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

[MadyTehWolfie]

43 minutes ago, Builder said:

Oh god...PragerU? Louder with Crowder? First off, get better sources. Narrow the Gapp uses data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they link it below. Also that's a 19% wage gap, not 29%. 29% would be if they get paid 71c on the dollar, but they get paid 81c on average.

 

Labor markets are also not susceptible to supply and demand in the same way that commodities are, so the idea that corporations could reduce their costs by hiring women and that because they don't that that means the gap doesn't exist is a direct fallacy. Case in point, raising the minimum wage does not increase unemployment. This was discovered through research in the early 1990s.

 

Refuting the video itself, they don't account for the refutations in my original post. The 81% number is based off of people working in the same field under analytically comparable conditions. That video doesn't even refute this point, they just say that men and women go into different fields. Well duh. Please be a little bit more careful in the arguments you're making, as I've already refuted all of them in my first post here.

 

But let's just assume they're right, even though they're wrong. What accounts for consistently paying women 5% less than men across the board? That's not ok either. The idea that anything less than equal pay for equal work is ok is laughable.

 

DItto on the gay transsexual though (notice the avi?), but of course I'm white. That doesn't mean (and I don't believe) that that makes you right and me wrong, that's just idiotic.

 

And no, I'm not trolling, I'm trying to have a serious discussion here.

Where are your sources? You said to list sourced and all of pragerU and louder with Crowder use credible  sources.The one source you list has no stats at all and no facts substantiated by credible sources. Please if you want to spout your wrong facts at least support them with credible sources. Louder with Crowder and PragerU are better sources than what you supplied. Standard SJW when someone lists facts that are credible you just say get better facts instead of looking at the truth.

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, Shakaza said:

This third point...the domain name is "gapp" because there's already another domain with the URL of "narrowthegap." And I think you're overly inflating the severity of that misspelling because of your preconceived notions of the legitimacy of their website and statistics.

 

I can't speak for the other two points, so I'll let @Builder handle that.

You don't have an answer to my other legitimate points, so instead you focus on the one meant essentially as a joke.  That sounds about right.

[Shakaza]

Just now, Jito463 said:

You don't have an answer to my other legitimate points, so instead you focus on the one meant essentially as a joke.  That sounds about right.

If it's a joke, and not a legitimate point, why present it alongside the other points you view as "serious?" To me, reads a bit as if you decided it was a joke after the fact and you're just trying to cover your tracks, but whatever.

 

And you are correct, I don't have an answer to your other two. I'll be leaving that to Builder, whose judgement I tend to trust, and because he's had more experience with this topic and the website. He's also in this thread, so I imagine it won't be long. Have fun!~

[LAwLz]

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

First off, there's no actual data there.  I looked, it's just not there.

There is one data point there.

Quote

Women in the U.S. make 81 cents to the dollar men earn doing the same job.

That's $169 out of a weekly paycheck, which means she gets paid $8,788 less per year.

 

Wage gap calculated from 2015 median weekly earnings of full-time salary workers in the United States as per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The problems with this "fact" is that:

1) It does not compare the same jobs. It compares the same categories of jobs, such as "chief executives". You can be that for a company with 3 people barely breaking even, or you can be the chief executive for Apple. Those two will not make the same amount of money.

 

2) It does not compare people who work the same amount. For example it does not take into account that men are far more likely to work overtime and thus makes more money from that. I know that that terrible website has already "debunked" that argument, but as with any biased website you have to read very carefully to spot the dirt. Yes, it only compares the salaries of full-time workers, but someone working 35hours a week and someone working an average of 42 hours a week will both count as "full-time workers" and thus both be counted in this statistic evenly. Like I said before, it is a fact that men tend to work more overtime than women.

If you want cold, hard facts, then look at this study published by the bureau of labor statistics. The average male full-time worker works 8.2 hours a day compared to 7.8 hours a day.

Quote

On the days they worked, employed men worked 42 minutes more than employed women. This difference partly reflects women's greater likelihood of working part time. However, even among full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked longer than women - 8.2 hours compared with 7.8 hours. (See table 4.)

