(May 26, 2016 at 1:31 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 3:41 am)Irrational Wrote: It's a matter of coming up with the most plausible explanation for the unaccounted difference in wage/earnings between both genders. The evidence is that there is, controlling for most other factors that have been considered to contribute to gender differences in this context, still a difference.

Even if that's the case, what you're describing is an earnings gap, not a wage gap. If there were a wage gap, then we would be able to look at the actual, by-the-hour wages and very directly see a disparity between what men make and what women make. Instead, you have people looking at earnings for various periods of time, accounting for as many non-discrimination-related factors as they can, then naming discrimination as the "most plausible" cause for the gap they can't explain. To me, that seems to be an argument from ignorance, once it all shakes out.

It's called Occam's razor. But it isn't even based on just guessing. There is empirical evidence for gender bias/discrimination in work-related settings.

As for wages vs. earnings, that's just red herring.

Quote:Besides, if men and women's wages are the same for the same jobs, but women's average earnings are less, and the reason for that is discrimination, that means the men are paying the women the same wage and then finding some sneaky way to somehow make sure they still don't make as much money in the long run. That is some conspiracy-theory-level illogic right there, not to mention the "how would that even work?" part.

It's not a conspiracy theory because there is no conscious conspiring going on. This is mainly due to gender bias in the context of work performance and quality.

(May 25, 2016 at 11:37 pm)pool the great Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 6:49 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Too many people too casually dismiss the gender pay gap.  The Gender Pay gap is a real problem, like it or not.  And it's one we need to deal with.  We're not going to go away on it, and we absolutely shouldn't.  Just like men aren't going to go away on men getting harsher prison sentences than women, and they shouldn't.  One could, of course, just as casually dismiss that issue as well.  But it shouldn't be so casually dismissed, just as the gender pay gap should not be so casually dismissed.

There are preconceived gender biases that cause things like harsher sentencing for men, and lower pay for women.  Those same biases also present themselves in any number of issues that face both men and women.  To so casually dismiss any of them is to do your own gender, as well as the opposite gender a great disservice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-p...lete-myth/

http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-...yth-2011-3

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/06/ther...qual-work/

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true...o-podcast/


I'm starting to see what the confusion is regarding the subject among many people.

"Gender pay gap" is real and fake, at the same time.
It is real because of the confusing way people interpret evidence.

How a typical person thinks about the subject goes like this:
Is there evidence that shows that women earn less than men? Yes.
Therefore women are discriminated against.
I mean, why wouldn't they be discriminated against? There is clear evidence that shows women earn less than men for the same job.
(This line of reasoning is closely interrelated with the reasoning behind The "Stalin was an atheist" argument.)


Now let me explain why it is fake and misleading:

Imagine a study showing that there are less people from the religion of Buddhism and Islam in top managerial positions?  
Does this prove that there is a discrimination against these religious groups?

Did you know that there are less black people with higher education?  
Does this prove black people are discriminated against in educational institutions?

Imagine a study showing less to no CEO's of software companies working part time for Mc Donalds.
Does this prove CEO's are discriminated against at Mc Donalds?

Imagine a study showing less black people having pools in their house as opposed to white people or Asians.
Does this prove that pool companies are discriminated against black people?

Imagine a study showing less islamists hired as pilots.
Does this show that airline companies are discriminated against islamists?

The problem with these studies that proves wage gap exists is that although they show that women earn less compared to men, it provides 0 correlation as gender being the only factor that affects the earning income. If it did then there is evidence for gender wage gap, which is why I have repeatedly explained that there is no gender wage gap as it correlates with discrimination and there has been no evidence presented to prove that discrimination, although there is a gender earnings gap since there has been evidence provided to prove that there is a variation in the amount of money a particular gender earn in their work.

