Jump to content

Here's What The Gender Pay Gap Looks Like


iNow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is the actually study my previous link referenced.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf

I appreciate this thank you for taking the time. Now lets summarise what it is in the grand scheme of things. It's a social experiment that states that women's CVs are valued less in terms of competence and how much they should get paid. Now lets remain rational. If it were any other field of science we would get this information and compare it to reality to see if it aids in modelling reality and if so how much. Because of the study you present we will focus on 20s to early 30s, as this is where people usually graduate college and forging their careers. Your study is on the assessment of undergrad CVs for hiring. Lets establish some facts that will also help us with our model:

 

We know that men are more likely to do overtime

(men between 25 and 34 are twice as likely to do overtime) http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1986/11/art7full.pdf [page37]

 

We know that men are more likely to choose higher paying majors such as engineering as opposed to childcare

 

We add in our model that women in the early stages of hiring are more likely to have a lower value placed on them because of the study you present

 

Because of this we have to find data that plots gender wage gap by age groups, majors and excludes overtime. Sadly most of the data collected only excludes one thing. If it's overtime they don't assess age. If it's age they don't exclude overtime. The amount of shoddy data is depressing. It's as if people writing reports for institutions such as "chartered management institute and women in management" and “woman’s institute of management” have a financial incentive to whip up frenzy. Or those legislators have a financial incentive to keep legislating. The best I could find was data that took age into account and excluded overtime. We will have to ignore major choice. However, even we compromise in favour of women in the analysis we still see that between the ages of 22 and 39 women in the UK are earning more per hour (excluding overtime) than men.

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_385428.pdf [page12]

 

(Office for national statistics)

 

Conclusion: the study completely fails to model reality. It’s either true and women are experiencing some extreme privilege elsewhere to make up for it to the point where they are out earning men or it’s one of those social science studies that can’t be replicated.

 

I haven’t actually proposed the hypothesis that misogyny and sexism influence the gender pay gap. People who are should be doing this. When female oppression gets discussed rationality goes out the window. Instead they point to isolated studies, spew stats that clearly fail to control for variables and link them together with the academic rigor that’s comparable to conspiracy theories. These people usually strongly state that sexual orientation isn’t a choice and that genes and biology hardwires some men to love other men and some women to love other women. The next breath they completely reject the notion that biology and genes may hardwire women to GENERALLY have different priorities or choices to men.

 

I remind people on this thread who think that sexism affects the pay gap that they are the one proposing a theory. The burden of proof is on you to show that your theory models reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remind people on this thread who think that sexism affects the pay gap that they are the one proposing a theory. The burden of proof is on you to show that your theory models reality.

Already did. Nearly a year ago, and in other threads before that in which you were a participant.

 

I remind people on this thread who think they're being clever that they should read what's already been shared and update their response prior to acting all smug and douchey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Physica, you are little all over the place. Hundreds of factors influence pay. You previously mentioned location as factor. Other factors include:

 

Beauty - https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3043406/mobius_beauty.pdf?s..

 

Ethnic name - http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

 

Economic mobility - http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2015/07/economic-mobility-in-the-united-states

 

So when you start looking at factors free from isolation like men choosing certian careers it become very hard to quantify the impact. More factors than career choice matter. Even looking at career choice in isolation studies have shown Females are less likely to receive mentorship - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063742

 

As for the overtime; time spent at work and quality of work at not one in the same. I telecommute the majority of the time. From from this gender discussion there are many debates being had about the usefulness of structured work days and whether face time on the office is equal to working getting done. So the overtime thing varies industry by industry. Not only that but U am less likely to volunteer to work late with peers who mistreat me or a boss I don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow instead of disputing the stats people vote down and vote up name calling.

 

 

Already did. Nearly a year ago, and in other threads before that in which you were a participant.

I remind people on this thread who think they're being clever that they should read what's already been shared and update their response prior to acting all smug and douchey.

Look you produced a few studies with poorly controlled data and linked them together in a conspiracy style of reasoning. However, you can keep calling me names, it seems to be working for you. I tend to step back after a while in female victimhood debates because people get too over emotional and the mob seems to come out and pander to it. Note that you fail to refute my recent specific points.

 

 

@ Physica, you are little all over the place. Hundreds of factors influence pay. You previously mentioned location as factor. Other factors include:

I'm not the one who's trying to prove a certain causation. I actually did your work for you in the previous post as a demonstration to how slap dash the conversation gets when talking about female victimhood. If you want to add more factors into the causation that YOUR trying to prove feel free. As for ethnic names I think it's a bit all over the place when describing gender gap but if you can link it I'm happy to hear your reasoning.

