[The Second Life Mission Discussion]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The notion that there is no gender pay gap is demonstrably false and has been the focus of significant study. It is not simply that women work less or chose a lifestyle that gives them less opportunity to work (such as becoming a parent).

I could easily cite sources for that assertion but there is no point as you have made up your mind and adopted an intractable position.

The reason why I'm talking about this is to get my ideas challenged in the first place to become more knowledgeable, and I do think that I'm making fair points about it, it's not just because that I'm offering a different perspective that I'm not open minded.

If you can cite sources and have anything to add to this, then please do it. I don't have a problem to admit when I'm wrong.

[The Second Life Mission Discussion]

21 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I was wondering these things myself. Linden Research Co. has had 4 CEOs, none of them women, for instance.

That's not how you measure equality.

Equality is about having the same opportunity, not the outcome.

 

If 4 women and 4 men were  applying to a job with 4 spot applications, where they had to make a exam, and it happens that the 4 highest grades on that exam happen to be men, and they all got hired, that's equality.

Because the women had just the same chance to get hired for that job as the man did, they just had to be on the TOP 4 Exams

 

The only way it wouldn't be equality is if there were one or more women on the TOP 4 Exams and even still they didn't got hired.

 

[The Second Life Mission Discussion]

22 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It's not just her choice, Garrett. You make it sound as though women are the only ones who want children.

That's not what I said.

 

22 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

It's not something women do for fun, and, whether planned or not, men bear an equal responsibility for it happening.

I also didn't implied otherwise.

I must have been too vague about it, so my bad,  but what I mean't about "It's her choice" I mean't that at the point that if a woman gets pregnant it's 100% her choice to make if she wants to make a abortion or not, the father can only try to convince her to do it his way, but in the end the mother has the last word, if fathers had the same influence just as mothers in regards to giving birth to a child or not , we would never have associated the words Drake and Hot sauce to begin with.

22 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But the biological reality is that by far the greatest burden for having children -- and effectively keeping the human race going-- lies on women. And when that is compounded by actual financial, social, and political penalties, you've got a problem that needs to be redressed.

I think this kinda goes off-topic, but the thing that you're forgetting about that is if the woman is having a child, then she is going to have the child's father to help her with the penalties to begin with. You can't think this situation as a lone wolf. at the moment that your talking about parenting, you already need to have the mentality that this is a team work. You can't have both worlds. If you want to focus about money, then don't have children. Otherwise you need to be aware that you can't work the same amount of hours as you could to take care of the child and let the father take care of the providing as well.

 

23 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

If everything else -- and remember, this is complicated -- were equal, no. 

This is what it really makes me confused about your point on this (When I mean by that, I mean the association of it with gender based pay discrimination, and not the point itself). Because if (correct me if I'm wrong) you agree with me that there isn't no gender based descrimination when a woman doesn't have a child, however when it's a situation when it's outside of her work life, and which was 100% her decision for her child to born which won't allow her to work as much as men, that makes it a gender based pay discrimination? It doesn't make sense. If it was discrimination, then all women would be affected by this, not just the ones that are in a specific situation.

23 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

and remember, this is complicated

You do say that there are more complicated things about it other than this, you mind talking more about it then? because I think atleast in the pregnancy topic we will have to agree to disagree, and maybe in the other topics I can be more knowledgeable about other factors that I'm not considering.

 

[The Second Life Mission Discussion]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But it is if the reason you are not working the same hours is because you are a woman.

I take your point, but, again, it's more complex than merely "women don't work as much." In my place of employment, women get occasional bonuses in order to bring their average wages up to the rate of men -- and this is in a salaried job, not one based upon hours worked. In other words, hours worked isn't a factor, and yet women are statistically still being paid less for (in this instance) exactly the same work.

The document I cite also notes that "in its 10-year analysis, Statistics Canada (2018) notes that nearly two-thirds of the studied gender pay gap is unexplained. For this portion, possible explanations include gender differences in work experience, 'as well as unobservable factors, such as any gender-related biases.'"

But giving birth to her child was her decision. The parents should already know that they need to invest time on the child as well.

It's like I said, I understand that having a child can cause women (or men) to work less hours, but the gender-based pay discrimination is based around a man and a woman being in the exact same situation AND EVEN STILL the woman gets paid less because of her gender. In the moment that the hours worked are different, that makes the whole situation different and you can't define that as discrimination.

