The Gender Wage Gap - What is it?

[Mr.Samsa]

Honestly, I don't care much for you passive-aggressive bullshit, like this little comment of yours. And of course, you led off with the "and did you even read the report..." nonsense. Horse shit nonsense. Why make such silly comments? I mean, it's a discussion -- if you happened to be right, then great. You've established a position, and backed it up with a winning argument, and maybe persuaded someone to your position. Why insult, by insinuating your opposition isn't just wrong, but deliberately so (by not reading the article) or stupid because their argument seems as if they haven't read the article? And, then closing with the "if no scientific articles are forthcoming...." -- yes yes, dictate the manner of the retort, why don't you? Nanana boo boo.

There's no passive aggressiveness there as I'm not taking subtle indirect jabs, I was just explicitly laying out what needs to happen for this discussion to go forwards. If you like, since I was so direct in explaining what needed to happen you could say I was being "aggressive aggressive", but since there was no hostility that wouldn't really make much sense. The point is that in my initial comment I explained that we needed scientific studies for this discussion to be worthwhile - I don't know about you but I don't like wasting time on the internet as people tell me their pure unevidenced opinion. If I wanted to listen to someone speculate about facts they know nothing about then I'd sign up to the Sam Harris podcast or something. Instead of giving me articles you just referenced more videos, so what was I supposed to do? Just end the discussion because you had no evidence to present? I could, I guess, but I thought it was better to give you a chance before I left.

As for the question about you reading the article, again there was no passive aggressiveness there as I was directly asking you - had you read the report? I ask because the report contradicts the claim you were making, so it seemed strange that you referenced it. If you're happy using the report that contradicts you, without attempting to qualify or explain how the data somehow supports you, then that's fine but it seems odd to me given that you're basically just chucking more evidence on my pile.

In any case --

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf "the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

I agree, the CONSAD report is indeed one of the best studies on the wage gap. That's why I linked and quoted it above, since it supports my claim. I have to ask, did you read this report? (Now that's an example of passive aggressiveness, see?). It concludes that there is a significant difference even when we account for all the other factors.

So, the 77 cents FOR THE SAME WORK figure is a complete and total myth. It's advanced in order to lobby or protest for "corrective action" which the Department of Labor's report plainly says IS NOT WARRANTED. President Obama reiterate the bogus claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar FOR THE SAME WORK, and yet his own Labor Secretary -- a member of the President's Cabinet (closest advisers) has known that it is not true for years.

77c for the same work is not a complete myth, it's an important figure and depends how it's qualified. For example, when Obama says it he uses it in reference to full-time work, which is entirely correct. This is why I asked if you can find anyone actually using the 77 figure as a measure of the adjusted wage gap but I assume you can't otherwise you would have referenced it.

If there is a few percentage point difference in the numbers, then it still does not warrant the continued use of the 77 cent figure, which has been debunked. Moreover, we -- quite simply -- have no good evidence to show that any remaining 5% figure is a result of sex discrimination in the workplace.

The 77% figure has not been "debunked", it's called the unadjusted wage gap and is still an important measure of discriminatory effects (as discussed in the first article I linked you to above). Secondly, we have extremely good evidence that the 5-8% figure is a result of discrimination given that we've ruled out all known variables and we have direct experimental evidence (like the kind I linked above) which gives us similar estimates of differences as a result of discrimination.

Some of the information you posted relates to the whole idea that the underlying system is sexist, undervaluing professions women go into -- like, administrative assistants and nurses are underpaid in relation to professions that males tend to dominate. The material you posted there is speculative, and nonspecific. It just makes it impossible for anything not to be sexist -- the entire underlying system is sexist and so no matter what women are downtrodden. The only reason secretaries are paid as little as they are is because mostly women went into the profession. And, engineers are paid more because it's mostly male. If that's the argument being made, then there is no argument or debate possible. There's no way to counter that, and no way to prove it. It's an unfalsifiable claim.

Well it's undeniable that the underlying system is sexist, the question has to be the degree to which it's sexist (unless we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that sexism is over!). We do have some direct evidence here though in the fact that when women entered the workplace we saw gender differences in different fields emerge, and so fields that were previously highly respected and well-paid like teaching and nursing, were now considered almost lowly and undervalued when dominated by women. To add to that, we find that when men enter those fields despite being a statistical minority, they often significantly outearn their female counterparts.

On top of all that, we have basic experimental research on things like implicit associations and stereotypes, and discrimination in general, which just further adds to our understanding of how something being associated with women causes it to go down in value or estimation.

[Forty Two]

Honestly, I don't care much for you passive-aggressive bullshit, like this little comment of yours. And of course, you led off with the "and did you even read the report..." nonsense. Horse shit nonsense. Why make such silly comments? I mean, it's a discussion -- if you happened to be right, then great. You've established a position, and backed it up with a winning argument, and maybe persuaded someone to your position. Why insult, by insinuating your opposition isn't just wrong, but deliberately so (by not reading the article) or stupid because their argument seems as if they haven't read the article? And, then closing with the "if no scientific articles are forthcoming...." -- yes yes, dictate the manner of the retort, why don't you? Nanana boo boo.

