I had a discussion with my niece the other night about something she saw on Facebook how women are discriminated against in STEM fields.
When I was in school 12 years ago, every single programming class I took have 0(zero) females and every mathmatics class I took had 1 maybe 2 females. I told here it was anecdotal of course and now I'm sure those statistics have changed.
She said "but still, there are more men in STEM fields than women".
I told her of course there are since more men study in those fields and if she wanted to shrink that gap of more men to women maybe she should have went into the STEM fields instead of taking Buisness Psychology and becoming a teacher.
Then she said, "SHUT UP!" and smiled and gave me a hug.
(09-03-2017, 01:04 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Whole lot of other sources listed on these as well.
Still a lot of biased people editorializing studies. No different than before. I know that studies done taking into account differences in positions and everything still show a wage gap, so the argument against the broad $0.77 to the dollar is true, but is ignoring a whole host of other evidence out there.
(09-03-2017, 02:45 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: By definition, if someone is working less and taking more sick days, they're not doing the job "the same way", which is what his point was. How does that not refute it?
You tell me where in the Obama proposal that got cancelled, it would measure every single worker's productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency in the country. Are we just going to employ half the country to just sit there and hover, watching the other half work for 6 months, grading everything they do? Then have that half of the country switch watch the other half?
If you think there's not adequate evidence now, then you're simply never going to find it unless you just make everyone work under 24/7 constant surveillance, and grade them all. This program sure as hell wouldn't have given you that evidence, it'd just tell you how much people are getting paid. Heck, I never even saw where it said where it took into account how much overtime they work, or how long they've been doing the job.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If taking less sick days, and working longer hours isn't enough proof for you (somehow)... then here's the final thing I can provide you. Families and job experience:
Say you have 20 people working the exact same job, 10 men and 10 women, and we ignore the fact that the women would take more sick days and work less hours. In this scenario they all work the same amount, the same amount of sick days, and have the same productivity and everything. The job has 0 promotion opportunity, a starting salary of $50,000 and, fixed $2k pay raises each year. All the workers are hired at age 20, and any empty job spots will be replaced by a person of the same gender that left.
They all work 5 years, all of their pay is up to $60,000/yr.
Then 2 women retire to have a family. 2 new women are hired at the starting salary of $50,000.
Average salary:
Men, $60,000/yr
Women, $58,000/yr
Another 5 years pass, the original people are now making $70k/yr. One man leaves for another job. Two more women retire for families, and one leaves for another job. 1 man and 3 women are hired at the same $50,000 starting salary.
Average salary:
Men, $68,000/yr
Women, $57,000/yr
WOAH, salary different, despite them all doing the exact same work, same production, but when you average it out, the men are making 19.3% more than the women! Why? Because the men collectively have on average 9 years of experience, against the women's collective average of 6 years of experience.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Obviously the salaries and raises and all of that are made up for the sake of the example, but it's based in reality.
As of 2014...
56.4% of males age 16-24 are in the workforce. The same category for women? 53.6%, a difference of +2.8% for men.
45.9% of males age 55 or older are in the workforce. The same category for women? 34.9%, a difference of +11% for men.
People with more experience at a job, are generally going to get paid more. A doctor who's been working at a hospital for 30 years is going to make more than one who's been working there for 15.
Then you add in the factors of women taking more sickdays and working less time to the fact that there are more experienced men in the workforce than women.
1. Take less time off.
2. Work more.
3. More experienced.
If those three still don't convince you, you were never looking to, or allowing yourself to be convinced in the first place, regardless of proof or logic.
Not one of these things addresses what I was saying. What I am going to tell you is there there are studies out there that take all of these things you list into account and have still found a wage gap. A smaller one than the one typically cited in the media, but there is still a wage gap. A good study on a topic like this accounts for these things in their experimental design, and those studies are out there. There are also individual examples I can point to of this difference in pay from the government, from public higher education, no less.
This doesn't convince me because I have read more in depth studies on this from different sources. Studies that don't hit the media, that are relegated to the realm of academic journals that no one outside of the fields typically reads.
