Women earn less than Men

[GrandizerII]

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.

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.

[GrandizerII]

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

[GrandizerII]

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.

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

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.

[GrandizerII]

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.

[The Valkyrie]

I earn too much.

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

Guess those men are insecure.

[drfuzzy]

   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.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Maybe women should form unions.

[The Valkyrie]

Maybe women should form unions.

Or just finally take over.