There's no passive aggressiveness there as I'm not taking subtle indirect jabs, I was just explicitly laying out what needs to happen for this discussion to go forwards.

You place an unjustified importance on your own participation in the discussion. Piss off, if you don't feel the discussion ought to go forward.

If you like, since I was so direct in explaining what needed to happen you could say I was being "aggressive aggressive", but since there was no hostility that wouldn't really make much sense. The point is that in my initial comment I explained that we needed scientific studies for this discussion to be worthwhile - I don't know about you but I don't like wasting time on the internet as people tell me their pure unevidenced opinion.

My opinion was not "unevidenced" as the videos I postedcontain citations to authority, and I have posted other links. And, I have linked to at least one paper from the US Department of Labor.

If I wanted to listen to someone speculate about facts they know nothing about then I'd sign up to the Sam Harris podcast or something. Instead of giving me articles you just referenced more videos, so what was I supposed to do? Just end the discussion because you had no evidence to present? I could, I guess, but I thought it was better to give you a chance before I left.

You could discuss the topic, without smarmy little comments about how you think I did not read the paper.

As for the question about you reading the article, again there was no passive aggressiveness there as I was directly asking you - had you read the report?

Yes, of course I did. Did you?

I ask because the report contradicts the claim you were making,

Not the report from the Department of Labor, which flat out says exactly what I said, and I quoted it.

so it seemed strange that you referenced it. If you're happy using the report that contradicts you, without attempting to qualify or explain how the data somehow supports you, then that's fine but it seems odd to me given that you're basically just chucking more evidence on my pile.

It doesn't contradict me. It contradicts the assertion that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work. That figure is a myth, sold as truth.

In any case --

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/G ... Report.pdf "the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

I agree, the CONSAD report is indeed one of the best studies on the wage gap. That's why I linked and quoted it above, since it supports my claim. I have to ask, did you read this report? (Now that's an example of passive aggressiveness, see?). It concludes that there is a significant difference even when we account for all the other factors.

I did, which is why I cited it and quoted it. It says that the difference in compensation of men and women are almost entirely the result of individual choices, and there may be nothing to correct and the raw wage gap should not be used to justify corrective action. In other words, women are NOT paid 77 cents on the dollar for comparable work. Period. That study supports my position.

So, the 77 cents FOR THE SAME WORK figure is a complete and total myth. It's advanced in order to lobby or protest for "corrective action" which the Department of Labor's report plainly says IS NOT WARRANTED. President Obama reiterate the bogus claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar FOR THE SAME WORK, and yet his own Labor Secretary -- a member of the President's Cabinet (closest advisers) has known that it is not true for years.

77c for the same work is not a complete myth,

According to the paper you keep asking if I read, it is.

it's an important figure and depends how it's qualified.

No, because 77 cents on the dollar is NOT for the "same work," and nothing in any figures in any "scientific study" shows women earning only 77 cents on the dollar for the same work.

For example, when Obama says it he uses it in reference to full-time work, which is entirely correct.

No he does not, but even if he meant that, it is not "entirely correct." It's not even close to correct. Because "same work" or "same job" does not mean just "wages earned by women working full time divided by wages earned by men working full time."

This is why I asked if you can find anyone actually using the 77 figure as a measure of the adjusted wage gap but I assume you can't otherwise you would have referenced it.

Yes, pretty much every feminist, and politician foisting the figure.

Did you see the campaign where feminist groups had little girls using foul language? They claimed women were paid

Here is Mika Brzezinksi on MSNBC -- At exactly 31 seconds in, she says "because, of course, women get paid 77 cents on the dollar that men earn FOR THE SAME EXACT JOBS." This is a woman who claims to have worked on the issue for a long time.

Here at 30 seconds in, the F*CKH8 campaign says the same thing "women earn 23% less than men FOR THE EXACT SAME FUCKING WORK." Um.... no, that is not fucking true. It's false.


Bake sale illustrates mythical 77 cent pay gap for the same work:
http://fox13now.com/2015/03/17/bake-sal ... -wage-gap/

Obama - "Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns....in the 21st century, it's an embarrassment -- women deserve equal pay for equal work." No reference here to "full time" workers only.

If there is a few percentage point difference in the numbers, then it still does not warrant the continued use of the 77 cent figure, which has been debunked. Moreover, we -- quite simply -- have no good evidence to show that any remaining 5% figure is a result of sex discrimination in the workplace.

The 77% figure has not been "debunked",

Of course it has -- the claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work is false. it is bunk.

it's called the unadjusted wage gap and is still an important measure of discriminatory effects (as discussed in the first article I linked you to above).

Women are not paid only 77 cents on the dollar for the "exact same work" or the "same job" or the "same work" or for "equal work." The persistent claim that they do is false. At most it's about 5%, and EVEN THAT 5% has not been established as being discrimination based on sex (according to the DOL study).