 

3) It does not take into account work experience. If we strictly follow this statistic, then we are also saying that a man who has worked at a company for 40 years should earn exactly as much as a woman who got hired 2 months ago and can barely find the door into the office.

 

It's easy to pass of an opinion as a fact when you don't include all the variables.

[Mira Yurizaki]

What do you define as a wage gap? What points can I add or subtract before we can objectively claim there is a wage gap? I don't buy that time in company and qualifications alone are a determining factor. What about meaningful experience? What about their "worth" to the company (what if someone became a specialist)? What about performance? What about the employee's ability, desire, or will to challenge their earnings in a review?

 

It's easy to point out a disparity if Jane and John were at Company X for 10 years with the same qualifications when they joined. It's harder when you add in the other factors.

 

I'm just butting my head in here and dropping some thoughts, so don't mind me.

[Builder]

46 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

First off, there's no actual data there.  I looked, it's just not there.

 

Second, the links they have below either lead to basically the same essential page with slightly different text up top, or to some newspaper article which is more opinion than fact.  That's pointless.

 

What exactly is there that one is meant to refute?

First off, please make an effort to read this whole post and respond to the relevant parts in your reply. I'm putting in the effort, so I expect you to. No skirting around the question, please.

 

That being said, I guess I have to link it for you, even though it's pretty obvious: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm

 

"Wage gap calculated from 2015 median weekly earnings of full-time salary workers in the United States as per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."

 

Look at the objections I raised in my initial post, and tell me why they're wrong. Please.

36 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Where are your sources? You said to list sourced and all of pragerU and louder with Crowder use credible  sources.The one source you list has no stats at all and no facts substantiated by credible sources. Please if you want to spout your wrong facts at least support them with credible sources. Louder with Crowder and PragerU are better sources than what you supplied.

The facts are there, they're right underneath the number on Narrow the Gapp. If you seriously think PragerU is a better source than the US Bureau of Labor Statistics then we have nothing to discuss. Prager's sources are all self-referential to them and Christina Hoff Sommers, I looked at them. They're no good. This is not an "SJW move," this is called analytical rigor. The US BLS is a disinterested third party, and Narrow the Gapp's stats are calculated from their data. PragerU and Louder with Crowder are not third parties, and not only that, the sources you linked do nothing to refute the point that I am making.

33 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You don't have an answer to my other legitimate points, so instead you focus on the one meant essentially as a joke.  That sounds about right.

Y'all have yet to even make a legitimate point. I'm waiting.

 

And I'll reiterate, because you haven't confronted this either: what makes a 5% pay gap okay?

 

 

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There is one data point there.

The problem with this "fact" is that:

1) It does not compare the same jobs. It compares the same categories of jobs, such as "chief executives". You can be that for a company with 3 people barely breaking even, or you can be the chief executive for Apple. Those two will not make the same amount of money.

Your analysis here does not refute my point. Okay, so then why does it hold for entry-level jobs that anyone can take, like janitors? I can assure you that Apple's janitors do not get paid 20% more than janitors at every other company, they're all through contracting companies. 

 

You can't compare the same job because only one person can have a job. It's impossible. It makes very little sense that across the board that women are what, working at smaller companies than men and that's the explanation? That's what your argument is, no? Where's your data to back it up?

 

Quote

Like I said before, it is a fact that men tend to work more overtime than women.

If you want cold, hard facts, then look at this study published by the bureau of labor statistics. The average male full-time worker works 8.2 hours a day compared to 7.8 hours a day.

Somebody working 24 minutes longer in an 8 hour day is not a twenty percent increase. That is less than a five percent increase. 

Quote

3) It does not take into account work experience. If we strictly follow this statistic, then we are also saying that a man who has worked at a company for 40 years should earn exactly as much as a woman who got hired 2 months ago and can barely find the door into the office.

 

It's easy to pass of an opinion as a fact when you don't include all the variables.

Okay, but again, you need data to back this up, not just anecdotal hypotheticals. Show me the data that proves that set does not have the full picture. You haven't done it yet.

