Wage gap?

[Gelston]

OMG, here is a study from Stanford.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi...r_research.pdf

Here is Wikipedia, read that article. No decrease, even though MORE women are getting college degrees than men...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

Do I need to go on? Because there are tons of places that have a lot more research than the guy in that video.

[Grey]

Good God the shitty armchair economists. Lol this thread.

[Latrinsorm]

Wait, what? I distinctly recall several occasions where I've said social pressure is more effective than legislation, and you've blown it off. I'm sure those posts are now edited, so whatever. Glad to see you're on my side.

A couple things here.

1. How do you categorize "robust government enforcement" as social pressure rather than legislation?
2. "those posts are now edited"? You didn't even try to look for corroborating data, don't play it off like I hid it from you.

Really? Enlighten me.

It's not intuited, it's measured and calculated. Everything empirical is. To you the only thing that matters is intelligence, and so research and finding data is irrelevant: you use "margin of error" the same way you'd identify a logical fallacy. It is the dark legacy of Aristotle, one we as a species will someday shake but not today.

[drauz]

Found this thread so I'll continue here

I'm struggling a bit here with whether you're misunderstanding my argument or you're misunderstanding the argument the authors of the Harvard piece are making. The paper and I are arguing more or less the same thing. But they're not providing evidence of most of what you're trying to say.

First, the authors *never* argued that women were choosing "people" professions over "things" professions- that's abjectly false. There is no research, to my knowledge, that supports that because "People vs things" is an inaccurate way to demarcate jobs. And the notion that women "Just happen" to be choosing fields that pay less than men is actually rather offensive and- more importantly- completely outside the scope of the research.

The authors are actually very careful to point out that they're not trying to address occupational sex segregation. In fact, they specifically chose to look at men and women in the same, highly unionized position (which makes it far more difficult for employers to directly pay women less than men) so they could control for that variable as much as possible

Ultimately, the authors are making two very important points (both of which are ones I made):
1) Even if you try to control for same job, same theoretical pay, etc. women are still being paid less (which is not captured in studies of the gender pay gap typically)
2) At least one of the significant reasons for this is that women are constrained by their outsized responsibility for housework and childcare and have to make different workplace decisions than men, decisions which hamper their careers.


So this is one of those uncomfortable moments where it turns out you googled a little too fast, and you ended up citing a paper that directly supported my point but refuted part of your argument and simply didn't provide any support for the rest.

Given this is very off topic though, feel free to make a new thread. I'll reply to subsequent posts there if you want to continue the conversation.

1) The study doesn't say that at all. Anyone can jump right to the conclusion and see thats not what it says.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/
The gap of $0.89 in our setting, which is 60% of the earnings gap across the United States, can be explained entirely by the fact that, while having the same choice sets in the workplace, women and men make different choices. Women use the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to take more unpaid time off than men and they work fewer overtime hours at 1.5 times the wage rate. At the root of these different choices is the fact that women value time and flexibility more than men. Men and women choose to work similar hours of overtime when it is scheduled a quarter in advance, but men work nearly twice as many overtime hours than women when they are scheduled the day before. Using W-4 filings to ascertain marital status and the presence of dependents, we show that women with dependents – especially single women – value time away from work more than men with dependents.

2)You either want women to have choices or you don't. You can't have both. If they choose to not take the overtime or routes with more overtime or higher paying routes with weekend shift that is their choice. It seems you want equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. I don't agree with this as a tenable solution.

In regards to people vs things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Fi...er_differences

I should have been clearer that this wasn't from the previously linked study, this is settled science and has been replicated multiple times.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-19763-004
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...015.00189/full

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-conte...-interests.pdf

The present study makes several important contributions to the literature. First, it is the first comprehensive meta-analysis on sex differences in vocational interests. We synthesized evidence from interest inventories over four decades and found large sex differences in vocational interests, with men preferring working with things and women preferring working with people. These sex differences are remarkably consistent across age and over time, providing an exception to the generalization that only small sex differences exist. Second, this study provides a systematic review of the sex differences in the STEM interests that has not previously appeared in the literature. The pattern of sex differences in the STEM interests revealed by the present study closely resembles the composition of men and women in corresponding occupations and contributes to the understanding of the gender disparity in the STEM fields. The results suggest that the relatively low numbers of women in some fields of science and engineering may result from women’s preference for people-oriented careers over things oriented careers.

This is well known science, as a self proclaimed social scientist I am shocked you've never heard about this...