Secondly, we have extremely good evidence that the 5-8% figure is a result of discrimination given that we've ruled out all known variables and we have direct experimental evidence (like the kind I linked above) which gives us similar estimates of differences as a result of discrimination.

Even if that were true, assuming for the sake of argument, a 5 cent on the dollar differential is not an "embarrassment," and is not anything close to "women getting paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work" which is the lie that is sold.

It is certainly possible that women are paid about 5%-ish less for the same job and even that is not solidly established, much less the reasons for it.

Some of the information you posted relates to the whole idea that the underlying system is sexist, undervaluing professions women go into -- like, administrative assistants and nurses are underpaid in relation to professions that males tend to dominate. The material you posted there is speculative, and nonspecific. It just makes it impossible for anything not to be sexist -- the entire underlying system is sexist and so no matter what women are downtrodden. The only reason secretaries are paid as little as they are is because mostly women went into the profession. And, engineers are paid more because it's mostly male. If that's the argument being made, then there is no argument or debate possible. There's no way to counter that, and no way to prove it. It's an unfalsifiable claim.

Well it's undeniable that the underlying system is sexist,

Of course that's deniable, at least insofar as sexist to the disadvantage of women. There are sex differences, and as such reality is sexist, as we are a sexually dimorphic species. However, the "underlying system" in the western world provides advantages to women, and men are certainly not legally advantaged. There is no area where western governments preference men, but there are many areas where men are disadvantaged in favor of women as a matter of law.

the question has to be the degree to which it's sexist (unless we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that sexism is over!). We do have some direct evidence here though in the fact that when women entered the workplace we saw gender differences in different fields emerge,

women in their 20s outearn men in their 20s. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... ies-gop-p/ And, that's because women in their 20s are now better educated than men, as women represent about 60% of the student enrollment on college campuses.

and so fields that were previously highly respected and well-paid like teaching and nursing, were now considered almost lowly and undervalued when dominated by women.

What was the relative pay of teachers before women dominated the field? Is your argument that "back in the day" the male dominated teaching profession was a highly paid, highly sought after job?

To add to that, we find that when men enter those fields despite being a statistical minority, they often significantly outearn their female counterparts.

Can you cite to the proof? There are often reasons for men outearning women in given jobs because men tend to work longer hours than women, among other things.

On top of all that, we have basic experimental research on things like implicit associations and stereotypes, and discrimination in general, which just further adds to our understanding of how something being associated with women causes it to go down in value or estimation.

However, that doesn't seem to stop women outearning men from the age of 18 to 30. And, it doesn't seem to result in women ACTUALLY receiving less money for the same work, generally speaking. There obviously are instances where it happens, but overall, the "actual" gender wage gap is at most a few percentage points, and it is not clear what that is attributable to.

however, what is clear is that to say "women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work, or the same job," is false. Do you agree?

[Mr.Samsa]

You place an unjustified importance on your own participation in the discussion. Piss off, if you don't feel the discussion ought to go forward.

I'm talking about "this discussion" between you and me. Maybe I'm overestimating my importance in being one half of a discussion between two people but if you feel that the discussion could proceed without me then I suppose it would just confirm that you're not actually reading and responding to the things I say. And I haven't said anything about whether the discussion "ought" to go forward. I want it to go forward, it's a topic I know a lot about and I am happy to educate others on. My point was a practical one; that is, it can't go forward if I'm the only one presenting evidence.

If you like, since I was so direct in explaining what needed to happen you could say I was being "aggressive aggressive", but since there was no hostility that wouldn't really make much sense. The point is that in my initial comment I explained that we needed scientific studies for this discussion to be worthwhile - I don't know about you but I don't like wasting time on the internet as people tell me their pure unevidenced opinion.

My opinion was not "unevidenced" as the videos I postedcontain citations to authority, and I have posted other links. And, I have linked to at least one paper from the US Department of Labor.

Then cite those relevant papers from the videos. The one you mentioned contradicted your claim, as did the CONSAD study.

If I wanted to listen to someone speculate about facts they know nothing about then I'd sign up to the Sam Harris podcast or something. Instead of giving me articles you just referenced more videos, so what was I supposed to do? Just end the discussion because you had no evidence to present? I could, I guess, but I thought it was better to give you a chance before I left.

You could discuss the topic, without smarmy little comments about how you think I did not read the paper.

I am discussing the topic. I explained how and why the paper contradicted your position, and you've refused to respond except saying that you've cited the paper. What else am I suppose to do but check that you've actually read it?

As for the question about you reading the article, again there was no passive aggressiveness there as I was directly asking you - had you read the report?

Yes, of course I did. Did you?

Yes, that's how I was able to explain to you why it contradicted your claim. You need to defend yourself here, you can't just say "Yes I've read it!" and just ignore the fact that it contradicts you.

I ask because the report contradicts the claim you were making,

Not the report from the Department of Labor, which flat out says exactly what I said, and I quoted it.