The same way if a study showed that little to no CEO's of software companies are working in Mc Donalds, it only shows what it says, it provides no evidence that shows correlation for CEO'S being in that position being the only factor that plays into them not working at Mc Donalds. If it did then there is evidence for CEO'S being discriminated at Mc Donalds.


Whenever people are asked for evidence for Gender wage gap they provide evidence for gender earnings gap.

To prove gender earnings gap you have to provide evidence that women earn less than men.

To prove gender wage gap you have to provide evidence that women earn less than men AND evidence for gender being the only factor that affects this variation in income.

Logic like this comes so natural to me I didn't realize some people may not actually "get" it as much as I did. That was the reason why I was very frustrated and annoyed before when discussing this subject because in my mind people know this is fake but are acting as though they don't, my responses were based on those assumptions and thus caused so much confusion.
I hope people have started "getting" it now, if not I'll explain even further. You just have to ask. :')

Such a narcissist ...

You didn't even provide an adequate critique of the study I linked to because ... you know why? You didn't really read it. And any layman can come up with the overdone "sample size is small", "it's just surveys" critique which isn't even valid in this case.

Your response to my last post instead was about whether I would be willing to hire lean women to move boxes? lol, moron

(May 26, 2016 at 2:40 am)Irrational Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 11:37 pm)pool the great Wrote: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-p...lete-myth/

http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-...yth-2011-3

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/06/ther...qual-work/

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true...o-podcast/


I'm starting to see what the confusion is regarding the subject among many people.

"Gender pay gap" is real and fake, at the same time.
It is real because of the confusing way people interpret evidence.

How a typical person thinks about the subject goes like this:
Is there evidence that shows that women earn less than men? Yes.
Therefore women are discriminated against.
I mean, why wouldn't they be discriminated against? There is clear evidence that shows women earn less than men for the same job.
(This line of reasoning is closely interrelated with the reasoning behind The "Stalin was an atheist" argument.)


Now let me explain why it is fake and misleading:

Imagine a study showing that there are less people from the religion of Buddhism and Islam in top managerial positions?  
Does this prove that there is a discrimination against these religious groups?

Did you know that there are less black people with higher education?  
Does this prove black people are discriminated against in educational institutions?

Imagine a study showing less to no CEO's of software companies working part time for Mc Donalds.
Does this prove CEO's are discriminated against at Mc Donalds?

Imagine a study showing less black people having pools in their house as opposed to white people or Asians.
Does this prove that pool companies are discriminated against black people?

Imagine a study showing less islamists hired as pilots.
Does this show that airline companies are discriminated against islamists?

The problem with these studies that proves wage gap exists is that although they show that women earn less compared to men, it provides 0 correlation as gender being the only factor that affects the earning income. If it did then there is evidence for gender wage gap, which is why I have repeatedly explained that there is no gender wage gap as it correlates with discrimination and there has been no evidence presented to prove that discrimination, although there is a gender earnings gap since there has been evidence provided to prove that there is a variation in the amount of money a particular gender earn in their work.

The same way if a study showed that little to no CEO's of software companies are working in Mc Donalds, it only shows what it says, it provides no evidence that shows correlation for CEO'S being in that position being the only factor that plays into them not working at Mc Donalds. If it did then there is evidence for CEO'S being discriminated at Mc Donalds.


Whenever people are asked for evidence for Gender wage gap they provide evidence for gender earnings gap.

To prove gender earnings gap you have to provide evidence that women earn less than men.

To prove gender wage gap you have to provide evidence that women earn less than men AND evidence for gender being the only factor that affects this variation in income.

Logic like this comes so natural to me I didn't realize some people may not actually "get" it as much as I did. That was the reason why I was very frustrated and annoyed before when discussing this subject because in my mind people know this is fake but are acting as though they don't, my responses were based on those assumptions and thus caused so much confusion.
I hope people have started "getting" it now, if not I'll explain even further. You just have to ask. :')

Such a narcissist ...