 

17 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

What do you define as a wage gap? What points can I add or subtract before we can objectively claim there is a wage gap? I don't buy that time in company and qualifications alone are a determining factor. What about meaningful experience? What about their "worth" to the company (what if someone became a specialist)? What about performance? What about the employee's ability, desire, or will to challenge their earnings in a review?

Well, you're at odds with labor law here. Equal qualifications covers meaningful experience, becoming a specialist means they're not working the same job, and beyond that, I can't see how this is different from garden variety sexism.

 

Women across the board are 20% less competent and performant at their jobs (regardless of industry) with equal qualifications to men? It could be the case, but I would say that's at odds with the accepted neuroscience. Additionally with regards to labor law it doesn't matter if you say your women are performing worse than your men and that's why you're paying them 20% less: you're not allowed to do that. The intentions barely matter with discrimination law, it's only the outcome that matters. If your actions lead to a discriminatory outcome, that is the legal definition of discrimination.

 

I would also say, fire those women. Find better women. We exist.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Builder said:

Additionally with regards to labor law it doesn't matter if you say your women are performing worse than your men and that's why you're paying them 20% less: you're not allowed to do that.

Where does it say that you cannot pay someone less based on their performance?

[Builder]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Where does it say that you cannot pay someone less based on their performance?

It doesn't, but I'll reiterate: if you consistently pay women with equal qualifications (this is a big if, I realize) in the same jobs as men 20% less, you're discriminating. It's not me saying this, it's labor law.

 

If your women are performing 20% less than men across the board, demote them to a position where their pay makes sense or fire them. You cannot, however, keep them in the same jobs as men, with the same qualifications as men, and pay them less. Whether this means you misjudged their qualifications or what is irrelevant: it's discrimination.

[MadyTehWolfie]

14 minutes ago, Builder said:

First off, please make an effort to read this whole post and respond to the relevant parts in your reply. I'm putting in the effort, so I expect you to. No skirting around the question, please.

 

That being said, I guess I have to link it for you, even though it's pretty obvious: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm

 

"Wage gap calculated from 2015 median weekly earnings of full-time salary workers in the United States as per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."

 

Look at the objections I raised in my initial post, and tell me why they're wrong. Please.

The facts are there, they're right underneath the number on Narrow the Gapp. If you seriously think PragerU is a better source than the US Bureau of Labor Statistics then we have nothing to discuss. Prager's sources are all self-referential to them and Christina Hoff Sommers, I looked at them. They're no good. This is not an "SJW move," this is called analytical rigor. The US BLS is a disinterested third party, and Narrow the Gapp's stats are calculated from their data. PragerU and Louder with Crowder are not third parties, and not only that, the sources you linked do nothing to refute the point that I am making.

Y'all have yet to even make a legitimate point. I'm waiting.

 

And I'll reiterate, because you haven't confronted this either: what makes a 5% pay gap okay?

 

 

Your analysis here does not refute my point. Okay, so then why does it hold for entry-level jobs that anyone can take, like janitors? I can assure you that Apple's janitors do not get paid 20% more than janitors at every other company, they're all through contracting companies. 

 

You can't compare the same job because only one person can have a job. It's impossible. It makes very little sense that across the board that women are what, working at smaller companies than men and that's the explanation? That's what your argument is, no? Where's your data to back it up?

 

Somebody working 24 minutes longer in an 8 hour day is not a twenty percent increase. That is less than a five percent increase. 

Okay, but again, you need data to back this up, not just anecdotal hypotheticals. Show me the data that proves that set does not have the full picture. You haven't done it yet.

 

Well, you're at odds with labor law here. Equal qualifications covers meaningful experience, becoming a specialist means they're not working the same job, and beyond that, I can't see how this is different from garden variety sexism.

 

Women across the board are 20% less competent and performant at their jobs (regardless of industry) with equal qualifications to men? It could be the case, but I would say that's at odds with the accepted neuroscience. Additionally with regards to labor law it doesn't matter if you say your women are performing worse than your men and that's why you're paying them 20% less: you're not allowed to do that. The intentions barely matter with discrimination law, it's only the outcome that matters. If your actions lead to a discriminatory outcome, that is the legal definition of discrimination.

 

I would also say, fire those women. Find better women. We exist.