It contradicts you, as I quoted.

so it seemed strange that you referenced it. If you're happy using the report that contradicts you, without attempting to qualify or explain how the data somehow supports you, then that's fine but it seems odd to me given that you're basically just chucking more evidence on my pile.

It doesn't contradict me. It contradicts the assertion that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work. That figure is a myth, sold as truth.

It describes the difference between the unadjusted wage gap and the adjusted wage gap, it doesn't "debunk" it. At best you can argue that the CONSAD paper is pessimistic about our ability to tease out discriminatory effects from these studies, but the experimental research and the other wage gap study I presented explain why this tentativeness is mistaken.

I agree, the CONSAD report is indeed one of the best studies on the wage gap. That's why I linked and quoted it above, since it supports my claim. I have to ask, did you read this report? (Now that's an example of passive aggressiveness, see?). It concludes that there is a significant difference even when we account for all the other factors.

I did, which is why I cited it and quoted it. It says that the difference in compensation of men and women are almost entirely the result of individual choices, and there may be nothing to correct and the raw wage gap should not be used to justify corrective action. In other words, women are NOT paid 77 cents on the dollar for comparable work. Period. That study supports my position.

You said that the unadjusted wage gap is a "myth" (which is not supported by the paper), and you stated that the differences practically disappear (which is not supported by the paper which concludes a difference of 5-8%).

77c for the same work is not a complete myth,

According to the paper you keep asking if I read, it is.

The paper describes the unadjusted wage gap and at no point claims that it is a myth. You should read the first paper I posted (or at least the quoted section) to understand why.

it's an important figure and depends how it's qualified.

No, because 77 cents on the dollar is NOT for the "same work," and nothing in any figures in any "scientific study" shows women earning only 77 cents on the dollar for the same work.

The "same work" includes full-time work, which is often the claim being made.

For example, when Obama says it he uses it in reference to full-time work, which is entirely correct.

No he does not, but even if he meant that, it is not "entirely correct." It's not even close to correct. Because "same work" or "same job" does not mean just "wages earned by women working full time divided by wages earned by men working full time."

He does and that is entirely correct. He says "women deserve equal pay for equal work" in reference to the wage gap looking at fulltime salaries.

This is why I asked if you can find anyone actually using the 77 figure as a measure of the adjusted wage gap but I assume you can't otherwise you would have referenced it.

Yes, pretty much every feminist, and politician foisting the figure.

Did you see the campaign where feminist groups had little girls using foul language? They claimed women were paid

Here is Mika Brzezinksi on MSNBC -- At exactly 31 seconds in, she says "because, of course, women get paid 77 cents on the dollar that men earn FOR THE SAME EXACT JOBS." This is a woman who claims to have worked on the issue for a long time.

Yes, the same exact fulltime jobs. The video cuts off before she can clarify and expand on her statement, do you have the rest?

Here at 30 seconds in, the F*CKH8 campaign says the same thing "women earn 23% less than men FOR THE EXACT SAME FUCKING WORK." Um.... no, that is not fucking true. It's false.

Again, same exact work - fulltime jobs.

Bake sale illustrates mythical 77 cent pay gap for the same work:
http://fox13now.com/2015/03/17/bake-sal ... -wage-gap/

But that's statement is true, as a woman they will be paid 77c what a man is. That's the unadjusted wage gap.

Obama - "Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns....in the 21st century, it's an embarrassment -- women deserve equal pay for equal work." No reference here to "full time" workers only.

Yes, equal work - fulltime work.

It seems that your outrage here is over a semantic issue?

The 77% figure has not been "debunked",

Of course it has -- the claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work is false. it is bunk.

No, it's called the unadjusted wage gap, it's currently used by scientists as an excellent measure of inequality and disparity. You should read the study I presented in my first comment.

it's called the unadjusted wage gap and is still an important measure of discriminatory effects (as discussed in the first article I linked you to above).

Women are not paid only 77 cents on the dollar for the "exact same work" or the "same job" or the "same work" or for "equal work." The persistent claim that they do is false. At most it's about 5%, and EVEN THAT 5% has not been established as being discrimination based on sex (according to the DOL study).

The exact same work refers to fulltime work, but the 5% is established as discrimination. The DOL study is being cautious because they aren't including the experimental research that I've linked to, and they aren't accounting for the other factors that my first study accounts for.

Secondly, we have extremely good evidence that the 5-8% figure is a result of discrimination given that we've ruled out all known variables and we have direct experimental evidence (like the kind I linked above) which gives us similar estimates of differences as a result of discrimination.

Even if that were true, assuming for the sake of argument, a 5 cent on the dollar differential is not an "embarrassment," and is not anything close to "women getting paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work" which is the lie that is sold.

It's hugely embarrassing for someone to be paid nearly 10% less than men for doing the exact same work...

It is certainly possible that women are paid about 5%-ish less for the same job and even that is not solidly established, much less the reasons for it.

