Women earn less than Men

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Do you think people actually look at two applicants of different genders and decide they should pay the male one say 25% more just like that?

I think that idea is decidedly ridiculous. Whatever the reason for this gap, it isn't intentional and so it can't be "fixed" just like that.

Nope, and per group it was just one of the applicants.

[scene opens in an office with two male interviewers]

"hey look we got two applicants."
"Oh yeah?is there a woman in there"
he replied with a devilish smile.
"yes."
"so let's pay her 25% less?"
slight pause
"make it 25.1%"
MUAH HA HA
Laughter ensued as evil members of the patriarchy discriminated yet another woman.

[(camera zooms out) scene Closes with laughter slightly fading away and interviewers shaking hands with devilish intent]

[GrandizerII]

Nope, and per group it was just one of the applicants.

[scene opens in an office with two male interviewers]

"hey look we got two applicants."
"Oh yeah?is there a woman in there"
he replied with a devilish smile.
"yes."  
"so let's pay her 25% less?"
slight pause
"make it 25.1%"
MUAH HA HA
Laughter ensued as evil members of the patriarchy discriminated yet another woman.

[(camera zooms out) scene Closes with laughter slightly fading away and interviewers shaking hands with devilish intent]

Because that's exactly what the study is insinuating (sarcasm). Are you really that shallow in thinking that you only see it this way?

[ReptilianPeon]

Let's believe a 'study' of a few hundred people and spin it so that it's supposed to represent the entirety of the Western World. A few hundred people, that what it was wasn't it? A single study of a few hundred people. Hardly representative.

I've not read the study in full, but imagine they reached a conclusion they wanted to prove before starting the study. Like was the case with those people selling those baseball cards in order to try and prove Ebay is racist. Maybe there is some gender discrimination in the country where you live (because it's backwards maybe), but where I live there are laws in place to prevent such a thing. And people don't wake up one morning and decide women are going to be paid less. It is conspiratorial to suggest such a thing.

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

I am aware that conscious and unconscious bias exists against female workers in the workplace. What I don't believe is that this bias causes supervisors to actually pay those employees a worse wage than other employees doing the same job, and I don't believe that supervisors are able to get away with blatant wage discrimination on a systemic basis. The reason I don't believe those things is that I have yet to see convincing evidence that they're true.

As for your questions, there is a consistent unexplained gender pay gap,

Earnings gap.

that has been measured in hourly rates, weekly rates, yearly, etc,

Hourly earnings, weekly earnings, yearly, earnings,


You are still talking about an earnings gap and pretending it is a wage gap.

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.

I'm aware that unconscious bias is a real thing. I just don't think it causes or allows broad, systemic ignorance of our country's laws against wage discrimination. Isolated cases, perhaps, but not enough to cause a disparity the size of the earnings gap, or to significantly affect it.

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

You can use psychology to demonstrate that unconscious bias exists, and you can use statistics to demonstrate the earnings gap, but you have yet to demonstrate a wage gap caused by discrimination. At best, experts speculate that it might be a contributor to the unexplained portion of the earnings gap, but only to the 6% or so that's left after you adjust for everything else. According to the European Commission, direct discrimination only accounts for a very small portion of the differences in pay between men and women. The rest is determined by college major, career choices, whether they had children, etc.


Wage discrimination is illegal, and there is a system in place for prosecuting it. If a woman believes she has a case for wage discrimination, she should go to the authorities and report it like any other crime. Aside from that, I really don't know what you expect to be done about the discrimination that still takes place. Making it illegal and punishing people who do it is about the best solution I can come up with, but we already do both of those things.

[GrandizerII]

Let's believe a 'study' of a few hundred people and spin it so that it's supposed to represent the entirety of the Western World. A few hundred people, that what it was wasn't it? A single study of a few hundred people. Hardly representative.

I've not read the study in full, but imagine they reached a conclusion they wanted to prove before starting the study. Like was the case with those people selling those baseball cards in order to try and prove Ebay is racist. Maybe there is some  gender discrimination in the country where you live (because it's backwards maybe), but where I live there are laws in place to prevent such a thing. And people don't wake up one morning and decide women are going to be paid less. It is conspiratorial to suggest such a thing.

1. A sample size of a few hundred can work if it can be shown to be representative of the target population (normally by random selection but other selection types could work depending on the aims and what you're trying to represent). In the case of this study, the population is science academics hiring students for lab positions.

2. I live in Australia. Of course, there are laws to stop blatant/obvious discrimination. Again, I'm referring to the subtle and subconscious type that even the laws of your country probably have not adequately addressed.

[GrandizerII]

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.

I am aware that conscious and unconscious bias exists against female workers in the workplace. What I don't believe is that this bias causes supervisors to actually pay those employees a worse wage than other employees doing the same job, and I don't believe that supervisors are able to get away with blatant wage discrimination on a systemic basis. The reason I don't believe those things is that I have yet to see convincing evidence that they're true.

