tell you the natural implications of what you say to me when I am told that no female or ethnic employee of the BBC was hitherto or is 'currently' not 'worth as much', especially when we are discussing average and an overall picture. Since only I can affirm the implications to me of your words then this is untrue and hence sadly an ad hominem. Again. I can only repeat that you appear, still in the minority with this view apart most specifically from those at the BBC in charge or affected. And you can't, or won't locate any work to back your view up either, as noted above. Of course this does not mean you are necessarily wrong. Just less likely to be right. So I ask again: is it likely you think that by any measure at the BBC for the top earning bands, women and black are equal or ahead of the white males, whether in pay, earning or salary?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 8, 2017 18:28:47 GMT
@flimflaneur.
I can't be arsed to wade through yet more of your misrepresentation and strawmanning.
I am going to ask you one question. Its a yes or no.
Do you understand the difference between pay and earnings?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Aug 8, 2017 21:58:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2017 9:54:14 GMT
@flimflaneur. I can't be arsed to wade through yet more of your misrepresentation and strawmanning. "I can't keep avoiding the obvious"
Yes. thanks. I also see that the recent revelations at the BBC were about salaries. Viz:
www.isubscribe.co.uk/news/entertainment-magazines-8/bbc-top-earners-salaries-reveal-bradley-linekar-evans-marr-bruce-5939/
My turn now. So I ask again: do you think that, by any measure at the BBC women and black are likely equal or ahead of white males overall, ie. whether judged by pay, earning, or salary, in the revealed top-earnings bands? If 'no' then QED. If 'yes', please do your objective thing and show how such a situation can be demonstrated. I hope this is not a problem.
Otherwise, just stop with the special pleading for an obvious average state of inequality of remuneration at the BBC, a bad situation accepted both by the Corporation and employees, that only you want to make.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Aug 9, 2017 21:11:30 GMT
@flimflaneur. I can't be arsed to wade through yet more of your misrepresentation and strawmanning. "I can't keep avoiding the obvious"
Yes. thanks. I also see that the recent revelations at the BBC were about salaries. Viz:
www.isubscribe.co.uk/news/entertainment-magazines-8/bbc-top-earners-salaries-reveal-bradley-linekar-evans-marr-bruce-5939/
My turn now. So I ask again: do you think that, by any measure at the BBC women and black are likely equal or ahead of white males overall, ie. whether judged by pay, earning, or salary, in the revealed top-earnings bands? If 'no' then QED. If 'yes', please do your objective thing and show how such a situation can be demonstrated. I hope this is not a problem.
Otherwise, just stop with the special pleading for an obvious average state of inequality of remuneration at the BBC, a bad situation accepted both by the Corporation and employees, that only you want to make.
You keep claiming I said things I didn't. And you keep hiding behind "well, that was what I inferred" You know danmed well I never said nor implied "women could never be worth as much as white men" especially since I gave examples of women who were worth more. Your latest outright lie is that I defend white privilege. Never done that. Brilliant and no matter how many pop articles you link to, the BBC has not released salaries. It has released contracted earnings. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Evans got £2.2m. Now he ost the Top Gear Job, do you think he still gets £2.2m? Or do you think the BBC are no longer paying him the £1.25 per year he got for that? These are not people on salaries. Now, since you don't actually appear to understand the difference between pay and earnings, this next bit will go over your head, but whatever. A gap in earnings does not equate to a gap in pay. Pay is one factor in earnings. If you don't know the other factors, any conclusion you draw is flawed. My previous boss was paid more than me, but I out earned her. Was that sexism?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2017 14:30:11 GMT
You keep claiming I said things I didn't. And you keep hiding behind "well, that was what I inferred" You know danmed well I never said nor implied "women could never be worth as much as white men" especially since I gave examples of women who were worth more. Your latest outright lie is that I defend white privilege. Never done that... Brilliant and no matter how many pop articles you link to, the BBC has not released salaries. It has released contracted earnings. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Evans got £2.2m. Now he ost the Top Gear Job, do you think he still gets £2.2m? Or do you think the BBC are no longer paying him the £1.25 per year he got for that? These are not people on salaries. Now, since you don't actually appear to understand the difference between pay and earnings, this next bit will go over your head, but whatever.A gap in earnings does not equate to a gap in pay. Pay is one factor in earnings. If you don't know the other factors, any conclusion you draw is flawed. My previous boss was paid more than me, but I out earned her. Was that sexism? While I appreciate your continuing need to evade things, you did not answer the question: namely, do you think that, by any measure at the BBC, women and ethnics are likely equal, or ahead, of white males overall (ie. whether judged by pay, earning, or salary) in the revealed top-earnings bands?
You know I will keep asking.
... and who, for the most part, are not paid more, as the figures show - which is rather the main point here. So I thank you for the QED.
Which is exactly why we must go on the published figures and assume that any 'other factors' show the same result, since we have no way of showing different, or need have necessarily different expectations. See how this works? And so I thank you again.
|
|