18 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But taking your car to a mechanic isn't a gendered activity. Pregnancy, maternity leave, and childcare are.

I should note that in my country, men are now eligible for paid paternity leave as well. That is a great thing.

I can simply just change my example to a prostate exam then since that is a gendered activity, not to mention that father's can also do childcare (Even though of course women doing childcare is more prevelant)

 

Since all your points about this are about pregnancy, let me ask you, if a woman wasn't pregnant, and worked less hours than a man, would you think there is a gender-based pay discrimination in that situation?

[The Second Life Mission Discussion]

17 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

However, this doesn't take into account the REASONS why women work fewer hours.  There are more women in single parent households so they can't except overtime or extended work schedules.  Even in 2 parent households with children, women are generally the ones doing the majority of child centered activities.  Dad can work.late or on the weekend because mom is doing all the child care duties.

But at the moment that you work less hours, is obvious that you are going to get paid less for someone that worked more hours. The reason why you aren't working more hours doesn't matter. That's like saying that I can't work today because I have to take my car to a mechanic and expecting to get paid the hours of the day I wasn't working.

It's like I said above, your getting paid for the hours that you worked, that's not gender-based pay discrimination

[The Second Life Mission Discussion]

25 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Can I recommend this web site: it's Canadian, but the issues it identifies are generally applicable in all G7 nations. Please note that it is fully referenced with statistical sources and studies.

Thanks for the website, i'll take a look at it later.

 

25 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The subject is, of course, more complicated than it sounds from Luna's remark -- although, in substance, she is correct. Your remark that hours worked is one of the factors in the pay equity gap is also true -- partially -- but it doesn't account for the many gendered reasons that women often don't work the same number of hours as men: these include things like the fact that women are more likely to be the primary caregiver of children, and so more likely to work part-time, as well as the fact that maternity leave frequently ends up restricting job and advancement opportunities for women. Women in effect are often financially penalized for the fact that they are the ones who get pregnant, give birth, and do the bulk of the childcare.

But a woman having less time to work because of the children has nothing to do with the gender pay gap, at the moment that she started working the same amount of hours as a man, she would start getting paid the same as well, assuming that everyone had the same job and responsabilities. A woman receiving less than a man for working less hours isn't Gender-based pay discrimination, and yes getting paid for the hours that you worked.

Here's a forbes article about it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/06/dispelling-myths-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

 

 

[The Second Life Mission Discussion]

6 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

 As it stands in the world, men earn more for the same jobs women do because there is prejudice against women in RL. 

That's 100% a lie.

First off, the claims about that study are completely flawed, which didn't took account to the amount of hours that each gender worked.

For the people that aren't aware of this study, it pretty much states that most women work less hours then men on the same jobs, which made people with a agenda claiming there is a gender pay gap, when in fact the REAL reason why men with the same jobs are earning more in that study was because they are working more hours than women.

 

And second, Gender-based pay discrimination is illegal since 1963. So if a company does that, they are breaking the law and they can be sued for that.

[Close up portraits]

[Do you all think that Second Life is less sociable now than before?]

5 hours ago, Guku Aabye said:

 The evidence is my friends list they are slowly responding wanting to hang out where years ago it was nonexistence. 

Exceptions don't make the rule.

[Premium Plus Price already changed?]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

yearly is ALWAYS better

as in .. WOW .. that's extremely better, I should only ever do that.

That's so true. Even for the people that can't pay it all at once, I would just recommend them to save the money until they do.

[So what do you all think to the Premium Plus package?]

18 minutes ago, Malin Sabra said:

If they took the $249 yearly cost and divided by 12 they might get more people to jump on board in the beginning with the limited time monthly price.

That would actually be pretty cool. But unfortunately I think it would be easily exploited because of the name discounts.

 

249/12= 20.75

Name change with PP= 20.75+15=35.75

Subtract with stipend=35.75-11=24.75

Subtract with Signup bonus (Assuming it's different from regular premium, where you would require to buy 2 months to receive it)=24.75-12=12.75

 

That's already a good discount for a person who might not even be interested in PP and just wants to do a name change, even if we assume that PP also requires 2 months of membership to receive it.

 

[So what do you all think to the Premium Plus package?]

3 minutes ago, Nika Talaj said:

Two pricing questions.  

