mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 2, 2014 21:57:38 GMT -5
I've seen the same thing, moonbeam. A lot depends, I think, on the business and the management of said business. Change happens slowly and the status quo was (years ago) for women to do the clerical work, or the repetitive work, or the child-centered work, or the work of caregiving. That was a barrier that had to be broken, and has been broken. It's going to take time for the "old guard" to realize it's been broken and change their ways. We had a nursing supervisor position open at one time. That position doesn't come open often and is always filled from inside. We had one male and three females apply. The male was the least qualified, overall, but that's who the boss wanted to hire despite the fact that he was asking for a higher salary. The boss was also male. Maybe he was just lonesome. Whatever his reason, it didn't fly. The rest of us pitched a fit and it went up the line. The best qualified was hired. It was a bit of an eye-opener, though, as nursing is one of the traditional "women's work" fields. this post might explain everything, or it might just be a coincidence. It ain't all that profound, I'm afraid. It's strictly anectdotal. Our nursing supervisor staff consisted of 6 full time supervisors and one part-timer to serve 24/7 shift coverage. We had one male supervisor (the part-timer) at the time and one of our full-timers was leaving. The part-timer didn't want full time, so the hire became necessary. We were all pretty flabbergasted to hear the boss announce he thought he'd hire the least qualified individual for the job, and the flabbergastedness (love that word) extended to the male supervisor. Fortunately, we made enough noise and put forth enough evidence to prevent what would probably have been a disaster since the open position was a night shift position and all administration is home, tucked in their beds at night. This particular boss wasn't that old, but he did seem to be an "old school" management type. We never asked why he chose the male candidate. I think we were all afraid he'd tell us!
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Feb 3, 2014 11:39:53 GMT -5
sounds like the male candidate was a "better fit" for the male manager? you know it's not always about credentials and experience.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 3, 2014 11:41:52 GMT -5
sounds like the male candidate was a "better fit" for the male manager? I dunno, workpublic. While that might seem like the most logical answer, we didn't ask him why he made the choice he did, so I won't assume. Fortunately, his choice wasn't hired for the position.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Feb 3, 2014 12:39:11 GMT -5
I got my first "career" job exactly that way. the management was three levels of women in their late 30s mid/late forties. my boss was in his mid twenties, as was I. he told me straight out that it was between me and a girl and that he wanted a guy to work/hang with so he was going to push for me.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 3, 2014 14:31:25 GMT -5
I agree that the 77 cents figure is probably not extremely accurate and is at best a gross oversimplification of the issue.
But it is worth examining why women make up the majority of the lowest paid professions. Corrolation does not equal causation. Are these positions/degrees low paid because of the professions themselves, and women just gravitate towards them, or maybe they are low paid BECAUSE they are overwhelmingly female?
I don't have an answer, but it is something to consider and discuss. Also, why aren't more women choosing higher paid careers? What's discouraging them from doing so? Sure you can't force women to be petrolium engineers, but what personal and societal factors are affecting the uneven distribution?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 3, 2014 14:35:18 GMT -5
OK, dj's utter reasonableness today is confusing me. I don't know what to do with it? I might have to take a break for lunch. I had to look out the window to see if pigs were flying by when I saw DJ start talking about "liberals."
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 3, 2014 14:37:42 GMT -5
I have seen stats that younger women are outearning their male peers in most major metropolotin areas. Furthermore, women are earning more and higher college degrees.