 

 

As for the overtime; time spent at work and quality of work at not one in the same.

Of course but if you read my link I provided men are twice as likely to do overtime. They collected the data via reported overtime. If you report more overtime you get paid more. If you're not reporting your overtime you're not going to get paid for it. Overtime rates vary but there are industries that will pay you more per hour. Instead of wasting time trying to calculate the impact anybody who has any scientific acumen and integrity would use data that excludes overtime in order to get rid of that excessive noise.

 

Now here's the thorn in the side that you guys daren't go near because it smashes the female victimhood conspiratory theory in the face very hard is that when you exclude overtime women between the ages of 22 and 39 earn more per hour than men.

 

http://www.ons.gov.u...1778_385428.pdf [page12]

 

(Office for national statistics)

 

Your theory has to explain this. Good luck.

Edited by physica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Now here's the thorn in the side that you guys daren't go near because it smashes the female victimhood conspiratory theory in the face very hard is that when you exclude overtime women between the ages of 22 and 39 earn more per hour than men.
So?

 

What's your point? What "female victimhood conspiratory theory" does that contradict?

 

The explanations for that sound like an interesting inquiry, but plenty of them fit the normal descriptions of a society that - say - rewards youth in women and punishes age, regardless of other attributes, while rewarding ability and experience and hard work in men. Just to point to one stereotype often incorporated into standard feminist theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself aligned with Physica in the popular attitude of First World society towards apparent gender pay disparities. It is important to reference like with like and not what looks equivalent because there appear to be so many confounding variables.

 

Take CE O pay: When one looks at the differences here, company pay between different companies doesn't seem to considered and it appears women get less when, in reality, those higher paying companies are just richer. A proper indication would be if, say, Cook of Apple Inc who earns about $7m basic, stepped down and a woman replaced him.... would her pay be the same?

 

There is/was concerted propaganda by certain establishments because I experienced it in the 90's. I started an OU Foundation in maths and all the modules contained reference and maths problems associated with gender disparitty... it was a constant theme. I noted all the authors were female. I got so fed up with it I couldn't focus on the maths....I gave up....twice. I wasted £700 and a year.

 

The real problem is ethnic career inequality.... I could do a maths course focused on that. As an aside, courses should be apolitical, unless explicitly stated.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The explanations for that sound like an interesting inquiry, but plenty of them fit the normal descriptions of a society that - say - rewards youth in women and punishes age, regardless of other attributes, while rewarding ability and experience and hard work in men. Just to point to one stereotype often incorporated into standard feminist theory.

 

This is exceptionally lazy. There are other factors that could affect it. Women taking time out to have children or raise a family will affect pay later on. Taking time out isn't the end of the story, does raising a family make women less likely to put extra hours and gun for promotions? Now let me lay this out for you because once again the scientific method has been chucked out of the window. You are proposing that women get punished because of their age..... you are going to have to control for these factors because the burden of proof is on you. Now I'm going to do a bit of your job for you but you're not going to thank me for it. Lets go back to the office of national statistics.

 

Percentage of men employed with children:

 

age

16-24 69.5%

25-34 88.6%

35-49 92.1%

 

Percentage of women employed with children:

 

age

16-24 35.8%

25-34 63.0%

35-49 75.0%

 

Percentage of men employed without children:

 

age

16-24 48.6%

25-34 83.6%

35-49 82.0%

 

Percentage of women employed without children:

 

age

16-24 51.1%

25-34 85.0%

35-49 79.7%

 

Office of national statistics [page: 9] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf

 

As you can see the difference between percentages of men and women employed isn't big when children aren't involved. However, when children are involved the difference is a lot bigger up to the age of 49. When you're not employed you're not gaining the same skills and experience as people who are employed. The knock on effect is that you will not get paid as much as someone who has been in work all the time. Your conspiracy theory isn't really matching up with reality is it son???

 

Again overtone the burden of evidence is on you. You are going to have to provide some exceptional evidence to prove that women are punished because of their age. It's going to have to be very strong because the facts I've produced in this post really smash your hypothesis out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inherent in your argument is a biased assumption that women must raise the children. Why?

Also, FWIW, calling people "son" after asking a question doesn't help minimized the aforementioned douchey smugness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inherent in your argument is a biased assumption that women must raise the children. Why?

