I have read the words and they don't explain why the text contains the opposite information from the graph. I also followed the link to PayScale and found this page:
It shows that men make more than women in 11/12 common professions and women make more than men in 0/12. Again, this is the opposite of the text of your link (and of your assertion).
Yes. The image doesn't show the opposite information as the text. As the text explains, the average of all men's wages increases more than the average of all women's wages. The average of all men and all women's wages is not how you show there is a wage gap. The average of all women work fewer hours than the average of all men, and have less experience.
The graph shows that for individual positions within a single profession, men make more than women. The PayScale page I linked to also shows the same thing.
The text of your link says that "the gender wage gap disappears for most positions". How is that not the opposite of the graph and the data?
I just now realized that you didn't read the graph rayiner linked to or even the study you yourself linked to, so you're just replying with non sequiturs. It's clear that this thread is going nowhere.
For others who have made it this far down into the thread: the "study" that papsosouid linked to controls for years experience and also probably hours worked, but still concluded that there's a wage gap.
"Of the 534 occupations listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women earn more than men in exactly seven professions. Together, these seven occupations account for about 1.5 million working women, or about 3 percent of the full-time female labor force. The remaining 97 percent of full-time working women work in occupations where they earn less than their male counterparts."
Property, real estate, and community association managers. Women's earnings as a percentage of men's: 60.6%; percentage of women in the occupation: 57.4%
Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks. Women's earnings as a percentage of men's: 100.3%; percentage of women in the occupation: 87.0% (One of the seven occupations where women earn more than men.)
Why would you respond to someone saying "you need to account for things like hours worked, experience, position, etc" with "if you don't account for things like hours worked and experience, we can mislead people into thinking there is a gap"?
Occupation: Property, real estate, and community association managers. Women's earnings as a percentage of men's: 60.6%; percentage of women in the occupation: 57.4%
Occupation: Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks. Women's earnings as a percentage of men's: 100.3%; percentage of women in the occupation: 87.0%
Are you seriously asking me to copy+paste my last reply back to you? How many times do you hope to repeat the same comments, and what is the purpose of that?
Are you seriously trying to imply that the majority of people doing a specific job, as identified by a criteria not related to the job, make significantly less than a minority doing the same job due to working conditions?
This doesn't debunk the wage gap, only that the wage gap is not caused by differences in pay between men and women doing similar work in similar roles. The wage gap has always been structural: women tend to be prevalent in lower wage jobs or are penalized more for default expectations about raising children or domestic work. Also, men are more common the higher in company/corporate structures you go, so naturally women do not make as much because they are not as represented in those higher salary roles.
>>> only that the wage gap is not caused by differences in pay between men and women doing similar work in similar roles.
That's pretty much what is common understanding of the wage gap. If you understand by "wage gap" that less paid positions paid less, it's meaningless. If you understand by it that women more often work in positions that pay less, then it's not a wage gap - it is a position gap or promotion gap or whatever else gap. So calling it "wage gap" is misleading, as the wage is not the variable that changes between men and women - the position on which they get the wage is.
>That's pretty much what is common understanding of the wage gap
No it isn't. If that were the common understanding, then people would not say they are fighting for "equal pay for equal work". The very existence of the phrase "equal pay for equal work" demonstrates that people do believe (incorrectly) that women are paid less than men for the same work.
Wait, I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that absence of "equal pay for equal work" is a common understanding of what the wage gap is. And that calling different pay for different work "wage gap" is wrong, even if it comes out statistically that more women have lower-paid jobs than men.
Yes, it does debunk it. Wage has a specific meaning. If women are taking a different job, obviously they are earning a different wage, that is in no way a "wage gap". Calling someone working 80% of the hours and earning 80% of the pay a "wage gap" is completely absurd.
>Also, men are more common the higher in company/corporate structures you go
They are also more common the lower you go. Men are more common at both extremes, and ignoring the bottom part is a really common fallacy used to push a particular agenda.
This seems like splitting hairs. There is wage disparity between men and women in general and there are reasons for that difference. Ultimately those reasons need to be discussed and addressed as it doesn't serve society to have so many of its members pigeonholed into low wage work (this extends beyond gender, of course)
Not at all. We have constant, deliberate deception being used to influence policy and law. People overwhelmingly believe the lie that women get paid less for the same work, that would be a wage gap. Policy decisions are made based on that lie. Politicians now repeat that lie. This is a problem, and needs to be addressed. Pointing out the reality is how I am doing my part to try to address this problem. It is not splitting hairs.
Almost every analysis I've ever read about the wage gap went beyond the pay difference to look at domestic work, child care, types of work available to men and women, number of men/women in a kind of work, etc.