I think women will be outearning men in the next generation, of not sooner.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 3, 2014 14:45:16 GMT -5
OK, dj's utter reasonableness today is confusing me. I don't know what to do with it? I might have to take a break for lunch. I had to look out the window to see if pigs were flying by when I saw DJ start talking about "liberals." i don't like it when ANYONE fudges the numbers. it is no better when "my side" does it. but this is not the first time i have leveled that criticism. i also don't like the CEO/wage earner ratio that is often quoted. it is generally not the practice to even FOOTNOTE the fact that they are only accounting for F500 corporations in that ratio, which is a complete and utter fraud, imo. it would serve to make the point just as well to get it right. annoying.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 3, 2014 14:46:34 GMT -5
I have seen stats that younger women are outearning their male peers in most major metropolotin areas. Furthermore, women are earning more and higher college degrees. I think women will be outearning men in the next generation, of not sooner. i doubt it. but even if they do, we still have the work distribution issue, which is perplexing.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 3, 2014 14:48:17 GMT -5
It's okay DJ. I never pegged you as a total liberal anyway. You seemed to fit outside the "mold" for the most part. To me at least, you seem more libraterian than anything.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 3, 2014 14:59:41 GMT -5
It's okay DJ. I never pegged you as a total liberal anyway. You seemed to fit outside the "mold" for the most part. To me at least, you seem more libraterian than anything. agreed. me and George Soros.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 3, 2014 15:31:17 GMT -5
Are these positions/degrees low paid because of the professions themselves, and women just gravitate towards them, or maybe they are low paid BECAUSE they are overwhelmingly female? I think this is an interesting question. I think a lot of it was societal norms. Young girls didn't see woman engineers, so probably didn't really consider the career path. Then a few decades back, those who did consider the career path would have to feel comfortable in a class that might be 90% men and in a workplace with similar stats. That can be tough to do, especially if you have some old school men that don't want you there. My class was about 1/3 women & my workplaces have been about the same, so it hasn't been too hard. Although there are some times I end up in a meeting with 10-20 people and I will be the only woman. When I was fresh out of school those meetings were really hard for me. Now I don't really care because I have a lot more confidence, but every time it happens I still am left thinking WTF? It bugs the crap out of me that certain govt entities that I work with seem to be about 95% male. How are close to 1/2 the civil engineers graduating today women, 1/3 of the engineers in my workplace are women, and yet the state has almost no women engineers? It seems like there would be more effort on their part for diversity.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Feb 3, 2014 15:32:12 GMT -5
My husband was told his bonus 2 weeks ago. He was happy with it. Then, I got told my bonus and it was $500 more than his. We were both pleased, but I think that made him question his bonus. We do not have the same employer nor work in the same field. But, it must have prompted him to write an email to his boss stating the reasons he deserved more. He showed me the email after he sent it and I seriously couldn't believe the nerve. Two days later he happily reported a $5000 increase to his bonus. Men do have a lot more nerve when it comes to asking for more money. This observation should encourage me to do the same, but I won't.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 3, 2014 15:32:56 GMT -5
I have seen stats that younger women are outearning their male peers in most major metropolotin areas. Furthermore, women are earning more and higher college degrees. I think women will be outearning men in the next generation, of not sooner. i doubt it. but even if they do, we still have the work distribution issue, which is perplexing. Maybe, but I do think that women outearning their partners is going to become a reality for more and more families as time goes on.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 3, 2014 15:39:09 GMT -5
Maybe it's just because it hasn't happened to me that much, but I don't see what the appeal is of having everyone look like you. I've heard women and minorities complain that their teachers/bosses/co workers don't look like them, and it makes them uncomfortable. I guess I just don't understand it. I go into my professional life figuring I'll work with a broad group of people. I never felt uncomfortable with the fact my boss is a woman, or working with co workers of differing race or origin. If anything, I would have been thrilled to be in a class of 90% women, or to have more women co workers. Might make it easier to date. Anyways, it is true that the fact that women aren't in those professions might mean younger women might not consider it a viable career option. People tend to emulate their parents and other adults in their lives. If mom's a social worker, little susie is more likely to take that profession, or something similar.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 22:26:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 15:43:42 GMT -5