Also, FWIW, calling people "son" after asking a question doesn't help minimized the aforementioned douchey smugness.

Sigh lets stop with the emotion and lets focus on the verbal reasoning and scientific method. Where have I said that women must raise children? Lets break it down again...... the data shows that when children are involved the gap between men and women being in employment increases greatly. I've presented to really show how lazy it is to simply speculate that women are being punished for their age. I then made some speculations as to why this is but this isn't the main focus here. Stop trying to be sneaky and flipping the scientific method. I find it funny that people are focusing on the areas where I'm doing their work for them as they feel no need to even assess their theories.

 

You are proposing that there is a correlation between sexism and gender pay gap. I've presented two key stats that really smash this hypothesis in the face. Women between 22 and 39 earn more than men per hour. Yes as women get older they earn less. The lazy get out to try and bolster the crumbling theory is that women are punished for their age whilst men are not. I then produce stats showing that when children are involved less women maintain employment. If you think that sexism causes the gender pay gap you are the one that has to explain these stats. I am not the one who has let my emotions get the better of me, created theories and expect others to come up with the explanations. It's a very cheap trick to force me into formulating a theory then force me down the route of defending this forced theory drawing attention away from the intial theory that you proposed.... I'm too smart for you iNow, keep with the character attacks and down voting and I'll keep dishin out the facts.... argh yeah.

 

In terms of douchy smugness it's perspective. When your logic is getting ripped to shreds or people aren't biting on the cheap tricks you're offering and you can't come close to justifying your theory in light of the stats produced it's easy and lazy to take comfort in the fact that they're a bad person. Me I'm above that in this thread which is why I'm not down voting. Instead I'm addressing facts and keepin my logik tight. If it softens to blow of reality keep down voting me and focusing on my character. You've contributed nothing here. You've failed to even come close to explaining why these stats prove your theory and you attack character. This isn't exactly a proud moment for you is it son?

 

Now if you're ready to bring something new to the table or attempt to address the facts I've displayed I welcome it because I'd prefer some decent conversation with you.

Edited by physica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are proposing that there is a correlation between sexism and gender pay gap.

That's news to me. Please use the handy quote function offered by this site to demonstrate precisely where/how you believe I've done this.

 

I'm too smart for you iNow

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

 

This isn't exactly a proud moment for you is it son?

I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.

 

Anyway:

http://blog.dol.gov/2012/06/07/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/

http://blog.dol.gov/2013/06/07/50-down-50-to-go-myth-busting-the-pay-gap-revisited/

http://blog.dol.gov/2015/04/13/its-time-for-equal-pay-now/

http://statusofwomendata.org/app/uploads/2015/02/EE-CHAPTER-FINAL.pdf

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's news to me. Please use the handy quote function offered by this site to demonstrate precisely where/how you believe I've done this.

Look at post 102 on this thread

 

 

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

 

I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.

Keep them rolling I care about facts and reality, insults and character speculations roll off the back when you know you logic has been 100% untouched in this thread.

 

 

Now we are on to the next part of cheap tricks. Dumping stuff, hoping people will not read through it, not bothering to explain it whilst not addressing the stats I produced. Sigh let me do your job for you again.

 

link one

The commentary in this is depressing. The stats are very one dimensional. It talks about average loss of earnings over a life time. If you want to raise specific points out of this do so.

 

link two

In scientific journals you have to declare interests..... I think the institute for women's policy research has a clear financial interest, if it doesn't show a problem that need to be fixed by policy it might lose funding. It shows. It doesn't exclude the background noise of overtime and it doesn't look at wage gap over age...... so in response to my stats you've given me stats that have more background noise and fails to look at a key area where I have identified the reverse. In a hard science you'd be called a crackpot for this but we are talking about gender pay gap so the double standards will be in your favour today.

 

link three

Again more noisy data. It doesn't exclude overtime.

 

So you still dare not touch the stats I produce and instead produce stats that are less controlled. Once again I look forward to your next cheap trick, character attack and voting down because that's all you have.

Edited by physica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note I updated my post with more robust sources before you submitted your response. Your reply is moot. Apologies for the inconvenience.

I've voted this up for honesty. I've debated with others in the past who have changed their previous point and accused me of not being able to read. Will read the rest later on today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We might disagree, but I value honesty and authenticity over some ridiculous concept of winning.

 

I have read enough on this subject over the past 2 decades to know that the facts are on my side and I believe the truth of this situation is obvious to anyone approaching the discussion in good faith.