If you watched the pragerU and louder with Crowder and read her anaylsis of all those government stats they lump economists in with sociologists as well as not take it account hours worked or time spent away from work. They even used the governments own stats to prove that the same stats that you listed. Think your the one who needs to get stats you fully understand before linking them.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Builder said:

It doesn't, but I'll reiterate: if you consistently pay women with equal qualifications (this is a big if, I realize) in the same jobs as men 20% less, you're discriminating. It's not me saying this, it's labor law.

Citation needed.

1 minute ago, Builder said:

If your women are performing 20% less than men across the board, demote them to a position where their pay makes sense or fire them. You cannot, however, keep them in the same jobs as men, with the same qualifications as men, and pay them less. Whether this means you misjudged their qualifications or what is irrelevant: it's discrimination.

Companies don't have ranks like the military where you've got an E-5 and an E-6 who make different amounts with different responsibilities depending on the pay grade. Most companies don't have a system as specific as them, i.e. IT-5 and IT-6. They could literally have an IT guy/gal who doesn't mind climbing a pylon whereas another might not which earns him/her more money without necessarily giving another job title. 

 

My hospital, for instance, doesn't have a "head technician" as an official title, but someone is senior to everyone else and is deemed acceptable to manage as such regardless of having the same title and different pay.

[MadyTehWolfie]

8 minutes ago, Builder said:

It doesn't, but I'll reiterate: if you consistently pay women with equal qualifications (this is a big if, I realize) in the same jobs as men 20% less, you're discriminating. It's not me saying this, it's labor law.

 

If your women are performing 20% less than men across the board, demote them to a position where their pay makes sense or fire them. You cannot, however, keep them in the same jobs as men, with the same qualifications as men, and pay them less. Whether this means you misjudged their qualifications or what is irrelevant: it's discrimination.

Not true if the women is complete shit at her job she deserves less pay. Stop trying to get equal outcome.

[Jito463]

9 minutes ago, Builder said:

And I'll reiterate, because you haven't confronted this either: what makes a 5% pay gap okay?

 

Somebody working 24 minutes longer in an 8 hour day is not a twenty percent increase. That is less than a five percent increase.

Assuming I even accept the theory of the 5% wage gap, I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

 

12 minutes ago, Builder said:

First off, please make an effort to read this whole post and respond to the relevant parts in your reply. I'm putting in the effort, so I expect you to. No skirting around the question, please.

Who's skirting anything?  I quoted you, and posted the relevant response.  What part of that implies lack of effort?

 

13 minutes ago, Builder said:

That being said, I guess I have to link it for you, even though it's pretty obvious: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm

 

"Wage gap calculated from 2015 median weekly earnings of full-time salary workers in the United States as per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."

Obviously it wasn't that obvious.  Maybe that website should make it more clear.

 

14 minutes ago, Builder said:

Look at the objections I raised in my initial post, and tell me why they're wrong. Please.

The facts are there, they're right underneath the number on Narrow the Gapp. If you seriously think PragerU is a better source than the US Bureau of Labor Statistics then we have nothing to discuss. Prager's sources are all self-referential to them and Christina Hoff Sommers, I looked at them. They're no good. This is not an "SJW move," this is called analytical rigor. The US BLS is a disinterested third party, and Narrow the Gapp's stats are calculated from their data. PragerU and Louder with Crowder are not third parties, and not only that, the sources you linked do nothing to refute the point that I am making.

Those numbers do not take into account experience, education, length of time in job, value of position in the company, how much the company makes (e.g. is company A able to pay their employees as much as company B), etc.  There's so many variables not accounted for.

 

16 minutes ago, Builder said:

Y'all have yet to even make a legitimate point. I'm waiting.

That post wasn't even directed at you, and I have made several legitimate points and am now making more.

 

17 minutes ago, Builder said:

You can't compare the same job because only one person can have a job. It's impossible. It makes very little sense that across the board that women are what, working at smaller companies than men and that's the explanation? That's what your argument is, no? Where's your data to back it up?

Where's your data to prove that woman are working at larger companies and deserve or have earned greater pay?  There is none, that's why those USBLS numbers are meaningless.

