Google says it would cost too much to gather wage gap data

[FakezZ]

2 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Your right it was Stanford

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf

and Harvard

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof.-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth/article/2580405

and Time Magazine

http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

and anyone who can see through feminazis garbage.

SHHHHHH you might hurt someone's feelings if you do not see reality the way they want it to be

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, BuckGup said:

Your right it was Stanford

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf

and Harvard

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof.-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth/article/2580405

and Time Magazine

http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

and anyone who can see through feminazis garbage.

What the fuck is that journalist garbage? Journalists are the ones quoting numbers they don't understand in the first place, and all of the sudden they become the source for this climate-change-like denialism?

Give me actual peer-reviewed research, man. You now, "science!" and all that.

[Jito463]

I can prove that you're wrong.

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

Lack of evidence

Which lack of evidence? It is a well-documented fact.

 

2 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

And when the evidence is anecdotal then it does not count as evidence either.

It's fucking economic research accumulated over decades.

 

[Jito463]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Which lack of evidence? It is a well-documented fact.

 

It's f******* economic research accumulated over decades.

 

And that research is located.......?

[FakezZ]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Which lack of evidence? It is a well-documented fact.

 

It's fucking economic research accumulated over decades.

 

Sources. I'm waiting to see the peer-reviewed research done on this.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

And that research is located.......?

 

Just now, FakezZ said:

Sources. I'm waiting to see the peer-reviewed research done on this.

 

That's really like saying "A heavier than air machine can fly? I'm waiting for your sources", but I may waste 5 or 10 minutes in hooking you guys up. Hell, even some of my classmates in grad school had published on the topic 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

That's really like saying "A heavier than air machine can fly? I'm waiting for your sources", but I may waste 5 or 10 minutes in hooking you guys up. Hell, even some of my classmates in grad school had published on the topic 

There's obvious evidence for that, not so for the gender wage myth.

[FakezZ]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

That's really like saying "A heavier than air machine can fly? I'm waiting for your sources", but I may waste 5 or 10 minutes in hooking you guys up. Hell, even some of my classmates in grad school had published on the topic 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am baffled at how some companies get away with paying women less and continue hiring men. Just like an argument with a religious person, simply put, you are the one that needs to provide evidence. I bet you go to buy a car with a safe and tell the salesman that there's definitely $200 thousand for that mercedes and that he needs to provide evidence that there is not money in the safe for the transaction not to be valid. Try it, really.

[The Sloth]

for those who are wondering 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

There's obvious evidence for that, not so for the gender wage myth.

Really? is that your expert conclusion? It's beating a dead horse at this point

1 minute ago, FakezZ said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Nothign about good econometrics is extraordinary.

1 minute ago, FakezZ said:

I am baffled at how some companies get away with paying women less and continue hiring men.

Reality doesn't care how you feel.

 

Now stop shitposting while I continue compiling the links list.

[FakezZ]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Really? is that your expert conclusion? It's beating a dead horse at this point

Nothign about good econometrics is extraordinary.

Reality doesn't care how you feel.

 

Now stop shitposting while I continue compiling the links list.

You tell me I am shitposting while you have provided 0 data to back up your claim. Great job! Also do not throw terms around like you are an expert. I studied economics too, please try not to look like an idiot.

[Jito463]

10 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Really? is that your expert conclusion? It's beating a dead horse at this point

Would you prefer a cow, instead?

 

[ARikozuM]

Is this thread going to be a bunch of shit posts? 

Spoiler

If it is, I want in!

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

9 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

You tell me I am shitposting while you have provided 0 data to back up your claim.

You seem kind of slow, so I'll explain it to you again:

1) A whole profession has provided evidence for it. Not me.

2) I was collecting those stupid links while you continue to shitpost 

9 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

Also do not throw terms around like you are an expert.

I don't throw terms around. I use them with precision. And I am an expert.

9 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

I studied economics too

No, you are not a Ph.D. in Economics. You don't have economic research as a job. I can call all your bluffs, don't even try.

 

 

I guess is time to start:

 

Araound the world

From the Review of Economic Dynamics:
(link to working paper due to pay wall)
http://legacy.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=5935

From the Journal of Labor Economics:
(link to working paper due to pay wall)
http://legacy.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=1941

For Germany, very clean methodology, from the Journal of Human Resources:
(Pay wall, but you can find full text)
http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/48/4/998.abstract

For Russia, from Labour Economics:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537196000164
(pay wall, abstract available)

[FakezZ]

7 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You seem kind of slow, so I'll explain it to you again:

1) A whole profession has provided evidence for it. Not me.