It is solidly established that the adjusted wage gap is at least 5% and that the reasons are discrimination. See the studies I've linked to.

Well it's undeniable that the underlying system is sexist,

Of course that's deniable, at least insofar as sexist to the disadvantage of women. There are sex differences, and as such reality is sexist, as we are a sexually dimorphic species. However, the "underlying system" in the western world provides advantages to women, and men are certainly not legally advantaged. There is no area where western governments preference men, but there are many areas where men are disadvantaged in favor of women as a matter of law.

Haha oh man, I really hope your examples of men being "disadvantaged" from the law include criminal sentences and custody battles!

To explain, I'm a little excited because those areas also include unadjusted and adjusted rates. If you use the disparity in sentences as an example of disadvantages for men then, using your logic, I get to call your claims "myths" (except the difference is that with those cases the adjusted gaps literally reduce to zero, as in there are no disadvantages for men there).

the question has to be the degree to which it's sexist (unless we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that sexism is over!). We do have some direct evidence here though in the fact that when women entered the workplace we saw gender differences in different fields emerge,

women in their 20s outearn men in their 20s. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... ies-gop-p/ And, that's because women in their 20s are now better educated than men, as women represent about 60% of the student enrollment on college campuses.

That's only true in some fields in large cities, not as a general statement. And yes, part of this is the result of progress but it's also partly a result of statistical noise; that is, men and women both earn little when starting their careers and the largest gap occurs later in life. So finding that the difference might be smaller, or in some rare cases reversed, at times when the gap was already small, isn't really evidence for anything.

and so fields that were previously highly respected and well-paid like teaching and nursing, were now considered almost lowly and undervalued when dominated by women.

What was the relative pay of teachers before women dominated the field? Is your argument that "back in the day" the male dominated teaching profession was a highly paid, highly sought after job?

It was definitely a very respectable field with decent pay. [It started to become female-dominated around the 60s-70s, and 1970 is when the pay of teachers stagnated and didn't rise (except for inflation).

To add to that, we find that when men enter those fields despite being a statistical minority, they often significantly outearn their female counterparts.

Can you cite to the proof? There are often reasons for men outearning women in given jobs because men tend to work longer hours than women, among other things.

Nope, the adjusted gap still exists in these professions, for example here and here.

On top of all that, we have basic experimental research on things like implicit associations and stereotypes, and discrimination in general, which just further adds to our understanding of how something being associated with women causes it to go down in value or estimation.

However, that doesn't seem to stop women outearning men from the age of 18 to 30. And, it doesn't seem to result in women ACTUALLY receiving less money for the same work, generally speaking. There obviously are instances where it happens, but overall, the "actual" gender wage gap is at most a few percentage points, and it is not clear what that is attributable to.

The young age group in big cities in certain professions is irrelevant for the reasons I mention above, but again you're focusing on semantics - the same work is fulltime work. And 5-8% is not "a few cents".

however, what is clear is that to say "women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work, or the same job," is false. Do you agree?

It's not false, it depends on context. The problem is that you're so obsessed with believing that sexism doesn't exist any more that you ignore the fact that, for example, female-dominated careers are valued less and paid less. So the only real "sexism" you'd accept is if people working the exact same jobs, at the same companies, with the same names, same hours, same family life, etc etc, are paid different - and even then you seem to be arguing that we don't have enough evidence to call it discrimination despite the fact that these studies are telling you that the gap exists.

So for most people the relevant statistic is one about fulltime work, as that's the "exact same work" or "exact same job".

[Forty Two]

You place an unjustified importance on your own participation in the discussion. Piss off, if you don't feel the discussion ought to go forward.

I'm talking about "this discussion" between you and me. Maybe I'm overestimating my importance in being one half of a discussion between two people but if you feel that the discussion could proceed without me then I suppose it would just confirm that you're not actually reading and responding to the things I say.

It's not a discussion between just you and me. It's a thread with many participants.

And I haven't said anything about whether the discussion "ought" to go forward. I want it to go forward, it's a topic I know a lot about and I am happy to educate others on. My point was a practical one; that is, it can't go forward if I'm the only one presenting evidence.

You haven't been the only one presenting evidence. You are falsely claiming that I am not presenting evidence. Please stop doing that, if you wouldn't mind. If you feel that what I'm presenting is insufficient evidence, fine. Discuss it. But, hand waving and pretending I've offered no evidence is just false.

If you like, since I was so direct in explaining what needed to happen you could say I was being "aggressive aggressive", but since there was no hostility that wouldn't really make much sense. The point is that in my initial comment I explained that we needed scientific studies for this discussion to be worthwhile - I don't know about you but I don't like wasting time on the internet as people tell me their pure unevidenced opinion.

My opinion was not "unevidenced" as the videos I postedcontain citations to authority, and I have posted other links. And, I have linked to at least one paper from the US Department of Labor.

Then cite those relevant papers from the videos. The one you mentioned contradicted your claim, as did the CONSAD study.