[Mira Yurizaki]

12 minutes ago, Builder said:

It doesn't, but I'll reiterate: if you consistently pay women with equal qualifications (this is a big if, I realize) in the same jobs as men 20% less, you're discriminating. It's not me saying this, it's labor law.

 

If your women are performing 20% less than men across the board, demote them to a position where their pay makes sense or fire them. You cannot, however, keep them in the same jobs as men, with the same qualifications as men, and pay them less. Whether this means you misjudged their qualifications or what is irrelevant: it's discrimination.

In a lot of cases in jobs, the same job title has a range of pay. You start at the base level (or maybe somewhere in the middle depending on if you were hired to the position and had more qualifications or experience) and you earn your raises. You only move to another position (i.e. get promoted) if you cap out on your earnings and you are still doing the work above what you're expected to do. However, the thing is most places still hold the same expectations and qualifications on paper regardless if you're at the base level or capped level. So if you want to go "there's wage gap in the Developer II positions!" when most of the people in the supposedly discriminated group are at the base level, then this is misinformation, because on paper, that position carries the same expectations and qualifications regardless of where you are in it.

 

Which is why I don't like if someone tries to simplify the variables yet claim the same outcome.

Edited May 31, 2017 by M.Yurizaki

[Builder]

1 minute ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

If you watched the pragerU and louder with Crowder and read her anaylsis of all those government stats they lump economists in with sociologists as well as not take it account hours worked or time spent away from work. They even used the governments own stats to prove that the same stats that you listed. Think your the one who needs to get stats you fully understand before linking them.

I read the transcript and looked at their sources. They're saying that it's about choices in jobs. This data set reflects that criticism. This is people with the same job.

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Citation needed.

This is called "disparate impact" in discrimination law, and is fairly well known. Look it up:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

 

Quote

Companies don't have ranks like the military where you've got an E-5 and an E-6 who make different amounts with different responsibilities depending on the pay grade. Most companies don't have a system as specific as them, i.e. IT-5 and IT-6. They could literally have an IT guy/gal who doesn't mind climbing a pylon whereas another might not which earns him/her more money without necessarily giving another job title. 

I don't know what companies you've worked in but in big companies it absolutely gets stratified to the degree that the military is. And yes, that individual situation is possible, but you need to show why that consistently causes statistical, disparate impact.

 

Quote

My hospital, for instance, doesn't have a "head technician" as an official title, but someone is senior to everyone else and is deemed acceptable to manage as such regardless of having the same title and different pay.

Your individual anecdotes do not refute labor statistics for a country of 300 million people. Try harder.

 

3 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Not true if the women is complete shit at her job she deserves less pay. Stop trying to get equal outcome.

Then don't fucking hire her, fucking fire her. If she's complete shit, fire her! This is not hard. You've yet to explain why women are consistently 20% worse at their jobs than men.

 

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Assuming I even accept the theory of the 5% wage gap, I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

Uh, no I didn't, because the 5% number is wrong. I was using a hypothetical in the original argument. In this circumstance you would expect men to get paid 5% more, not 19% more, as they do.

 

"Those numbers do not take into account experience, education, length of time in job, value of position in the company, how much the company makes (e.g. is company A able to pay their employees as much as company B), etc.  There's so many variables not accounted for."

 

Alright, so account for those variables, and prove me wrong. Just saying my point is wrong because you can think up counterfactuals that refute it does not make it so.

 

"Where's your data to prove that woman are working at larger companies and deserve or have earned greater pay?  There is none, that's why those USBLS numbers are meaningless."

 

Because it doesn't make any fucking sense to say otherwise. Occam's razor applies here. Why do men in janitorial positions get paid 22% more than women when these positions are all contracted out?

 

5 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

In a lot of cases in jobs, the same job title has a range of pay. You start at the base level (or maybe somewhere in the middle depending on if you were hired to the position and had more qualifications or experience) and you earn your raises. You only move to another position (i.e. get promoted) if you cap out on your earnings and you are still doing the work above what you're expected to do. However, the thing is most places still hold the same expectations on paper regardless if you're at the base level or capped level. So if you want to go "there's wage gap in the Developer II positions!" when most of the people in the supposedly discriminated group are at the base level, then this is misinformation, because on paper, that position carries the same expectations regardless of where you are in it.