To be crystal clear I am not saying that women are less capable when they choose to go into these fields only that they tend to not be interested in them.

[Blazar]

Found this thread so I'll continue here



1) The study doesn't say that at all. Anyone can jump right to the conclusion and see thats not what it says.


2)You either want women to have choices or you don't. You can't have both. If they choose to not take the overtime or routes with more overtime or higher paying routes with weekend shift that is their choice. It seems you want equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. I don't agree with this as a tenable solution.

In regards to people vs things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Fi...er_differences

I should have been clearer that this wasn't from the previously linked study, this is settled science and has been replicated multiple times.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-19763-004
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...015.00189/full

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-conte...-interests.pdf



This is well known science, as a self proclaimed social scientist I am shocked you've never heard about this...

To be crystal clear I am not saying that women are less capable when they choose to go into these fields only that they tend to not be interested in them.

You realize that every single "source" (well, 4/5 links, with the other just confirming what I am going to say regarding assertiveness and evolution and being the subservient gender for so long) you posted was authored by the same two people, right? Anyone else supporting these claims, or just the two? Because it seems more like they have a theory they are trying to prove.

Obviously women and men have different characteristics and natures, generally speaking, and that is going to determine a lot of trends. However, that is only because of the societal roles that have been played for so long now. Traits like being dominant and confident are what get you paid more. You know... feeling like you are valued and feeling like you are able to ask for more. It's only been recently that women have even been partially considered equal in the work place and told it's okay to do this, and you expect them to just immediately have these traits after hundreds, no, thousands, of years of being forced into subservience? That's simply not how evolution works. Especially not when men are still in the majority of the positions of power.

I'm a single dad, and I enjoy the benefits of a nice salary and flexibility to take care of my kids. It's possible to have both for men, but very rarely for women. I'm not saying the wage gap hasn't improved, but there is so much more that goes into it than you're mentioning and it definitely does exist, you're simply not doing it justice to pretend it doesn't exist. And why is it just the women that need to have choices? More and more, dads are actually being responsible for their children and contributing, staying home when they are sick, etc. Why can those men be more willing to work overtime? Most likely because, if they have kids, they have a wife at home taking care of them. This train of thought you have is pretty antiquated, open your eyes and think about why things are the way they are, not just that they are.

[Tgo01]

And why is it just the women that need to have choices? More and more, dads are actually being responsible for their children and contributing, staying home when they are sick, etc. Why can those men be more willing to work overtime? Most likely because, if they have kids, they have a wife at home taking care of them. This train of thought you have is pretty antiquated, open your eyes and think about why things are the way they are, not just that they are.

What exactly are you arguing? If those men are choosing to stay home to take care of the kids then they are slowing their advancement which means they aren't making as much as men who are putting in the hours to get experience and get promoted. It also means those men would be earning less than woman who are choosing to put in the extra hours and get promotions.

So again what are you saying? We just pay women more for shits and giggles? Life is all about choices. If women in general are choosing to take time off from their career after starting a family then that is a choice no one is making them choose, but we pay them more because of "muh oppression" or what? Do women want to be treated equally or not?

Let's try this again but first you need to follow these steps:

1) Remove your head from your own anus.
2) Collect your thoughts and organize them in a rational and coherent manner.
3) Tone down your rage slightly and type out those thoughts in a way that doesn't just sound like you're trying to hit all of the buzz words and phrases because that's all you can remember from the headlines you read on any given subject you decide to insert yourself into.

[Blazar]

What exactly are you arguing? If those men are choosing to stay home to take care of the kids then they are slowing their advancement which means they aren't making as much as men who are putting in the hours to get experience and get promoted. It also means those men would be earning less than woman who are choosing to put in the extra hours and get promotions.

So again what are you saying? We just pay women more for shits and giggles? Life is all about choices. If women in general are choosing to take time off from their career after starting a family then that is a choice no one is making them choose, but we pay them more because of "muh oppression" or what? Do women want to be treated equally or not?

Let's try this again but first you need to follow these steps:

1) Remove your head from your own anus.
2) Collect your thoughts and organize them in a rational and coherent manner.
3) Tone down your rage slightly and type out those thoughts in a way that doesn't just sound like you're trying to hit all of the buzz words and phrases because that's all you can remember from the headlines you read on any given subject you decide to insert yourself into.

Or you could learn to read and not be a total fucking moron, but hey, who am I to say?

staying home when they are sick, etc.