This is getting ridiculous. The ones I mentioned did not contradict my claim, and the CONSAD study supported my claim.

Look -- is it true that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same job as a man does? Yes or no. is that a true statement. Obviously, it's not, and CONSAD says so. It is not true. Yet, as noted in the links I've provided, that falsity is propounded by those even as high up as the President of the US, and by many feminist activists.

If I wanted to listen to someone speculate about facts they know nothing about then I'd sign up to the Sam Harris podcast or something. Instead of giving me articles you just referenced more videos, so what was I supposed to do? Just end the discussion because you had no evidence to present? I could, I guess, but I thought it was better to give you a chance before I left.

You could discuss the topic, without smarmy little comments about how you think I did not read the paper.

I am discussing the topic. I explained how and why the paper contradicted your position, and you've refused to respond except saying that you've cited the paper. What else am I suppose to do but check that you've actually read it?

And, I've QUOTED the paper, and that QUOTE precisely supports my position. You have refused to respond except by saying that you've "explained" how it contradicts me. It doesn't contradict me. What else am I supposed to do but check that YOU'VE actually read it?

The 77 cents on the dollar figure for the same job is not correct. It's false. The CONSAD paper states that at most, the difference in the same fields/roughly the same job is 5% or so, and that even that difference can be explained by things other than discrimination based on sex. It's not certain, of course, and perhaps more study is needed. But, one thing we know for sure is that saying that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for doing the "exact same work" (queue Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC and 100 other feminist sources, etc.) is flat out false.

As for the question about you reading the article, again there was no passive aggressiveness there as I was directly asking you - had you read the report?

Yes, of course I did. Did you?

Yes, that's how I was able to explain to you why it contradicted your claim. You need to defend yourself here, you can't just say "Yes I've read it!" and just ignore the fact that it contradicts you.

How can I do more than quote the study where it says that the difference in overall incomes is "almost entirely" explained by factors other than sex discrimination? It says so in the CONSAD report.

I ask because the report contradicts the claim you were making,

Not the report from the Department of Labor, which flat out says exactly what I said, and I quoted it.

It contradicts you, as I quoted.

It supports me, as I quoted. What you claim to be a contradiction is not a contradiction.

so it seemed strange that you referenced it. If you're happy using the report that contradicts you, without attempting to qualify or explain how the data somehow supports you, then that's fine but it seems odd to me given that you're basically just chucking more evidence on my pile.

It doesn't contradict me. It contradicts the assertion that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work. That figure is a myth, sold as truth.

It describes the difference between the unadjusted wage gap and the adjusted wage gap, it doesn't "debunk" it.

It shows that women are not paid only 77 cents on the dollar for the same work. It debunks the false claim that women are underpaid for the same job like that. Christ -- I never fucking said that it debunks that the overall wages of women divided by the overall wages of men is 77% - of course that's what the report says. It's the fucking assholes selling the notion that women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns for the same job that are selling a myth. It's just not true.

At best you can argue that the CONSAD paper is pessimistic about our ability to tease out discriminatory effects from these studies, but the experimental research and the other wage gap study I presented explain why this tentativeness is mistaken.

If you rely on the CONSAD report, the most you'll get attributable to discrimination based on sex in pay is about 5% ish. Not 23% or anywhere close to that.

I agree, the CONSAD report is indeed one of the best studies on the wage gap. That's why I linked and quoted it above, since it supports my claim. I have to ask, did you read this report? (Now that's an example of passive aggressiveness, see?). It concludes that there is a significant difference even when we account for all the other factors.

I did, which is why I cited it and quoted it. It says that the difference in compensation of men and women are almost entirely the result of individual choices, and there may be nothing to correct and the raw wage gap should not be used to justify corrective action. In other words, women are NOT paid 77 cents on the dollar for comparable work. Period. That study supports my position.

You said that the unadjusted wage gap is a "myth" (which is not supported by the paper), and you stated that the differences practically disappear (which is not supported by the paper which concludes a difference of 5-8%).

No, I never said the "unadjusted" wage gap is a myth. Pay attention. I said that the claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work/job is a myth. And, it is.

The paper itself attributes the unadjusted difference -- and I quote - "almost entirely" to non-discriminatory factors.

I don't have time for the rest.

[Forty Two]

To add on -- comparing full time work to full time work is not comparing the same work. People working the checkout counter at the chemist can work full time, but that's not the same work as a full time plumber.

[JimC]

The tl:dr is strong in this thread...

[Brian Peacock]

In many employment sectors in Australia, such as education, public service, medical etc., wages are set by industrial agreements, with no gender difference involved. I would say that the percentage of jobs where one can negotiate a salary is relatively small. It would not surprise me to find significant gender differences in those cases, for reasons others have already mentioned.
However, in most cases in Oz, if 2 people are doing identical jobs, they should and generally would receive the same income. Being out of the workforce to have children would have the biggest single impact on the average difference in wages between men and women I suspect.

This from the AUS statistics bureau...