 

I mostly get frustrated sitting here arguing over well documented, clearly understood, broadly accepted facts instead of using our time coming together to find ways of improving the current situation. Anything else is a waste of time.

 

Regardless, I'm genuinely sorry that you spent time responding to something that I edited before you posted. I know that too is frustrating.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Again overtone the burden of evidence is on you. You are going to have to provide some exceptional evidence to prove that women are punished because of their age.
I made no such assertion. My only claim was that bias against age in women, more than men, is a standard trope of the standard feminist approach.

 

I merely pointed out that the standard, stereotypical feminist theory in the matter has no problem handling the circumstance described - contrary to the claim of the post I argued against.

 

(There are of course many factors that could be mentioned, if one were to address the study itself, including but not limited to : the data was from the UK, which has a different set of cultural factors from the US; employed women in that age bracket are likely on average to come from higher social strata, and have longer history at a given job; the exclusion of overtime biases the data regarding categories of employment that include gender disparities - there are kinds of male-dominated jobs (such as heavy seasonal work the trades) in which overtime is built in to the yearly compensation, and specifically compensates for the lower hourly base rate. And so forth. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All of those links are focused on cross-occupational pay gap aka "the raw wage gap", which is known to be misleading. Luckily, I don't have to put forth a rebuttal as the Department of Labor has already done this for me:

 

Just before Obama took office in 2009, the Department of Labor released a study because, as a deputy assistant secretary explained it, "The raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap." The study by CONSAD Research Corp. took into account women being more likely to work part-time for lower pay, leave the labor force for children or elder care, and choose work that is "family friendly" with fuller benefit packages over higher pay. The study found that, when factoring in those variables, the gap narrows to between 93 cents and 95 cents on the dollar.

 

"The raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action," said Charles James, the deputy assistant secretary. "Indeed, there may be nothing to correct."

 

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/15/politifact-sheet-gender-pay-gap/

 

"The raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap."

 

I'm repeating this part of the quote because it's my favorite part.

 

The Department of Labor thinks that there are people out there using the raw wage gap to mislead people as a way to push a political agenda.

Edited by Capayan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capayan - I presume you would be happy to take a 5-7% wage drop? Or maybe you already receive 5-7% less than your male counterparts. Any significant variation is unacceptable in a modern polity.

 

Cos that's the short/most equal end of the statistics - and it is still disgraceful. Statistical measures will always be argued - because there is no correct answer. But if by some measures you have a 22-23% disparity and by others you have a 5-7% disparity it is clear there are many confounding factors making a simple metric impossible - however; it is also clear you have a right problem on your hands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capayan - I presume you would be happy to take a 5-7% wage drop? Or maybe you already receive 5-7% less than your male counterparts. Any significant variation is unacceptable in a modern polity.

 

Cos that's the short/most equal end of the statistics - and it is still disgraceful. Statistical measures will always be argued - because there is no correct answer. But if by some measures you have a 22-23% disparity and by others you have a 5-7% disparity it is clear there are many confounding factors making a simple metric impossible - however; it is also clear you have a right problem on your hands

 

The 22-23% disparity and the 5-7% disparity comes from the same data. Let's make that clear.

 

The 22-23% gap is the raw wage gap, which is an obfuscation of data used to push political agenda. That 22-23% difference comes from the fact that men filter into higher paying markets like STEM and construction at far higher rates than women. Women dominate lower paying markets like office management and publishing. The set of skills that men appear to be wired for like increased physical strength and stamina due to higher testosterone levels that lead them into the construction market are in higher economic demand than being a book publisher (book publishing is 78% women).

 

I agree that a 5-7% drop is unfair, but the people who study this difference do not even fully understand why there is a persistent 5-7% difference once you are looking men and women in the same jobs side by side.

 

 

Still, a study by the American Association of University Women controlled for a number of factors, including college major, occupation, age, geographical region and hours worked, and found a persistent 7 percent wage gap between men and women a year after graduating college.

 

The report explored discrimination and reluctance among women to ask for raises as reasons for the remaining gap, though those factors are hard to measure.

 

This quote is taken from what was written in the article immediately after my original quote. They don't even know if it is due to discrimination or if women are simply choosing not to ask for a pay raise.

 

How do you solve the "problem" of women being less aggressive about getting pay raises?