You didn't even provide an adequate critique of the study I linked to because ... you know why? You didn't really read it. And any layman can come up with the overdone "sample size is small", "it's just surveys" critique which isn't even valid in this case.

Your response to my last post instead was about whether I would be willing to hire lean women to move boxes? lol, moron

Nope, the study you posted is too vague and arrive at false conclusions. Choosing a gender over another gender can be because of many different reasons it isn't always because of discrimination.

For example, software programming firms are notorious for having less women. If a team of 10 male software programmers were asked to choose between a female or a Male(same qualification) to add to their team they would 10/10 choose a female candidate.
This doesn't however mean those men are misandrists.

I'm not saying the study you posted have 0% to do with discrimination because I have no way to know, what I'm saying is that there are too many factors that study has failed to analyze that I just can't pretend to not know that there are other factors and just conclude discrimination. I'm unbiased like that.

Ps If you can present a more detailed study, I'd be willing to look at it.

(May 26, 2016 at 3:10 am)pool the great Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 2:40 am)Irrational Wrote: Such a narcissist ...

You didn't even provide an adequate critique of the study I linked to because ... you know why? You didn't really read it. And any layman can come up with the overdone "sample size is small", "it's just surveys" critique which isn't even valid in this case.

Your response to my last post instead was about whether I would be willing to hire lean women to move boxes? lol, moron

Nope, the study you posted is too vague and arrive at false conclusions. Choosing a gender over another gender can be because of many different reasons it isn't always because of discrimination.

For example, software programming firms are notorious for having less women. If a team of 10 male software programmers were asked to choose between a female or a Male(same qualification) to add to their team they would 10/10 choose a female candidate.
This doesn't however mean those men are misandrists.

I'm not saying the study you posted have 0% to do with discrimination because I have no way to know, what I'm saying is that there are too many factors that study has failed to analyze that I just can't pretend to not know that there are other factors and just conclude discrimination. I'm unbiased like that.

Ps If you can present a more detailed study, I'd be willing to look at it.

pool, just admit you didn't read it properly. I can tell from your response you didn't.

(May 26, 2016 at 2:37 am)Irrational Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 1:31 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Even if that's the case, what you're describing is an earnings gap, not a wage gap. If there were a wage gap, then we would be able to look at the actual, by-the-hour wages and very directly see a disparity between what men make and what women make. Instead, you have people looking at earnings for various periods of time, accounting for as many non-discrimination-related factors as they can, then naming discrimination as the "most plausible" cause for the gap they can't explain. To me, that seems to be an argument from ignorance, once it all shakes out.

It's called Occam's razor. But it isn't even based on just guessing. There is empirical evidence for gender bias/discrimination in work-related settings.

As for wages vs. earnings, that's just red herring.

Quote:Besides, if men and women's wages are the same for the same jobs, but women's average earnings are less, and the reason for that is discrimination, that means the men are paying the women the same wage and then finding some sneaky way to somehow make sure they still don't make as much money in the long run. That is some conspiracy-theory-level illogic right there, not to mention the "how would that even work?" part.

It's not a conspiracy theory because there is no conscious conspiring going on. This is mainly due to gender bias in the context of work performance and quality.

OK...so if there's a wage gap, why aren't we seeing it in people's actual rates of pay? Why do we always have to do all this voodoo with the earnings gap to make the wage gap manifest? Why don't we simply look at the wages people are actually paid to find the disparity?


While I'm asking interesting questions, did you know that if you look at only the group of women who make identical business and lifestyle choices to the men in their field, they make the same money? Consistently. All women have to do if they want to make what men make is forsake childbearing, take a high-stakes job, then stress about it so much that it shortens their lives by several years.


Sooo...there's an unconscious bias that causes men to unconsciously pay women the same rates and then find covert ways to sneak money away from them so they'll earn less? How does an entire half of the population (or anyone, for that matter) unconsciously do something that pointed and insidious, and why has nobody figured out that they're doing it or how? You probably would have actually been better off trying to defend a conspiracy theory.