> People overwhelmingly believe the lie that women get paid less for the same work, that would be a wage gap. Policy decisions are made based on that lie. Politicians now repeat that lie. This is a problem, and needs to be addressed.
Wouldn't addressing the lie include an acknowledgement of wage disparity outside of 'different pay for the same work'? Often I see this issue framed in terms of comparable work and work loads due to the difference in types of jobs and representation in certain fields.
>Almost every analysis I've ever read about the wage gap went beyond the pay difference
I find those to be in the minority myself. And those are of course never presented by feminist proponents of the wage gap myth, as those demonstrate that it is a myth.
>Wouldn't addressing the lie include an acknowledgement of wage disparity
It isn't wage disparity, that is the point. It is job disparity. If you want to make a case that women aren't able to get the jobs they want due to sexism, feel free to do so. But don't expect me to do it for you simply because you made a totally unrelated claim.
Well call it what you will, there is obviously some sort of gap. It seems a bit disingenuous to me to point out that a wage gap doesn't exist because women are payed the same as men but on average work lower paying jobs, or take time out for children.
Those things should make you question why women not men are expected to take time out of their career to raise children, why women on average end up in lower paying jobs.
Ultimately the effect is gap in average income between men and women. So yes you sort of are splitting hairs, while ignoring real systemic issues that affect everyone, not just women.
>Those things should make you question why women not men are expected to take time out of their career to raise children, why women on average end up in lower paying jobs.
No, those things should make the feminists spouting this nonsense ask those questions. Instead, the continue to spew deliberately misleading nonsense, knowing that people are sympathetic to "women get paid less for the same work", but are much less sympathetic to "women choose to work fewer hours".
So on what information do you base the assumption that women choose to work fewer hours? And are you denying that there is in fact an income gap for women?
Minorities also have an income gap and statistically speaking work fewer hours. Are you saying that's a choice too?
You have now changed your argument from 'wage gap' to 'income gap'. Those two are not the same thing.
A 'wage gap' implies getting paid less for the same job. No good. An 'income gap' implies someone earns less than someone else. That seems perfectly acceptable.
If
- Men and women with the same employment histories get paid similar amounts - Women earn less, on average, because they work less
- Some women get paid less than men for the same job
Does it not follow that men are equally impacted by the "wage gap".
And if so, how would that influence your usage of the term?
Why are you asking me to make your argument for you? If you want to take a position on job choices and availability go right ahead, you don't need me to do it for you.
You seem to acknowledge that an income gap exists for women. You also asserted that it was because they choose to work less. I'd like to know if there's anything to back up your assertions other than your opinion.
Does you opinion hold for other groups that have an income gap and on average work less? If so can you see how that would be problematic?
Also, out of curiosity I looked through the first couple pages of Google results for "wage gap" and every single link I found makes the point that the gap depends on occupation and other factors.
Where exactly is this misinformation being spewed, I can't seem to find it? What I can seem to find is plenty of sites calling the wage gap a myth, and in fact when you start typing "wage gap" in Google the first suggestion is "wage gap myth." So in fact it seems the exact opposite of what you say is true.
No, it really hasn't. You're suggesting that women actively seek out lower-paid, lower-status work. Just the other day there was an article on HN talking about a guy that was getting job applications rejected until he clarified his gender on his CV.
If you're a woman that runs into this discrimination, your only choices are to lower your standards for a job, and accept one that is lower paying, or to not work at all. All of a sudden the argument that women doing the same job get the same pay seems rather weak, because it's far from clear that women have the same opportunity to get the same job in the first place. All of a sudden, the lower remuneration of women is once again caused by discrimination, just not salary discrimination.
The guy had put "married with kids" in a prominent location to imply a stable life and dependability. Now if you're trying to guess why a woman would do the same, you might think to yourself, 'well she must know this doesn't help her chances, but she's put it there anyway... ' - which spoils the experiment in terms what you can claim the results are indicative of.
>You're suggesting that women actively seek out lower-paid, lower-status work.
All available evidence supports that notion. Women are more likely to value other things more than they value financial motives. I am also not suggesting that is the sole cause. Women work fewer hours on average, they avoid dangerous jobs, jobs with long and/or odd hours, and they are more likely to take time off which leads to them having on average less experience.
>If you're a woman that runs into this discrimination, your only choices are to lower your standards for a job, and accept one that is lower paying, or to not work at all.
Or to do the same thing the author did and put "Ms." on your resume if your name is ambiguous.
>because it's far from clear that women have the same opportunity to get the same job in the first place.
Whoops, I thought Hacker News' standards were generally higher than "whatever Google barfs up when I type in my prejudiced view point." But you're the one with the karma here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-bigg...