I should note that I don't think the data collection now being ended was good enough, but we need better data. This wage gap does exist, but we don't know completely to what extent because of a lack of data. This is the conclusion of a meta-analysis done a little over a decade ago on this issue:
Quote:In this paper, we review the existing worldwide literature on the decomposition of gender wage gaps. We investigated more than 260 published papers covering 63 countries during the time period 1960s – 1990s. Meta-regression analysis allows us t oreview and compare this vast amount of literature in a concise and systematic way.Particular emphasis is placed on a proper consideration of the quality and reliability of the underlying study which is done by a weighting with quality indicators as well as by a direct inclusion of quality indicators in the meta-regression analysis.
There is much discussion about how to ideally investigate discrimination in wages. Meta-analysis cannot answer this question, but provides an estimate of how certain restrictions in a particular data set or the choice of a particular specification will affect the results. Our results show that data restrictions have the biggest impact on the resulting gender wage gap. Generally, studies using data sets which are limited to particular subgroups (to never-married workers, new entrants in the labor market, or workers in narrow occupations) and therefore provide the researcher with a better comp arability of the productivity of workers end up with lower gender wage gaps. In contrast to these strong results, the choice of econometric methods is less important as it concerns the concrete decomposition technique or the use of more advanced methods in the wage regressions. Frequently, researchers do not have hourly wages or actual experience at their disposal, let alone a complete record of human capital characteristics, like training on-the-job or job tenure with the actual employer. Missing or imprecise data on these human capital factors can result in serious biases in the calculation of the discrimination component. For example, in the fixed effects regressions we find that studies where work experience is missing seriously overestimate the unexplained gender wage gap. A similar problem arises, if no hourly wages are available and they have to be substituted with monthly or annual earnings, which are contaminated with labor market interruptions. Our study also found no big differences of how certain meta-independent variables affect the calculated gender wage gap in different regions of the world.
Furthermore, our analysis allowed us to investigate the gender wage gap overtime. From the 1960s to the 1990s, raw wage differentials worldwide have fallen substantially from around 65 to only 30%. The bulk of this decline, however,must be attributed to better labor market endowments of females which came about by better education, training, and work attachment. Looking at the published estimates for the discrimination (or unexplained) component of the wage gap yields a less promising perspective: There is no decline over time. However, these published estimates are based on different methods and data sources. Our meta-regression analysis allows to construct a specification for a standardized gender wage gap study: applying such a unique specification – concerning data selection as well as econometric method – gives rise to a slightly more optimistic picture: The ratio of what women would earn absent of discrimination relative to their actual wages decreased approximately by 0.17% annually. This indicates that a continuous, even if moderate, equalization between the sexes is taking place.
Weichselbaumer, D., & Winter‐Ebmer, R. (2005). A meta‐analysis of the international gender wage gap. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(3), 479-511. Chicago
This isn't just a US issue, it's global. It exists, though when you look at the methods you can see that there are differences in the numbers when certain things are either left out or included. This is why this meta-analysis is a handy tool to be able to look at these studies and see those differences, finding out that yes, the gender wage gap exists. Yes, it is decreasing. No, it is not likely as large as what some individual studies have found, and that is a result of a lack of data and assumptions having to be made.
Interestingly enough, though, while this is a topic in the public sphere right now, it isn't as hot a topic in research these days. It is still studied some, but not nearly as much as it was in the past few decades.
(09-03-2017, 08:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Still a lot of biased people editorializing studies. No different than before. I know that studies done taking into account differences in positions and everything still show a wage gap, so the argument against the broad $0.77 to the dollar is true, but is ignoring a whole host of other evidence out there.
Not one of these things addresses what I was saying. What I am going to tell you is there there are studies out there that take all of these things you list into account and have still found a wage gap. A smaller one than the one typically cited in the media, but there is still a wage gap. A good study on a topic like this accounts for these things in their experimental design, and those studies are out there. There are also individual examples I can point to of this difference in pay from the government, from public higher education, no less.
This doesn't convince me because I have read more in depth studies on this from different sources. Studies that don't hit the media, that are relegated to the realm of academic journals that no one outside of the fields typically reads.
Everything I have shown says there is a wage gap. But 1-2 cents per dollar instead of 23 cents on the dollar.
(09-03-2017, 01:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Everything I have shown says there is a wage gap. But 1-2 cents per dollar instead of 23 cents on the dollar.
1-2 cents to the dollar would be among the smallest estimates and not likely accurate. For an accurate measure of the gender wage gap, one figure would not be enough. We would need to look at different industries, regions, types of jobs, etc. This would come up with a number of different wage gaps that could then be averaged into a smaller number of figures.