 

Which is why I don't like if someone tries to simplify the variables yet claim the same outcome.

Okay, but you have to actually explain this point, with evidence. What's your explanation for this, and how does it fit the data better? You can't just guess here, you have to extrapolate from what is known to what is implied, you can't do it backwards.

 

I'll say what I've said before.

 

If you have a better set of data for analyzing these problems, please provide it. Until then, this is the best data we've got, flawed though it may be, and people don't seem to understand what disparate impact means.

[LAwLz]

11 minutes ago, Builder said:

Your analysis here does not refute my point.

And where did I say I was going to refute your point? All I was saying is that the website you linked does not have enough data to actually claim what it tries to claim. All it can say is that if you only look at the median wage, without taking any other factors into consideration such as parental leave, overtime, job experience, or any of the other critical factors, then it is correct in that women earn "81 cents for every dollar a man makes". However, drawing a conclusion on such a small set of data, which leaves out so many factors is not a good idea.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Builder said:

Somebody working 24 minutes longer in an 8 hour day is not a twenty percent increase. That is less than a five percent increase. 

11 minutes ago, Builder said:

Okay, but again, you need data to back this up, not just anecdotal hypotheticals. Show me the data that proves that set does not have the full picture. You haven't done it yet.

I just pointed out that it does not have the full picture, and you just went "ok" to that. So no, I do not have to "prove that set does not have the full picture", because you already agreed with me that it does not.

If you think I am making "anecdotal hypotheticals" then I don't think those words mean what you think they mean, and you completely missed my point. I am not saying that a wage-gap doesn't exist, but rather than the website you linked does not have sufficient evidence to make the claims it makes.

 

By the way, it is not my responsibility to prove that your source took into account all variables. That is your job, and something you should have done before using it as a source. Source criticism is something you do before you post a link, not afterwards.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Builder said:

"Those numbers do not take into account experience, education, length of time in job, value of position in the company, how much the company makes (e.g. is company A able to pay their employees as much as company B), etc.  There's so many variables not accounted for."

 

Alright, so account for those variables, and prove me wrong. Just saying my point is wrong because you can think up counterfactuals that refute it does not make it so.

Nobody has those numbers.  NOBODY.  How do you expect me to do the work that no one else has done?  That's my exact point, that there's not sufficient information to prove (or disprove) the disparity.

 

However, I can say with 100% confidence that you can't make the claim that there is definitely a wage gap, because there's insufficient data to back it up.

[Builder]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

By the way, it is not my responsibility to prove that your source took into account all variables. That is your job, and something you should have done before using it as a source. Source criticism is something you do before you post a link, not afterwards.

Well yes, but without explaining why, you're basically saying "here's my explanation, it doesn't explain the data, believe it anyways."

 

You've explained that the source is incomplete. Okay. I agree. Data is imperfect, we're never going to have the full picture. What, then, is your explanation for the 20% pay gap? Do you have data to support your hypotheses, or do you just hate mine? 

 

What is your conclusion? That across the country, women consistently go into the same jobs at smaller companies, and get paid less as a result? Why?

 

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

However, I can say with 100% confidence that you can't make the claim that there is definitely a wage gap, because there's insufficient data to back it up.

No, you're right. This is all shades of gray. I will say that I am about 99% certain that there is a wage gap, because I haven't seen better data proving otherwise, only anecdotal explanations.

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, Builder said:

Alright, so account for those variables, and prove me wrong. Just saying my point is wrong because you can think up counterfactuals that refute it does not make it so.

Ehm, that's not how logic works.

You're shifting the burden of proof.

 

Me: The earth is flat! Pictures of Earth are all faked!

You: But if the earth was flat, gravity would not work like it does.

Me: You never proved me wrong, you just made a counterargument! I am correct until you prove that the earth is flat!