National gender pay gap rises to 18.2%
Share/SavePrint
Data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Cat No. 6302.0) shows that the average man working full-time earns 18.2% or $283.20 more than the average full-time working woman.* The average weekly ordinary time earnings of women working full-time were $1,275.90 per week, compared to men who earned an average weekly wage of $1,559.10 per week.

Between November 2013 and May 2014, men’s salaries increased an average $24.90 per week and women’s increased only $7.09.

The figure shows us that, overall, women earn significantly less than men, which has significant impact on their financial security over their lifetimes.
The female-dominated health care and social assistance sector has the highest gender pay gap at 30.7%, followed by financial and insurance services at 30.0% and rental, hiring and real estate services at 29.0%.

https://www.wgea.gov.au/media-releases/ ... -rises-182

[Seth]

In many employment sectors in Australia, such as education, public service, medical etc., wages are set by industrial agreements, with no gender difference involved. I would say that the percentage of jobs where one can negotiate a salary is relatively small. It would not surprise me to find significant gender differences in those cases, for reasons others have already mentioned.
However, in most cases in Oz, if 2 people are doing identical jobs, they should and generally would receive the same income. Being out of the workforce to have children would have the biggest single impact on the average difference in wages between men and women I suspect.

This from the AUS statistics bureau...

National gender pay gap rises to 18.2%
Share/SavePrint
Data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Cat No. 6302.0) shows that the average man working full-time earns 18.2% or $283.20 more than the average full-time working woman.* The average weekly ordinary time earnings of women working full-time were $1,275.90 per week, compared to men who earned an average weekly wage of $1,559.10 per week.

Between November 2013 and May 2014, men’s salaries increased an average $24.90 per week and women’s increased only $7.09.

The figure shows us that, overall, women earn significantly less than men, which has significant impact on their financial security over their lifetimes.
The female-dominated health care and social assistance sector has the highest gender pay gap at 30.7%, followed by financial and insurance services at 30.0% and rental, hiring and real estate services at 29.0%.

https://www.wgea.gov.au/media-releases/ ... -rises-182

The same job description doesn't mean the same amount of work is done. Unless the pay rate is different based on sex, which is illegal, any difference in net income can be explained by gender norms. In short women overall do not work as long or hard as men do for very good biological reasons, including a higher likelihood of needing medical care due to plumbing, time off due to plumbing, and child rearing.

[Hermit]

The same job description doesn't mean the same amount of work is done.

Correct, but the statistics provided by the ABS look at remuneration in cases where the same amount of work is done.

In short women overall do not work as long or hard as men do for very good biological reasons, including a higher likelihood of needing medical care due to plumbing, time off due to plumbing, and child rearing.

As above. It also needs to be mentioned that in Australia sick leave is paid at the same rate as the ordinary wage rate and absence due to child rearing can be managed in two ways: Firstly, by having the male take 50% of the work involved in child rearing. Secondly, creches at work. My youngest sister owned and ran a business for over two decades with 25 employees. In that time she missed two weeks on account of giving birth to two daughters (both by caesarian section). Being owner and boss she had no difficulty in establishing an on-site creche. She also has a husband who carried pretty much an equal load of the child-rearing tasks even though he owned and ran a separate business himself.

I venture to say that if men were capable of becoming pregnant arrangement like theirs would be commonplace rather than the exception and even the unadjusted wage disparity would not exist.

[Seth]

The same job description doesn't mean the same amount of work is done.

Correct, but the statistics provided by the ABS look at remuneration in cases where the same amount of work is done.

And thus Mark Twain's famous quote, "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I venture to say that if men were capable of becoming pregnant arrangement like theirs would be commonplace rather than the exception and even the unadjusted wage disparity would not exist.

No, because then we would be women, the weaker sex, and would require protection from our own biology by those who are stronger and more fit for work other than bearing children, cooking meals and cleaning house in their bare feet.

Somebody's got to fight off the cave bears and it ain't the ones with no testosterone generators. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.

The weaker sex, on the other hand, gets to sit around the cave eating bon-bons and watching Oprah while the stronger sex brings home the bearmeat.

[Forty Two]

In many employment sectors in Australia, such as education, public service, medical etc., wages are set by industrial agreements, with no gender difference involved. I would say that the percentage of jobs where one can negotiate a salary is relatively small. It would not surprise me to find significant gender differences in those cases, for reasons others have already mentioned.
However, in most cases in Oz, if 2 people are doing identical jobs, they should and generally would receive the same income. Being out of the workforce to have children would have the biggest single impact on the average difference in wages between men and women I suspect.

This from the AUS statistics bureau...

National gender pay gap rises to 18.2%
Share/SavePrint
Data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Cat No. 6302.0) shows that the average man working full-time earns 18.2% or $283.20 more than the average full-time working woman.* The average weekly ordinary time earnings of women working full-time were $1,275.90 per week, compared to men who earned an average weekly wage of $1,559.10 per week.