As for your questions, there is a consistent unexplained gender pay gap,

Earnings gap.

that has been measured in hourly rates, weekly rates, yearly, etc,

Hourly earnings, weekly earnings, yearly, earnings,


You are still talking about an earnings gap and pretending it is a wage gap.

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.

I'm aware that unconscious bias is a real thing. I just don't think it causes or allows broad, systemic ignorance of our country's laws against wage discrimination. Isolated cases, perhaps, but not enough to cause a disparity the size of the earnings gap, or to significantly affect it.

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

You can use psychology to demonstrate that unconscious bias exists, and you can use statistics to demonstrate the earnings gap, but you have yet to demonstrate a wage gap caused by discrimination. At best, experts speculate that it might be a contributor to the unexplained portion of the earnings gap, but only to the 6% or so that's left after you adjust for everything else. According to the European Commission, direct discrimination only accounts for a very small portion of the differences in pay between men and women. The rest is determined by college major, career choices, whether they had children, etc.


Wage discrimination is illegal, and there is a system in place for prosecuting it. If a woman believes she has a case for wage discrimination, she should go to the authorities and report it like any other crime. Aside from that, I really don't know what you expect to be done about the discrimination that still takes place. Making it illegal and punishing people who do it is about the best solution I can come up with, but we already do both of those things.

6% is not a small amount, especially in reference to millions of dollars a year. Let's not minimize the impact this has on how much women fail to gain in a period of time compared to men because of this unexplained combination of factors (one of which is plausibly discrimination).

That said, still not sure how this wave vs. earnings distinction actually debunks the earnings gap partly due to discrimination again?

In regards to your last paragraph, that's if the woman was aware how much others are getting paid. If I'm not mistaken, some jobs don't like to have their pay information made public to all employees.

[Redbeard The Pink]

6% is not a small amount, especially in reference to millions of dollars a year. Let's not minimize the impact this has on how much women fail to gain in a period of time compared to men because of this unexplained combination of factors (one of which is plausibly discrimination).

That said, still not sure how this wave vs. earnings distinction actually debunks the earnings gap partly due to discrimination again?
In regards to your last paragraph, that's if the woman was aware how much others are getting paid. If I'm not mistaken, some jobs don't like to have their pay information made public to all employees.

Ok, and that 6% is the unexplained part, and it is shared with several other possible speculative answers. The speculated impact of discrimination is only a fraction of that 6%. Let's not blow it out of proportion, either.


What I'm arguing against is a systemic wage gap, which is what people are usually touting when they talk about the "pay gap" even though they throw around numbers for the earnings gap. That "77 cents on the dollar" bullshit you always hear is the earnings gap, not the wage gap. There is no evidence for a "wage gap." It is a speculative solution to a problem involving an unexplained 6% disparity in the earnings of men and women, and even though some discrimination likely does occur on a small scale, it probably only accounts for a small portion (perhaps not even a statistically significant one) of that 6%, mostly owing to the fact that discrimination is illegal and against the zeitgeist. Some discrimination is bound to slip through the cracks (as with all crimes), but aside from making it illegal, prosecuting people who do it, and teaching little boys and girls not to be mean just because of their parts, I really don't know what you expect anyone to do about it.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I am aware that conscious and unconscious bias exists against female workers in the workplace. What I don't believe is that this bias causes supervisors to actually pay those employees a worse wage than other employees doing the same job, and I don't believe that supervisors are able to get away with blatant wage discrimination on a systemic basis. The reason I don't believe those things is that I have yet to see convincing evidence that they're true.




Earnings gap.




Hourly earnings, weekly earnings, yearly, earnings,


You are still talking about an earnings gap and pretending it is a wage gap.




I'm aware that unconscious bias is a real thing. I just don't think it causes or allows broad, systemic ignorance of our country's laws against wage discrimination. Isolated cases, perhaps, but not enough to cause a disparity the size of the earnings gap, or to significantly affect it.




You can use psychology to demonstrate that unconscious bias exists, and you can use statistics to demonstrate the earnings gap, but you have yet to demonstrate a wage gap caused by discrimination. At best, experts speculate that it might be a contributor to the unexplained portion of the earnings gap, but only to the 6% or so that's left after you adjust for everything else. According to the European Commission, direct discrimination only accounts for a very small portion of the differences in pay between men and women. The rest is determined by college major, career choices, whether they had children, etc.


Wage discrimination is illegal, and there is a system in place for prosecuting it. If a woman believes she has a case for wage discrimination, she should go to the authorities and report it like any other crime. Aside from that, I really don't know what you expect to be done about the discrimination that still takes place. Making it illegal and punishing people who do it is about the best solution I can come up with, but we already do both of those things.