 

That's basically what you're trying to pull here. Sorry but you're making the claim that women earns significantly less than men because of some patriarchy and not completely fair and non-sexist reasons then it is up to you to prove it. The default option is not that you are right. The default stance is that we do not know, and in order to know we need solid evidence that won't fall apart by sneezing at it.

 

Is there a wage-gap? Probably.

Is it caused by sexism? We don't know.

Have you or the website you linked proved that there is a wage gap created by sexism? Not certainly not. It does not do that because it leaves out extremely important aspects which could explain the situation without resorting to "it's sexism!".

[MadyTehWolfie]

22 minutes ago, Builder said:

I read the transcript and looked at their sources. They're saying that it's about choices in jobs. This data set reflects that criticism. This is people with the same job.

This is called "disparate impact" in discrimination law, and is fairly well known. Look it up:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

 

I don't know what companies you've worked in but in big companies it absolutely gets stratified to the degree that the military is. And yes, that individual situation is possible, but you need to show why that consistently causes statistical, disparate impact.

 

Your individual anecdotes do not refute labor statistics for a country of 300 million people. Try harder.

 

Then don't fucking hire her, fucking fire her. If she's complete shit, fire her! This is not hard. You've yet to explain why women are consistently 20% worse at their jobs than men.

 

Uh, no I didn't, because the 5% number is wrong. I was using a hypothetical in the original argument. In this circumstance you would expect men to get paid 5% more, not 19% more, as they do.

 

"Those numbers do not take into account experience, education, length of time in job, value of position in the company, how much the company makes (e.g. is company A able to pay their employees as much as company B), etc.  There's so many variables not accounted for."

 

Alright, so account for those variables, and prove me wrong. Just saying my point is wrong because you can think up counterfactuals that refute it does not make it so.

 

"Where's your data to prove that woman are working at larger companies and deserve or have earned greater pay?  There is none, that's why those USBLS numbers are meaningless."

 

Because it doesn't make any fucking sense to say otherwise. Occam's razor applies here. Why do men in janitorial positions get paid 22% more than women when these positions are all contracted out?

 

Okay, but you have to actually explain this point, with evidence. What's your explanation for this, and how does it fit the data better? You can't just guess here, you have to extrapolate from what is known to what is implied, you can't do it backwards.

 

I'll say what I've said before.

 

If you have a better set of data for analyzing these problems, please provide it. Until then, this is the best data we've got, flawed though it may be, and people don't seem to understand what disparate impact means.

Seriously you say I need better sources yet use Wikipedia. Fail

[leadeater]

32 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Citation needed.

Companies don't have ranks like the military where you've got an E-5 and an E-6 who make different amounts with different responsibilities depending on the pay grade. Most companies don't have a system as specific as them, i.e. IT-5 and IT-6. They could literally have an IT guy/gal who doesn't mind climbing a pylon whereas another might not which earns him/her more money without necessarily giving another job title. 

 

My hospital, for instance, doesn't have a "head technician" as an official title, but someone is senior to everyone else and is deemed acceptable to manage as such regardless of having the same title and different pay.

Where I work we do. We have pay grades and positions are graded based on a number of criteria but to keep it short that's exactly the system we have. I'm a Systems Engineer and my job is Grade G (GEN15G to be exact), someone on the service desk I believe is Grade E (I think, I can look it up).

 

We also have a damn good union which is why we have those pay grades, every year you get a standard increment pay raise until you hit the top of you pay grade. Every year the pay grades are inflation adjusted so if you are at the top of your grade you still get a pay increase but it's less than the standard increment.

[LAwLz]

31 minutes ago, Builder said:

Well yes, but without explaining why, you're basically saying "here's my explanation, it doesn't explain the data, believe it anyways."

Except that's not at all what I did.

I just said that your source does not provide sufficient evidence to make the claims it does. I am not the one saying "here's my explanation!", because I have not posted an explanation.

You're the one saying "here's my explanation. I have no data for it, but believe it anyway".

 

 

31 minutes ago, Builder said:

You've explained that the source is incomplete. Okay. I agree. Data is imperfect, we're never going to have the full picture. What, then, is your explanation for the 20% pay gap? Do you have data to support your hypotheses, or do you just hate mine? 