My husband was told his bonus 2 weeks ago. He was happy with it. Then, I got told my bonus and it was $500 more than his. We were both pleased, but I think that made him question his bonus. We do not have the same employer nor work in the same field. But, it must have prompted him to write an email to his boss stating the reasons he deserved more. He showed me the email after he sent it and I seriously couldn't believe the nerve. Two days later he happily reported a $5000 increase to his bonus. Men do have a lot more nerve when it comes to asking for more money. This observation should encourage me to do the same, but I won't. exactly good for your husband and according to my DW....it is because women detest confrontations and asking for more money can lead to a confrontation
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 3, 2014 15:49:50 GMT -5
My husband was told his bonus 2 weeks ago. He was happy with it. Then, I got told my bonus and it was $500 more than his. We were both pleased, but I think that made him question his bonus. We do not have the same employer nor work in the same field. But, it must have prompted him to write an email to his boss stating the reasons he deserved more. He showed me the email after he sent it and I seriously couldn't believe the nerve. Two days later he happily reported a $5000 increase to his bonus. Men do have a lot more nerve when it comes to asking for more money. This observation should encourage me to do the same, but I won't. That is something I wouldn't have the nerve to do either. I have heard this is a good part of why women earn less than men. As it is now, I should be earning more, but haven't specifically asked for more. That is partly due to a difference between my boss' opinion on how things should work & the company perspective. In general your title at my company reflects your salary. So when pay goes above $X you are now an Engineer III instead of an Engineer II. But, my boss feels that our workload should determine our title. So he made a point of getting my title moved up. But, they didn't give me a raise that really matched that change in title, they gave me the raise they would have given me without the title change. As a result there were Engineer IIs that earned more than I did with my higher title. I didn't push the issue last review for a lot of reasons: - I was pregnant & didn't want to rock the boat. As it is, I kind of am allowed to do whatever I want. I work the hours I want & come & go as I please & work from home. I don't want to lose that freedom. - It might make them hesitant to change titles if it means they have to give a large pay raise to go along with the title. - When a company isn't doing well, it is far better to be underpaid for your position than overpaid. This is somewhat a moot point now as the company is now doing fantastic, but at the time it seemed to be a valid concern. When we had layoffs, it was mostly folks that were way overpaid for their abilities that were let go. I don't want to put myself into that position. But, I might be a great example as too why women make less than men, even when holding the same position.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 3, 2014 16:01:08 GMT -5
Maybe it's just because it hasn't happened to me that much, but I don't see what the appeal is of having everyone look like you. I've heard women and minorities complain that their teachers/bosses/co workers don't look like them, and it makes them uncomfortable. It isn't about needing others to look like you, it is needing to feel like you belong. Feeling like you belong comes from having confidence & by how you are treated. I never faced open discrimination, so my issue came from lacking confidence. I do know women that were openly discriminated against though. Engineering used to be a boy's club. Some of the older men didn't deal well with that changing & did not make women feel welcome. For me, I just didn't feel like I belonged when I was in a room full of men that were mostly 10-20 years older than me. It took years for me to gain confidence in myself & my abilities until I got to a point where I didn't care anymore.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 3, 2014 21:17:50 GMT -5
I agree that the 77 cents figure is probably not extremely accurate and is at best a gross oversimplification of the issue. But it is worth examining why women make up the majority of the lowest paid professions. Corrolation does not equal causation. Are these positions/degrees low paid because of the professions themselves, and women just gravitate towards them, or maybe they are low paid BECAUSE they are overwhelmingly female? I don't have an answer, but it is something to consider and discuss. Also, why aren't more women choosing higher paid careers? What's discouraging them from doing so? Sure you can't force women to be petrolium engineers, but what personal and societal factors are affecting the uneven distribution? Would you agree that statisticians are not stupid and did not overlook such an obvious error in methodology? Got to hand it to the right- no matter what information exists on anything- they always have a real simple way to explain away anything that doesn't fit their view of things. OP being a perfect example. Always the same thing- just like they do with global warming, or evolution, whatever. They get some opinion pieces out there with nothing to back up what they say because it is real easy to swallow for their voters.