6% is not a small amount, especially in reference to millions of dollars a year. Let's not minimize the impact this has on how much women fail to gain in a period of time compared to men because of this unexplained combination of factors (one of which is plausibly discrimination).

That said, still not sure how this wave vs. earnings distinction actually debunks the earnings gap partly due to discrimination again?

In regards to your last paragraph, that's if the woman was aware how much others are getting paid. If I'm not mistaken, some jobs don't like to have their pay information made public to all employees.

6% is not a small amount, especially in reference to millions of dollars a year. Let's not minimize the impact this has on how much women fail to gain in a period of time compared to men because of this unexplained combination of factors (one of which is plausibly discrimination).

Experts think it might be a contributing factor. There is no evidence for it actually being a contributing factor. Keeping the possibility that discrimination might be a contributing factor is open mindedness from the researchers part not evidence for discrimination being an actual contributor,genius

That said, still not sure how this wave vs. earnings distinction actually debunks the earnings gap partly due to discrimination again?

Wage gap = discrimination.
Earnings gap = no discrimination.

In regards to your last paragraph, that's if the woman was aware how much others are getting paid. If I'm not mistaken, some jobs don't like to have their pay information made public to all employees.

Exactly. You don't know. Your argument is an argument from ignorance at best.

You have 0 credibility until you present evidence for what you claim, ie, gender pay gap. Until that happens your words salads will be getting more and more silly and boring. You can't talk your way into credibility lol.

[GrandizerII]

6% is not a small amount, especially in reference to millions of dollars a year. Let's not minimize the impact this has on how much women fail to gain in a period of time compared to men because of this unexplained combination of factors (one of which is plausibly discrimination).

That said, still not sure how this wave vs. earnings distinction actually debunks the earnings gap partly due to discrimination again?
In regards to your last paragraph, that's if the woman was aware how much others are getting paid. If I'm not mistaken, some jobs don't like to have their pay information made public to all employees.

Ok, and that 6% is the unexplained part, and it is shared with several other possible speculative answers. The speculated impact of discrimination is only a fraction of that 6%. Let's not blow it out of proportion, either.


What I'm arguing against is a systemic wage gap, which is what people are usually touting when they talk about the "pay gap" even though they throw around numbers for the earnings gap. That "77 cents on the dollar" bullshit you always hear is the earnings gap, not the wage gap. There is no evidence for a "wage gap." It is a speculative solution to a problem involving an unexplained 6% disparity in the earnings of men and women, and even though some discrimination likely does occur on a small scale, it probably only accounts for a small portion (perhaps not even a statistically significant one) of that 6%, mostly owing to the fact that discrimination is illegal and against the zeitgeist. Some discrimination is bound to slip through the cracks (as with all crimes), but aside from making it illegal, prosecuting people who do it, and teaching little boys and girls not to be mean just because of their parts, I really don't know what you expect anyone to do about it.

Expect? Let's be psychologically ready to acknowledge the problem exists first. Then we can talk about solutions.

[GrandizerII]

6% is not a small amount, especially in reference to millions of dollars a year. Let's not minimize the impact this has on how much women fail to gain in a period of time compared to men because of this unexplained combination of factors (one of which is plausibly discrimination).

That said, still not sure how this wave vs. earnings distinction actually debunks the earnings gap partly due to discrimination again?

In regards to your last paragraph, that's if the woman was aware how much others are getting paid. If I'm not mistaken, some jobs don't like to have their pay information made public to all employees.

6% is not a small amount, especially in reference to millions of dollars a year. Let's not minimize the impact this has on how much women fail to gain in a period of time compared to men because of this unexplained combination of factors (one of which is plausibly discrimination).

Experts think it might be a contributing factor. There is no evidence for it actually being a contributing factor. Keeping the possibility that discrimination might be a contributing factor is open mindedness from the researchers part not evidence for discrimination being an actual contributor,genius

That said, still not sure how this wave vs. earnings distinction actually debunks the earnings gap partly due to discrimination again?

Wage gap = discrimination.
Earnings gap = no discrimination.

In regards to your last paragraph, that's if the woman was aware how much others are getting paid. If I'm not mistaken, some jobs don't like to have their pay information made public to all employees.

Exactly. You don't know. Your argument is an argument from ignorance at best.

You have 0 credibility until you present evidence for what you claim, ie, gender pay gap. Until that happens your words salads will be getting more and more silly and boring. You can't talk your way into credibility lol.

Ok, and what's your level of credibility, pray tell? The arguments I'm presenting are in line with what experts say. Notice, by the way, I never said gender discrimination must be the cause, only that it's probable based on relevant evidence that's been presented in peer-reviewed journal articles. But I guess it makes you look like a "genius" when you misrepresent my position, right? As usual ...