Malodery: Please try to stay relevant. See if you can stifle your weaselness on this one. If you go back and read the article/link you will see that contrary to obumbler's implication that women are paid 23% less than men because someone is just trying to cheat them out of money, they actually make overall about 5% less than men and that this is most probably due to the choices they make in life, and not due to "discrimination". Once again the liar in chief poops out a whopper. And, by the way, as you probably already know, the master headline to the article stated women do not make less than men. I neither support nor deny the accuracy of headlines. And if you start picking and parsing whether I said such a thing or not you are once again being a weasel. It's not important to the overall argument.
So I can't trust what you post but have to read the whole damn link? That's your new rule?
You blame women for making poor choices in the work they choose. Maybe not entirely true. She chose the right job below but is still paid less than half that of the man before her.
When Mary Barra was tapped as the first female chief executive officer of General Motors (GM), the appointment was hailed as an achievement for women’s equality in the executive suite.
But executive equality apparently only goes so far.
Barra will be paid less than half what her predecessor Dan Akerson earned. Even more startling is the fact that Akerson will earn more in his new advisory role with GM than Barra will reap as the company’s top executive.
General Motors will pay Barra $4.4 million in salary and other compensation, according to a regulatory filing. Akerson earned $9.1 million in 2012, which included $1.7 million in salary and stock awards of $7.3 million.
Akerson’s continuing pay as a senior adviser may raise even more eyebrows, given that he’s entitled to $4.68 million, more than Barra is slated to earn.