|
|
flopsy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 23:14:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,690
|
Post by flopsy on Feb 3, 2014 21:43:44 GMT -5
All things being equal I would bet a man and a woman would be equally compensated. But this is the real world, things are not totally equal. It's education and degrees, it's life style choices, it's personality and perception, it's just life.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Feb 3, 2014 23:40:10 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 4, 2014 0:51:02 GMT -5
Come on- quit with the 'studies'. That shit doesn't matter to anti-intellectuals. All it takes is for Rush Limbaugh to see the original statistics and explain how obvious it is what happened- and who in their right mind is going to listen to a statistician or scientist when they have the word of a college dropout. You see, what these liberal college boys failed to take into account is (load of bullshit)- because statisticians are stupid eggheads that have no clue how to isolate variables or compare things. Yep- they just missed it. Women work less hours, or work different jobs, or what the hell ever. Never occurred to them at all to take that into account- they just did it in five minutes on a napkin- which would be more time and thought than Rush spent on it- and his word is gold.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2014 1:08:58 GMT -5
hahaha
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2014 1:19:35 GMT -5
Come on- quit with the 'studies'. That shit doesn't matter to anti-intellectuals. All it takes is for Rush Limbaugh to see the original statistics and explain how obvious it is what happened- and who in their right mind is going to listen to a statistician or scientist when they have the word of a college dropout. You see, what these liberal college boys failed to take into account is (load of bullshit)- because statisticians are stupid eggheads that have no clue how to isolate variables or compare things. Yep- they just missed it. Women work less hours, or work different jobs, or what the hell ever. Never occurred to them at all to take that into account- they just did it in five minutes on a napkin- which would be more time and thought than Rush spent on it- and his word is gold. You do realize the study shows that scientists are the ones consistently penalizing female applicants. The question is whether they're doing so irrationally, or whether they're accounting for small but real differences in projected job performance.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 4, 2014 1:41:41 GMT -5
Come on- quit with the 'studies'. That shit doesn't matter to anti-intellectuals. All it takes is for Rush Limbaugh to see the original statistics and explain how obvious it is what happened- and who in their right mind is going to listen to a statistician or scientist when they have the word of a college dropout. You see, what these liberal college boys failed to take into account is (load of bullshit)- because statisticians are stupid eggheads that have no clue how to isolate variables or compare things. Yep- they just missed it. Women work less hours, or work different jobs, or what the hell ever. Never occurred to them at all to take that into account- they just did it in five minutes on a napkin- which would be more time and thought than Rush spent on it- and his word is gold. You do realize the study shows that scientists are the ones consistently penalizing female applicants. The question is whether they're doing so irrationally, or whether they're accounting for small but real differences in projected job performance. Maybe so. Probably true. My point was there was the statistic quoted- and the only argument against it was some opinion bs that 1) Failed to attack the original study/methodology/etc. and explain why it was flawed, but 2) Did offer an explanation by an idiot that has zero credibility that failed to show in any way that said parameters were not taken into account. I am out of it over 20 years- but I remember one part in stats where you had to disprove the null hypothesis- not hard here.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2014 2:20:36 GMT -5
You do realize the study shows that scientists are the ones consistently penalizing female applicants. The question is whether they're doing so irrationally, or whether they're accounting for small but real differences in projected job performance. Maybe so. Probably true. My point was there was the statistic quoted- and the only argument against it was some opinion bs that 1) Failed to attack the original study/methodology/etc. and explain why it was flawed, but 2) Did offer an explanation by an idiot that has zero credibility that failed to show in any way that said parameters were not taken into account. I am out of it over 20 years- but I remember one part in stats where you had to disprove the null hypothesis- not hard here. I must have missed where the "other factors" argument was applied to this study in particular. It's quite possible that the wage disparity is a combination of both systemic and career choice factors. For instance, the difference in mean salary from the study is about 11%, which is less than half the disparity implied by the "77 cents on the dollar" claim in the OP. Hence we have some evidence to suggest that systemic factors don't account for most of the disparity (assuming scientists are no more and no less gender biased than the rest of us). It's not wrong to point that out. If you don't like what Rush Limbaugh has to say, ignore him.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 4, 2014 8:55:17 GMT -5