Women who are working, and getting paid less than men who are also working and doing the same job, is wrong, and that is what is going on. That is what was confirmed in the article Drauz linked. Drauz argued that women are paid less because they need to have more choices, but this is only because of their societal role for so long. And I argued that more and more, men are taking up those responsibilities, but they will not be paid less even though they are afforded those same options. Man you are really fucking dense Tgo. Did you even graduate high school? Can you do anything except drool and watch Fox News? What a pathetic excuse of a person. If you're going to participate, at least try to fucking keep up, reject.

And it's laughable if you think I have any rage at all. I'm high 24/7, and sitting here completely chill. And that post really didn't have any rage anyways, because I actually respect Drauz. Do I think you're an idiot? Yup, most definitely. Do I respect you? Not at all, you simply don't deserve any. You morons wanted to keep being uncivil when I tried to be nice, so I joined you. Enjoy it, you asked for it. It costs me nothing to remind you what a piece of shit you are, and it doesn't make me angry in the slightest.

[Tgo01]

And I argued that more and more, men are taking up those responsibilities, but they will not be paid less even though they are afforded those same options.

Except you're absolutely full of shit. The "wage gap", the one which says women are paid 80 cents on the dollar to a man, just looks at the total of what women earn and the total of what men earn without looking at experience, hours worked, or even careers. When careers are taken into account the "wage gap" shrinks, when experience and hours worked are factored in the "wage gap" almost completely disappears, the remaining can be attributed to men being more willing to negotiate their salary to get more money while women tend to negotiate less and take what is offered to them.

Therefore you are 100% full of fucking shit to suggest a man can decide to take time off from work after starting a family and yet still be paid the same as if he had not taken time off work. He lost those hours, he lost that experience, and will most likely have to put off on that promotion due to him taking time off work.

Man you are really fucking dense Tgo.

New PC drinking game: take a drink every time Blazar says "How dumb can you be?" or some variation thereof, and anytime he acts surprised by something someone said.

DRINK!

And it's laughable if you think I have any rage at all. I'm high 24/7, and sitting here completely chill.

Well you certainly proved how calm and rational you are.

[drauz]

You realize that every single "source" (well, 4/5 links, with the other just confirming what I am going to say regarding assertiveness and evolution and being the subservient gender for so long) you posted was authored by the same two people, right? Anyone else supporting these claims, or just the two? Because it seems more like they have a theory they are trying to prove.

Obviously women and men have different characteristics and natures, generally speaking, and that is going to determine a lot of trends. However, that is only because of the societal roles that have been played for so long now. Traits like being dominant and confident are what get you paid more. You know... feeling like you are valued and feeling like you are able to ask for more. It's only been recently that women have even been partially considered equal in the work place and told it's okay to do this, and you expect them to just immediately have these traits after hundreds, no, thousands, of years of being forced into subservience? That's simply not how evolution works. Especially not when men are still in the majority of the positions of power.

I'm a single dad, and I enjoy the benefits of a nice salary and flexibility to take care of my kids. It's possible to have both for men, but very rarely for women. I'm not saying the wage gap hasn't improved, but there is so much more that goes into it than you're mentioning and it definitely does exist, you're simply not doing it justice to pretend it doesn't exist. And why is it just the women that need to have choices? More and more, dads are actually being responsible for their children and contributing, staying home when they are sick, etc. Why can those men be more willing to work overtime? Most likely because, if they have kids, they have a wife at home taking care of them. This train of thought you have is pretty antiquated, open your eyes and think about why things are the way they are, not just that they are.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...n-stem/553592/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....56797617741719

“Countries with the highest gender equality tend to be welfare states,” they write, “with a high level of social security.” Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose STEM professions because they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing.

When the study authors looked at the “overall life satisfaction” rating of each country—a measure of economic opportunity and hardship—they found that gender-equal countries had more life satisfaction. The life-satisfaction ranking explained 35 percent of the variation between gender equality and women’s participation in STEM. That correlation echoes past research showing that the genders are actually more segregated by field of study in more economically developed places.

The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.

The findings will likely seem controversial, because the idea that men and women have different inherent abilities is used by some to argue that we should forget trying to recruit more women to the STEM fields. But, as Janet Shibley Hyde, a gender-studies professor at the University of Wisconsin who wasn’t involved with the study, put it to me, that’s not quite what’s happening here.

“Some would say that the gender STEM gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.”

Men and women are mostly the same but to really examine the differences you go the extremes, at the high ends it is overwhelmingly male on the side that like "things" and at the other end it is overwhelmingly female for people who like "people".

In regards to other studies:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9569655/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19254079/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19686005/