2) I was collecting those stupid links while you continue to shitpost 

I don't throw terms around. I use them with precision. And I am an expert.

No, you are not a Ph.D. in Economics. You don't have economic research as a job. I can call all your bluffs, don't even try.

 

 

I guess is time to start:

 

Araound the world

From the Review of Economic Dynamics:
(link to working paper due to pay wall)
http://legacy.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=5935

From the Journal of Labor Economics:
(link to working paper due to pay wall)
http://legacy.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=1941

For Germany, very clean methodology, from the Journal of Human Resources:
(Pay wall, but you can find full text)
http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/48/4/998.abstract

For Russia, from Labour Economics:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537196000164
(pay wall, abstract available)

From the third link you posted: Overall, the results reveal that female workers are less productive and more mobile than males I will not comment whether this is true or not but let's say it is. Therefore there is a reason for the wage gap and therefore it is not a wage gap but rather a productivity gap. Also if you think that I will sit down and read all the things you quoted you really underestimate how much my time is worth. On your first points, I only said I studied economics and never said I had a Ph.D. so nice straw man there, I use it too when I am wrong . You also call me slow while you are the "economics expert" over the internet. Cute  

[SImoHayha]

I truly wonder what this wage gap is. Okay hear me out, this is my definition of the " Wage Gap" from what I know or understand. Wage Gap is if a woman is paid less than a man in the same job so, for example, let's say there is a network admin job available, already and the salary is 60K a year. Both Female and Male applicants have the same degree and same experience.

 

So my definition of wage gap, is if the women is hired she gets 50k a year, and if course if the man gets the original salary. But the wage gap isn't when let's say a man is a network engineer who makes 70K then a female worker who does networking admin make 60k. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, FakezZ said:

From the third link you posted: Overall, the results reveal that female workers are less productive and more mobile than males I will not comment whether this is true or not but let's say it is. Therefore there is a reason for the wage gap and therefore it is not a wage gap but rather a productivity gap.

No. It means that you have to factor in the productivity difference. That's how the gap fall from the false raw numbers people like to report to the actual, lower numbers that exist in practice.

What you do is to assume that "there is a difference in productivity" means "every difference can be accounted by productivity", which is not what the authors say. What all these papers do, and none of the press does, is to account for all the potential sources of wage differences, until there's a only a residual gap that can't be accounted for any of those reasons. That's how you go from the newspaper headlines double-digit numbers to the more accurate single-digit ones.

The paper for Germany is a great example of going from the earnings difference not accounting for anything (~40% difference between males and females), to the difference between males and females with same education, work experience, and measured productivity, which in turn is accomplished by looking at workers in the same firm and in the same establishment (~7-9% final difference). That is the pattern for all these articles: the gap exist, but the typically quoted figures are wrong by exaggeration.

Just now, FakezZ said:

Also if you think that I will sit down and read all the things you quoted you really underestimate how much my time is worth.

I'm sure you won't, not reading and understanding things is how you end up going around claiming "there is no evidence".

Not reading the evidence even if one asked for it is a good strategy to avoid being infected with knowledge. This way you can continue to say "it's all made up" in your next conversation on this topic.

Just now, FakezZ said:

On your first points, I only said I studied economics and never said I had a Ph.D. so nice straw man there

It's not strawmaning. You implied with have relatively comparable economic training so I shouldn't "pretend I'm an expert". You don't have a Ph.D., true, therefore no, we don't have the same training in economics.

 

[2FA]

This is like Patrick 2.0 but with economics. I can see the warning points already.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

I truly wonder what this wage gap is. Okay hear me out, this is my definition of the " Wage Gap" from what I know or understand. Wage Gap is if a woman is paid less than a man in the same job so, for example, let's say there is a network admin job available, already and the salary is 60K a year. Both Female and Male applicants have the same degree and same experience.

 

So my definition of wage gap, is if the women is hired she gets 50k a year, and if course if the man gets the original salary.

EXACTLY. That's what the gap is. You can see the articles linked above for that  

2 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

 But the wage gap isn't when let's say a man is a network engineer who makes 70K then a female worker who does networking admin make 60k. 

That is the problem. Most media echo raw figures coming from comparing what men and women earn on average without controlling for anything, which isn't very useful.

I mean, it is legitimate to ask why women don't acquire the same education, or follow the same career, or otherwise end up in the same situation as men, and there is research on that too. But that's different from discrimination in wages, which can only be argued after all the considerations you mention in your post.