I agree that the 77 cents figure is probably not extremely accurate and is at best a gross oversimplification of the issue. But it is worth examining why women make up the majority of the lowest paid professions. Corrolation does not equal causation. Are these positions/degrees low paid because of the professions themselves, and women just gravitate towards them, or maybe they are low paid BECAUSE they are overwhelmingly female? I don't have an answer, but it is something to consider and discuss. Also, why aren't more women choosing higher paid careers? What's discouraging them from doing so? Sure you can't force women to be petrolium engineers, but what personal and societal factors are affecting the uneven distribution? Would you agree that statisticians are not stupid and did not overlook such an obvious error in methodology? Got to hand it to the right- no matter what information exists on anything- they always have a real simple way to explain away anything that doesn't fit their view of things. OP being a perfect example. Always the same thing- just like they do with global warming, or evolution, whatever. They get some opinion pieces out there with nothing to back up what they say because it is real easy to swallow for their voters. I have no doubt it was accurate at one time. Is it still accurate? Such a figure has been quoted for years and years. Paul actually posted a real reference, how many have you posted? If anyone is talking out of their nether orfaces, it's you. Anyways, I haven't seen anyone claim no pay disparity exists, just disputing the 77 cents figure as not accurate, or at the very least a grossly oversimplified "talking point" to a very complex issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 22:26:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 8:59:35 GMT -5
I agree that the 77 cents figure is probably not extremely accurate and is at best a gross oversimplification of the issue. But it is worth examining why women make up the majority of the lowest paid professions. Corrolation does not equal causation. Are these positions/degrees low paid because of the professions themselves, and women just gravitate towards them, or maybe they are low paid BECAUSE they are overwhelmingly female? I don't have an answer, but it is something to consider and discuss. Also, why aren't more women choosing higher paid careers? What's discouraging them from doing so? Sure you can't force women to be petrolium engineers, but what personal and societal factors are affecting the uneven distribution? Would you agree that statisticians are not stupid and did not overlook such an obvious error in methodology? Got to hand it to the right- no matter what information exists on anything- they always have a real simple way to explain away anything that doesn't fit their view of things. OP being a perfect example. Always the same thing- just like they do with global warming, or evolution, whatever. They get some opinion pieces out there with nothing to back up what they say because it is real easy to swallow for their voters. so you are saying what exactly? that women do earn 77 cents on the dollar to what a man earns? that the GOP is trying to divert the "facts"..... cmon evt.....even you arent that naive.......
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 4, 2014 9:11:37 GMT -5
I didn't watch the state of the union. Watching Obama talk just upsets me, and I can do without the stress in my life.
Did he actually propose to do anything about it? Or just complaining?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 4, 2014 9:18:18 GMT -5
I can speak from some personal experience. In my profession, even though there are equal numbers of both genders, females rise to the top more slowly, or not at all. Based ON MY OBSERVATIONS the reasons are as follows: 1. Taking time off to have children/stay home when they are young and their career is not yet established 2. Not as willing as men to "miss out" on certain activities (school plays, spelling bees, sports games, etc) 3. As alluded to earlier, not as aggressive or skilled at negotiating or tooting their own horn. 4. Usually the one who helps out with aging parents or takes primary responsibility for sick children. 5. And, there is truth to this, not taken as seriously becuase their balls are on their chest. I've experienced this firsthand several times. I've pretty much gone as far as someone can go in my field of expertise. I've also been told I should have been in this position two jobs ago by folks who saw how the guy who did get the job performed after I left that company. Based on salary surveys I'm about 15% below the low end of the range for my position. When I came into this role there were "serious deficiencies" in the internal control process in my area. I've fixed those, improved the process, created management reports, and rolled out subject matter training to all of our subsidiaries. Management no longer has to worry about my area causing the company to reissue financial statements. In spite of this, I have a very hard time saying I'm damn good at my job and am worth more. So it that on me or my employer, I don't know?
|
|