 

How do you solve the "problem" of men and women having different sets of abilities and interests and naturally filtering into different markets (which pay differently) at different rates as a result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you solve the "problem" of women being less aggressive about getting pay raises?

Calibration sessions before compensation decisions are finalized.

 

How do you solve the "problem" of men and women having different sets of abilities and interests and naturally filtering into different markets (which pay differently) at different rates as a result?

Irrelevant since the gap persists even when job type is controlled for and competence/skill is equivalent.

[mp][/mp]

I'm not clear about how being "less aggressive about getting pay raises" explains a 7% wage gap in one's first year on the job.

If this idea has merit, then it's related to negotiation before accepting the job. If that's the explanation, then the solution is to acknowledge that JobX requires SkillsA,B,C and Pays x dollars. Essentially, end negotiation. If you want this job, it pays this much. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/21/the-best-way-to-way-to-eliminate-the-gender-pay-gap-ban-salary-negotiations/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not clear about how being "less aggressive about getting pay raises" explains a 7% wage gap in one's first year on the job.

 

I made a mistake there, luckily iNow added an explanation.

 

Calibration sessions before compensation decisions are finalized.

 

I would be able to support a change like this.

 

You could even test it. Have one state add this rule and apply it to all businesses. Track the economic effects of the change in law. If the it has neutral or positive economic effects, begin broadening the law to the surrounding states until it becomes universal.

 

Irrelevant since the gap persists even when job type is controlled for and competence/skill is equivalent.

 

It is not irrelevant because we are talking about 22-23% (raw wage gap) vs 5-7% (same job but different pay rate).

 

I can support calibration sessions because that sounds reasonable and it appears like it could resolve that last 5-7% disparity.

 

On the other hand, I cannot support any effort to have equality of outcome in terms how men and women filter into different job markets, which affects the raw wage gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not irrelevant because...

It may not have been intentional, but you're just moving the goal posts.

 

You said the wage gap may be the result of women going into different professions. Let me remind you of the part I quoted, the part to which I was responding:

How do you solve the "problem" of men and women having different sets of abilities and interests and naturally filtering into different markets (which pay differently) at different rates as a result?

That misses the point that the gap persists even when you control for different career paths. It persists when you control for different interests. It persists when you control for skill level and competence. Same job. Same ability. Different pay.

 

It can't be explained away, whether the gap is an appalling 23% or the still horrible 7%.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not have been intentional, but you're just moving the goal posts.

 

Nope, I am recognizing that there are two different goal posts.

 

One goal post is the raw wage gap, 22-23% difference in overall pay. 15-16% of this is driven by the fact that men filter into higher paying occupations. This 15-16% can only be solved by ousting men from construction and STEM jobs and replacing them with women on the basis of sex and not their respective ability to perform the job, which would have a significant negative effect on society.

 

5-7% difference in the raw wage gap is due to men and women being paid differently for doing the same job. This can easily be solved through compensation calibration, which I agree with.

 

I have to ask, in order to solve the final 15-16% of the raw wage gap which is driven by men and women filtering into industries that pay differently, are you okay with forcibly removing men from higher paying STEM and construction jobs and replacing them with women on the basis of sex in order to solve this proposed "problem"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask, in order to solve the final 15-16% of the raw wage gap which is driven by men and women filtering into industries that pay differently, are you okay with forcibly removing men from higher paying STEM and construction jobs...

Did you bother reading the thread? It's be simpler if I could avoid repeating myself, but: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88627-heres-what-the-gender-pay-gap-looks-like/?p=864035

Also: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88627-heres-what-the-gender-pay-gap-looks-like/?p=864402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I went through and read every single article in your second link. Two of them relied on the raw wage gap, so they can be ignored as they are purposely obfuscating data to push a political agenda.

 

The Bloomberg study did not, but within the article they admitted that they did not know whether or not it was discrimination driving the difference in pay.

 

The solutions presented in your first post only address the 5-7% difference in pay that occurs between men and women within the same positions.

 

What I am asking you to address is the 15-16% difference within the raw wage gap that occurs because men filter into higher paying occupations than women. You have only presented one solution in your first post, which was raising the minimum wage.

 

None of your other solutions address the 15-16% difference in the raw wage gap that occurs because men filter into higher paying occupations than women.

 

If you don't want to address it that's okay, what I am trying to point out here is that it is disingenuous to say that the wage gap is 22-23% when in fact there is only a 5-7% difference when you compare men and women side by side within the same occupation.

 

Edit: I cleaned up my post.

Edited by Capayan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.