[Carclis]

25 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Araound the world

From the Review of Economic Dynamics:
(link to working paper due to pay wall)
http://legacy.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=5935

From the Journal of Labor Economics:
(link to working paper due to pay wall)
http://legacy.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=1941

For Germany, very clean methodology, from the Journal of Human Resources:
(Pay wall, but you can find full text)
http://jhr.uwpress.org/content/48/4/998.abstract

For Russia, from Labour Economics:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537196000164
(pay wall, abstract available)

Do you not see any flaw in blanketing every single industry whether they be dominated by a particular gender or not and saying that overall both genders should be earning the same amount?
 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, Carclis said:

Do you not see any flaw in blanketing every single industry whether they be dominated by a particular gender or not and saying that overall both genders should be earning the same amount?

That's not what any of those papers says. And there is research done by industry as well.

I don't think you have checked which gap the relevant research is talking about, as opposed to the gap as typically referred to by much less informed people in the media.

[FakezZ]

12 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

No. It means that you have to factor in the productivity difference. That's how the gap fall from the false raw numbers people like to report to the actual, lower numbers that exist in practice.

What you do is to assume that "there is a difference in productivity" means "every difference can be accounted by productivity", which is not what the authors say. What all these papers do, and none of the press does, is to account for all the potential sources of wage differences, until there's a only a residual gap that can't be accounted for any of those reasons. That's how you go from the newspaper headlines double-digit numbers to the more accurate single-digit ones.

The paper for Germany is a great example of going from the earnings difference not accounting for anything (~40% difference between males and females), to the difference between males and females with same education, work experience, and measured productivity, which in turn is accomplished by looking at workers in the same firm and in the same establishment (~7-9% final difference). That is the pattern for all these articles: the gap exist, but the typically quoted figures are wrong by exaggeration.

I'm sure you won't, not reading and understanding things is how you end up going around claiming "there is no evidence".

Not reading the evidence even if one asked for it is a good strategy to avoid being infected with knowledge. This way you can continue to say "it's all made up" in your next conversation on this topic.

It's not strawmaning. You implied with have relatively comparable economic training so I shouldn't "pretend I'm an expert". You don't have a Ph.D., true, therefore no, we don't have the same training in economics.

 

Uhmm when there's a difference in productivity then you expect there to be a difference in wage. You just cannot deny this fact. Also if the "gap" is really <10% then even when you account for absolutely everything there still are other factors that cannot be taken into account by a study that might lead to this and might not even have to do with the gender. (take this for example: https://intergalacticwritersinc.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/ice-cream-consumption-linked-to-shark-attacks/) If you have actually studied economics then you must know that there is always uncertainty in this field. You can never be sure about something as chaotic as the market. I never said I would not read any of it, I just do not have the time to investigate it thourougly, but even just scraping the surface I can see the problems with this research. Btw I never said I had comparable knowledge. I said I studied economics nothing more or less.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, FakezZ said:

Uhmm when there's a difference in productivity then you expect there to be a difference in wage.

Exactly. You need to quantify this effect, and other effects - it's what they do.

Just now, FakezZ said:

 Also if the "gap" is really <10% then even when you account for absolutely everything there still are other factors that cannot be taken into account by a study that might lead to this and might not even have to do with the gender.

While always possible, then the burden of proof lies on you: if you want to argue that a particular study omitted a relevant factor, you must say what that factor is, why it matters, and if possible how would you expect the results to change (i.e., if the order of magnitude can plausibly make a substantial difference).

Just now, FakezZ said:

 

(take this for example: https://intergalacticwritersinc.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/ice-cream-consumption-linked-to-shark-attacks/)

That's just spurious correlations. What these studies are doing are way beyond that - that kind of correlation is what gives you the "40% gap" (or whatever in each country) misleading claims you often find in the media.

 

Just now, FakezZ said:

If you have actually studied economics then you must know that there is always uncertainty in this field. You can never be sure about something so chaotic as the market.

There is uncertainty in science in general, it's the cards we have  We build our knowledge of anything based on "theories not debunked yet", and improve on the basis of debunking older theories and coming up with new ones compatible with a wider range of facts.

 

[Carclis]

11 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That's not what any of those papers says. And there is research done by industry as well.

I don't think you have checked which gap the relevant research is talking about, as opposed to the gap as typically referred to by much less informed people in the media.

That's rubbish. Read the first article you posted. It talks only about comparing people of equal education and working the same hours ie blanketing everyone who is unskilled and works 40 hours a week. This is stupid because there are many dangerous less skilled jobs which are predominantly occupied by men at that bracket and shift wages to look favouring towards men. You have to look at exact same occupations within the same industry and company, including age, experience and time with a company otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.