(09-03-2017, 03:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1-2 cents to the dollar would be among the smallest estimates and not likely accurate. For an accurate measure of the gender wage gap, one figure would not be enough. We would need to look at different industries, regions, types of jobs, etc. This would come up with a number of different wage gaps that could then be averaged into a smaller number of figures.
Unless that field for that specific job is split 50/50 men to women then none will fit. Which is the point of the data I posted. Men choose different careers than women. Men spend more time working than women. The only way you could measure it is if you took a woman who basically lived like a man with no family and willing to work any hours. Which is fine but it doesn't do anyThing for the average woman who cares about having a family and being able to walk away from work to raise her children.
(09-03-2017, 11:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Unless that field for that specific job is split 50/50 men to women then none will fit. Which is the point of the data I posted. Men choose different careers than women. Men spend more time working than women. The only way you could measure it is if you took a woman who basically lived like a man with no family and willing to work any hours. Which is fine but it doesn't do anyThing for the average woman who cares about having a family and being able to walk away from work to raise her children.
Eh not really. Outside of union jobs, women typically make less than men, regardless of job type.
(09-03-2017, 11:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Unless that field for that specific job is split 50/50 men to women then none will fit. Which is the point of the data I posted. Men choose different careers than women. Men spend more time working than women. The only way you could measure it is if you took a woman who basically lived like a man with no family and willing to work any hours. Which is fine but it doesn't do anyThing for the average woman who cares about having a family and being able to walk away from work to raise her children.
What about for a woman who works "like a man" (lol) and her husband stays home and takes care of the family?
Or two working parent households where the man can take more time off?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-04-2017, 12:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: What about for a woman who works "like a man" (lol) and her husband stays home and takes care of the family?
Or two working parent households where the man can take more time off?
If a woman is ok with not being there to raise her children or not have any children at all, while not being concerned with how many off hours they work, then they will be essentially working like a man.
The only way this is the same is if women just turn their backs on their natural desire to care for their family or be the heart bear of their family. That's women's role and job. The men are naturally pushed to go work and bring home the resources needed for the home and family to work.
Lol at stay at home men. We have a fear that our daughters bring home one of these types.
(09-04-2017, 12:03 AM)Benton Wrote: Eh not really. Outside of union jobs, women typically make less than men, regardless of job type.
Do you/your office pay women less?
Everyone of my employees start out at the same rate a couple have distanced themselves but it has zero to do with male or female. It's purely numbers driven. And resets at the end of the year.
(09-03-2017, 11:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Unless that field for that specific job is split 50/50 men to women then none will fit. Which is the point of the data I posted. Men choose different careers than women.
If that is the point of the videos you posted, then you should not listen to them for anything data related because they don't understand how data analysis works. Or math.
(09-03-2017, 11:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Men spend more time working than women. The only way you could measure it is if you took a woman who basically lived like a man with no family and willing to work any hours. Which is fine but it doesn't do anyThing for the average woman who cares about having a family and being able to walk away from work to raise her children.
Why is there such a focus on hours worked? I know lots of people that work the same number of hours as me, but their output is lower, and there are some that work fewer than me and have a higher output. Hours worked as a variable with such a significant weight to it as it has been given in this thread is only used in a biased manner. It is an inherently flawed measure when used on its own and so reliance on it in such a fashion points to a manipulation of data to fit a narrative.
(09-04-2017, 12:03 AM)Benton Wrote: Eh not really. Outside of union jobs, women typically make less than men, regardless of job type.
Women may make less than men, but they are not paid less than men. It has been illegal to pay someone less to do a job regardless of race, creed or sex since 1969. I always ask people to give me examples of women being paid less at their work place. I have yet to have someone produce that evidence when all factors such as time on the job and job description are equal.
(09-04-2017, 01:16 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Do you/your office pay women less?
Everyone of my employees start out at the same rate a couple have distanced themselves but it has zero to do with male or female. It's purely numbers driven. And resets at the end of the year.
My employees are all women. The only time I briefly managed with a guy, he yelled at all the women and I had to fire him. Anger issues. Don't know if he didn't yell at me because I was a guy or his boss.
I did manage another guy, but he tried to punch me for taking his stuff off my desk.
(09-04-2017, 09:50 AM)Beaker Wrote: Women may make less than men, but they are not paid less than men. It has been illegal to pay someone less to do a job regardless of race, creed or sex since 1969. I always ask people to give me examples of women being paid less at their work place. I have yet to have someone produce that evidence when all factors such as time on the job and job description are equal.