Also, that's a bit of an abuse of Occam's Razor. The Razor is not for parsing out which claim is true or even most likely true. Occam's Razor is actually for deciding which order to investigate answers in. When considering multiple possible solutions/explanations, Occam's Razor demands that we test and rule out simple claims before moving on to more complex ones, and the reason for this is time efficiency. If I am weighing two positions, and one would take an hour to test, and the other would only take minutes, It is markedly inefficient to tackle the hour-long test first.


What you CAN'T do with Occam's Razor is claim that the simplest solution is correct just because it's simple, especially in the absence of adequate evidence for that solution. Simplicity is not a measure of truth. Simpler claims are just generally faster and easier to investigate, meaning you can rule out more items in less time.

(May 26, 2016 at 8:13 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: OK...so if there's a wage gap, why aren't we seeing it in people's actual rates of pay? Why do we always have to do all this voodoo with the earnings gap to make the wage gap manifest? Why don't we simply look at the wages people are actually paid to find the disparity?

While I'm asking interesting questions, did you know that if you look at only the group of women who make identical business and lifestyle choices to the men in their field, they make the same money? Consistently. All women have to do if they want to make what men make is forsake childbearing, take a high-stakes job, then stress about it so much that it shortens their lives by several years.

Sooo...there's an unconscious bias that causes men to unconsciously pay women the same rates and then find covert ways to sneak money away from them so they'll earn less? How does an entire half of the population (or anyone, for that matter) unconsciously do something that pointed and insidious, and why has nobody figured out that they're doing it or how? You probably would have actually been better off trying to defend a conspiracy theory.

Also, that's a bit of an abuse of Occam's Razor. The Razor is not for parsing out which claim is true or even most likely true. Occam's Razor is actually for deciding which order to investigate answers in. When considering multiple possible solutions/explanations, Occam's Razor demands that we test and rule out simple claims before moving on to more complex ones, and the reason for this is time efficiency. If I am weighing two positions, and one would take an hour to test, and the other would only take minutes, It is markedly inefficient to tackle the hour-long test first.

What you CAN'T do with Occam's Razor is claim that the simplest solution is correct just because it's simple, especially in the absence of adequate evidence for that solution. Simplicity is not a measure of truth. Simpler claims are just generally faster and easier to investigate, meaning you can rule out more items in less time.

Something you conveniently ignored, and did not comment on, is the empirical evidence for gender discrimination is real in the workplace. Another thing to point out is that this isn't strictly committed by men. Women are guilty as well. The study I linked to is one example that illustrates this.

As for your questions, there is a consistent unexplained gender pay gap, that has been measured in hourly rates, weekly rates, yearly, etc, that is consistent across nations and majority of professions and even exacerbated among minority races. Gender discrimination is one factor that has been considered to at least partly contribute to that portion of the gap. Studies show subconscious discrimination is real, whether gender or race-based or sexuality-based. You may not like it, but that's the evidence.

No voodoo or conspiracy theory, this is statistics, psychology, controlled experiments, etc.

(May 25, 2016 at 11:42 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: I earn too much.

And I should have added, "and many men feel threatened by that."

Guess those men are insecure.

   Just wanted to say I'm still here and lurking.  Original poster had to step back and just read for a while.  Good discussion, folks - thanks! - who would'a thought that responses to a simple news article would get up to 8 pages?  Who would'a thought that a statement like "Women typically earn more than men in 7 of the professions out of those 446" would create a heated debate?  Wow.  
    What I have learned:  yes, research into the subject needs to be more in depth.  It needs to point to a variety of causes for this disparity, and then present suggestions for correcting discriminatory practices where they are found.
    Now, back to reading . . . thanks everybody.

Maybe women should form unions.

(May 26, 2016 at 7:26 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Maybe women should form unions.

Or just finally take over.