patrick.net

Clearly a CEO has earned his vastly disproportionate pay, that's why! A person chosen by a board of rich white people to lead a corporation is clearly 4220% more valuable than the average employee of said corporation. If not, that would imply that the game is rigged and the rich white board members were just voting to give unwarranted pay to a crony who would in turn give them and their descendants unwarranted pay for negligible work! And that's preposterous, right?

Not to mention, the male-female pay gap is a complete fabrication. It never existed, when considering skill, education, experience/tenure and (especially) hours/effort.

Yes, men have had to be 100/73 or roughly 37% better than women (in terms of earnings) to be deemed good/worthy enough (by women, on the average). But that demand was and is a private/personal discrimination by nearly every woman against nearly every man. It was never a public or workplace discrimination of men against women.

That's some "equality" we have there. Equality means "I am equal to you, but you have to be better than me".

Christina Hoff Summers has a good intro to debunking feminist mythology, including the pay gap, here

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

My take on the "pay gap" since 1996: Men make more money because they BLOODY WELL HAVE TO.

If the Gender Pay Gap existed, businesses would only hire women and save 23% off the cost of labor.

Of course, it wouldn't exist for that long because an army of attorneys would have sued it out of existence within months.

One might ask,how's that private enterprise capitalism working out?
Must be working great against stupid women.