Between November 2013 and May 2014, men’s salaries increased an average $24.90 per week and women’s increased only $7.09.

The figure shows us that, overall, women earn significantly less than men, which has significant impact on their financial security over their lifetimes.
The female-dominated health care and social assistance sector has the highest gender pay gap at 30.7%, followed by financial and insurance services at 30.0% and rental, hiring and real estate services at 29.0%.

https://www.wgea.gov.au/media-releases/ ... -rises-182

Does the gap compare employees in the same job?

[Forty Two]

I venture to say that if men were capable of becoming pregnant arrangement like theirs would be commonplace rather than the exception and even the unadjusted wage disparity would not exist.

This is highly unlikely. After all, men get prostate cancer, and yet prostate cancer research gets about 1/2 the money breast cancer research gets. Despite being the most common cancer in men and the fourth most common cancer overall, prostate cancer lies twentieth in the ‘league table’ of annual cancer research spend per case diagnosed. A man's chance of getting cancer is 44% and 23% of men will die from cancer, 38% of women get cancer and 19% die. Yet there is vastly more money spent on cancer for women, this is lethal discrimination.

In the old days, men set up the laws to place a legal obligation on a man to support his wife (even after divorce), but there was traditionally no such obligation for a woman to support her husband.

Men have always been legally obligated to register from the military draft.

Men have traditionally worked in dangerous jobs, such that over 90% of workplace injuries and fatalities are men.

Men are about 3/4 of the violent crime victims, but we don't have a "Violence Against Men Act."

Men are about 2/3 of the homeless, but there are far more resources designated to help homeless and poor women than men.

Men get harsher punishments for the same crimes.

The list goes on and on. The reality is, these kind of "if men got pregnant..." notions are belied by the fact that so much in our society is structured against men. I mean -- if 3/4 of violent crime victims were women, and 2/3 of the homeless were women, and women were sentenced to harsher criminal penalties than men for the same crime, and breast cancer received 1/2 the funding of prostate cancer, and women were 90% of workplace fatalities..... what would would be the social and political/legislative reaction?

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." -Hillary Clinton

[Brian Peacock]

In many employment sectors in Australia, such as education, public service, medical etc., wages are set by industrial agreements, with no gender difference involved. I would say that the percentage of jobs where one can negotiate a salary is relatively small. It would not surprise me to find significant gender differences in those cases, for reasons others have already mentioned.
However, in most cases in Oz, if 2 people are doing identical jobs, they should and generally would receive the same income. Being out of the workforce to have children would have the biggest single impact on the average difference in wages between men and women I suspect.

This from the AUS statistics bureau...

National gender pay gap rises to 18.2%
Share/SavePrint
Data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Cat No. 6302.0) shows that the average man working full-time earns 18.2% or $283.20 more than the average full-time working woman.* The average weekly ordinary time earnings of women working full-time were $1,275.90 per week, compared to men who earned an average weekly wage of $1,559.10 per week.

Between November 2013 and May 2014, men’s salaries increased an average $24.90 per week and women’s increased only $7.09.

The figure shows us that, overall, women earn significantly less than men, which has significant impact on their financial security over their lifetimes.
The female-dominated health care and social assistance sector has the highest gender pay gap at 30.7%, followed by financial and insurance services at 30.0% and rental, hiring and real estate services at 29.0%.

https://www.wgea.gov.au/media-releases/ ... -rises-182

The same job description doesn't mean the same amount of work is done. Unless the pay rate is different based on sex, which is illegal, any difference in net income can be explained by gender norms. In short women overall do not work as long or hard as men do for very good biological reasons, including a higher likelihood of needing medical care due to plumbing, time off due to plumbing, and child rearing.

You really shouldn't take the 'Post Bollocks' on the submit button quite so literally.

[Hermit]

And thus Mark Twain's famous quote, "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Firstly, Twain wrote "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Secondly, he himself attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli, though that attribution is questionable. Thirdly, "While it is easy to lie with statistics, it is even easier to lie without them." (Mosteller, attrib.) I note your preference is to take the easier route.

[Hermit]

men get prostate cancer, and yet prostate cancer research gets about 1/2 the money breast cancer research gets.

Sounds reasonable. Almost twice the number of deaths in the USA are due to breast cancer compared to prostate cancer, and that is despite a steep drop in breast cancer fatalities since around 2002.

In the old days, men set up the laws to place a legal obligation on a man to support his wife (even after divorce), but there was traditionally no such obligation for a woman to support her husband.

Men have always been legally obligated to register from the military draft.

Men have traditionally worked in dangerous jobs, such that over 90% of workplace injuries and fatalities are men.

Men are about 3/4 of the violent crime victims, but we don't have a "Violence Against Men Act."

Men are about 2/3 of the homeless, but there are far more resources designated to help homeless and poor women than men.

Men get harsher punishments for the same crimes.

The list goes on and on.

I've heard recitations of the list of woeful things men have to endure so often, it's coming out of my ears. All I'll to say is that is the hangover from the bad old patriarchal days.