In my experience (which granted is limited as I've only supervised two guys), women are less likely to ask for a raise. And it may be illegal to pay someone less based on gender, but two things. First , so is speeding or hiring illegal aliens. Two proving it was based off gender could be difficult. Unless you have an organization that looks to make sure pay is equitable and fair regardless of circumstance. Like.... a union.
(09-04-2017, 10:49 AM)Benton Wrote: In my experience (which granted is limited as I've only supervised two guys), women are less likely to ask for a raise. And it may be illegal to pay someone less based on gender, but two things. First , so is speeding or hiring illegal aliens. Two proving it was based off gender could be difficult. Unless you have an organization that looks to make sure pay is equitable and fair regardless of circumstance. Like.... a union.
Its true women are often not taught skills like negotiating pay and requesting raises. In an earlier job I had, when I was offered the job, I asked if the salary they offered me was the best they could do. They ended up offering me $3000 more before I accepted. I was out on an early job with a guy and a girl from our training cohort when we got our checks. She happened to look at mine and asked why I was getting paid more. I told her it was because I had negotiated for more when they offered. She started to go on a rant about equal pay until the other guy chimed in and showed he was getting paid the same as her. Again, another example of how women can end up making less even though they aren't necessarily paid less since she was getting paid the same as other men who had not negotiated higher pay. I have used that example with my daughter as I teach her how to negotiate. If you don't teach your children (male or female), they don't usually know those types of things.
(09-04-2017, 09:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If that is the point of the videos you posted, then you should not listen to them for anything data related because they don't understand how data analysis works. Or math.
Why is there such a focus on hours worked? I know lots of people that work the same number of hours as me, but their output is lower, and there are some that work fewer than me and have a higher output. Hours worked as a variable with such a significant weight to it as it has been given in this thread is only used in a biased manner. It is an inherently flawed measure when used on its own and so reliance on it in such a fashion points to a manipulation of data to fit a narrative.
When you are available to work more then people will pay you more. You are more valuable than someone who only wants to work 9-5.
(09-04-2017, 10:49 AM)Benton Wrote: My employees are all women. The only time I briefly managed with a guy, he yelled at all the women and I had to fire him. Anger issues. Don't know if he didn't yell at me because I was a guy or his boss.
I did manage another guy, but he tried to punch me for taking his stuff off my desk.
In my experience (which granted is limited as I've only supervised two guys), women are less likely to ask for a raise. And it may be illegal to pay someone less based on gender, but two things. First , so is speeding or hiring illegal aliens. Two proving it was based off gender could be difficult. Unless you have an organization that looks to make sure pay is equitable and fair regardless of circumstance. Like.... a union.
May need to get HR to do a little more due diligence lol.
(09-04-2017, 12:03 PM)Beaker Wrote: Its true women are often not taught skills like negotiating pay and requesting raises. In an earlier job I had, when I was offered the job, I asked if the salary they offered me was the best they could do. They ended up offering me $3000 more before I accepted. I was out on an early job with a guy and a girl from our training cohort when we got our checks. She happened to look at mine and asked why I was getting paid more. I told her it was because I had negotiated for more when they offered. She started to go on a rant about equal pay until the other guy chimed in and showed he was getting paid the same as her. Again, another example of how women can end up making less even though they aren't necessarily paid less since she was getting paid the same as other men who had not negotiated higher pay. I have used that example with my daughter as I teach her how to negotiate. If you don't teach your children (male or female), they don't usually know those types of things.
Beyond being taught it, you have to dispel stereotypes that both men and women hold that chastise assertive behavior in women and praise it in men. Men are leaders and go-getters where women are bossy and bitches.
(09-04-2017, 12:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When you are available to work more then people will pay you more. You are more valuable than someone who only wants to work 9-5.
If you're relying on people to work overtime then you are doing it wrong.
(09-04-2017, 01:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you're relying on people to work overtime then you are doing it wrong.
It's not about overtime. I will pay more to someone who will work far into the night if needed. I have more use for them than someone who tells me they only want to work bankers hours
(09-04-2017, 01:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's not about overtime. I will pay more to someone who will work far into the night if needed. I have more use for them than someone who tells me they only want to work bankers hours
What does that have to do with any of the data on this? Is there data that women aren't as willing to work the different hours?
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