1.  The $24.99/mo price - is that only for this month, or, if you choose that, do you pay $24.99/mo until that price is no longer offered, or does it go on until you change your plan, even if it is no longer being offered?  (Note: 24.99 comes out to $299.88/yr, so you wouldn't want to do it for a long period anyway, since a year of PP is $249).

2.  Is the $L3000 signing bonus only offered today, or in perpetuity, or only this month, or?

 

1 - If I had to take a wild guess, is until that price is no longer offered.

2 - It's the same with the 1k that Regular Premium gives, one time 3k sign up bonus. I just don't know if it's exactly like regular premium that you need to have a active subscription for atleast 45 days.

[Shattered Expectations about Premium Plus]

2 minutes ago, Tary Allen said:

And if we were we would be complaining

And then people would start calling you a freeloader because you had the audacity of feeling entitled to make post on a forum for free

[Shattered Expectations about Premium Plus]

2 minutes ago, Marius Darkheart said:

After reading the thread I have come to the conclusion that people aren't every happy unless they are getting everything for free. Also learned that people just like to complain on here and don't offer much else.

After reading this post I have come to the conclusion that you should read better.

[Shattered Expectations about Premium Plus]

55 minutes ago, Aria Aurelia said:

Please stop beating a dead horse, most of you have said you aren't happy with the price.  You have the choice not to purchase it and nothing for you has changed.  You simply dont buy it and anyone who is happy with it can buy it and go on with life.  249 is here and that is the price.  You either pay or you don't.  It is like going to the used car lot and buying the BMW, Mercedes, or the cheap Honda.  You get what you decide to pay for in life. No one is forcing anyones hand here and quite honestly the moaning needs to just stop because 249 is the price and no one is obligated to pay it. 

You get around 150 dollars worth of linden in the course of the next year which brings the price of this down to 100 US dollars.  So at 20 plus US a month I'll take my new 2600 (12.28 if you buy inworld) and free uploads on everything. (The 249/12) = 20.75 - 12.28 (Linden Cost) = 8.47

That is what it is costing you to have this if you buy it straight up  at 249

I'm going to pay 8.47 a month to get a bunch of stuff that I find highly desireable.

 

 

The problem with people with your take is thinking that people are just here to complain for no reason. People that are expressing their opinion on Premium Plus (atleast most of them) are people that like SL and they want the game to improve. Constructive criticism is necessary for a company to survive, because if there were no people to critic on these subjects, they will think that everything they are doing is right and there is no problems that needs to be fixed, overall making the product worse.

It's because of this "You either pay or you don't" takes that we have to pay 40 dollars + Premium for a name change.

[So what do you all think to the Premium Plus package?]

22 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

Half Time Report

It has been 2 days since the PP announcement and my impression, based on this forum and inworld comments, is that PP is a disaster, similar to a bad sequel to a beloved movie franchise. The primary reason is...

People are wondering if they would be stupid if they went with PP

For those looking for value, figuring out how much you pay LL is not simple. My weird spreadsheets attempt to show that LL has a different price for each tier level. Add to that the "tier packing" problem, premium stacking options, VAT, sales tax, your cash flow situation, and the credit card interest you might incur... sheesh!

Regardless, PP costs more than Premium on a per unit basis, so the easiest thing to do is just say NO.

The  "Vegas Perks" (e.g. letting casino whales cut in line) are not compelling.

Groups have always been problematic, consequently, people use Discord, inworld chat servers, and subscribers. Prior restrictions on groups were justified by performance issues. Why do anything that might compromise reliability or performance? Just today, Squeaky informed us that Birthday chat stopped working!

Texture uploads are simply a cost of doing business. I make textures for boats and aircraft and use local textures all the time. I only pay to upload the final version. The cost of the upload is covered if I sell ONE unit.

People always have special circumstances (e.g. bloggers that need a million groups, makeup creators with a million shades). But LL needs to pick a big target audience and serve that well.

Hopefully, the next time LL makes it's once-a-year major announcement, it needs to be something that is OBVIOUSLY good to most of us (like Bellisseria was).

In my opinion is simple.

Are you a creator where your products use a lot of different textures? Buy Premium Plus.

Otherwise, Premium Plus is absolute worthless to buy in the current package available, and no, I don't see this good for bloggers as well since most creators now use services like Blogotex to manage their blogger team, which doesn't require to join a group.

[So what do you all think to the Premium Plus package?]

14 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

The percentage difference between  $9.50 and $3.05 is 102.79%.

 

Apex math teacher