What is my hypothesis exactly? I don't think I have posted one in this thread, so it will be interesting to hear what you think I am saying, and compare that to what I am actually saying.

I think the problem here is that you are extremely defensive and sees anyone who even questions your claims to be an enemy you have to attack.

"Someone does not agree with me? That person must hate me!"

 

 

31 minutes ago, Builder said:

What is your conclusion? That across the country, women consistently go into the same jobs at smaller companies, and get paid less as a result? Why?

But we do not know if that statement is actually true. You are arguing based on assumptions.

It's an assumption you're making that women gets paid less for the same jobs. You have yet to actually post evidence to support that claim.

 

 

You have yet to post any solid evidence for the entire foundation of your arguments.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Seriously you say I need better sources yet use Wikipedia. Fail

Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia, and I think Builder is correct on that point.

Assuming ALL other variables are equal, you can not pay someone less because of reasons such as "you're a woman", "you're black" or "you're white". That's discrimination.

The key word is "all". Even a single variable can have a major impact on your salary.

 

 

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Where I work we do. We have pay grades and positions are graded based on a number of criteria but to keep it short that's exactly the system we have. I'm a Systems Engineer and my job is Grade G (GEN15G to be exact), someone on the service desk I believe is Grade E (I think, I can look it up).

 

We also have a damn good union which is why we have those pay grades, every year you get a standard increment pay raise until you hit the top of you pay grade. Every year the pay grades are inflation adjusted so if you are at the top of your grade you still get a pay increase but it's less than the standard increment.

Sounds like a pretty good system, but I would not be surprised if that's the exception rather than the norm.

Where I work we do not have a system like that. Like 3/4 of our office all have the same job title, "IT consultant" and then some subtitle like "communications". I have the same job title as our CCIE consultant with something like 20 years experience.

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Except that's not at all what I did.

I just said that your source does not provide sufficient evidence to make the claims it does. I am not the one saying "here's my explanation!", because I have not posted an explanation.

You're the one saying "here's my explanation. I have no data for it, but believe it anyway".

 

 

What is my hypothesis exactly? I don't think I have posted one in this thread, so it will be interesting to hear what you think I am saying, and compare that to what I am actually saying.

I think the problem here is that you are extremely defensive and sees anyone who even questions your claims to be an enemy you have to attack.

"Someone does not agree with me? That person must hate me!"

 

 

But we do not know if that statement is actually true. You are arguing based on assumptions.

It's an assumption you're making that women gets paid less for the same jobs. You have yet to actually post evidence to support that claim.

 

 

You have yet to post any solid evidence for the entire foundation of your arguments.

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with using Wikipedia, and I think Builder is correct on that point.

Assuming ALL other variables are equal, you can not pay someone less because of reasons such as "you're a woman", "you're black" or "you're white". That's discrimination.

 

Sounds like a pretty good system, but I would not be surprised if that's the exception rather than the norm.

Where I work we do not have a system like that. Like 3/4 of our office all have the same job title, "IT consultant" and then some subtitle like "communications". I have the same job title as our CCIE consultant with something like 20 years experience.

Except those who actually pay less based on race and or gender are a very small minority, like tiny. An any race or gender does this it's not just men or white people. Was denied a job by a black dude who only hired white women and Latino women. Thought he had a little harem going at a quick stop lol.

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Sounds like a pretty good system, but I would not be surprised if that's the exception rather than the norm.

Where I work we do not have a system like that. Like 3/4 of our office all have the same job title, "IT consultant" and then some subtitle like "communications". I have the same job title as our CCIE consultant with something like 20 years experience.

Yea every place is different, we have around 5000 FTE positions. There are more employees than that but not all are full time, basically it's extremely hard to ensure pay parity with that many employees if you don't have a pay grading type system.

[JuNex03]

1 hour ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Except those who actually pay less based on race and or gender are a very small minority, like tiny. An any race or gender does this it's not just men or white people. Was denied a job by a black dude who only hired white women and Latino women. Thought he had a little harem going at a quick stop lol.

Hehe depending how you look at it, its either the guy is an (((((Ally))))) or a Sexist. I mean hiring only women, would be breaking the so called "glass ceiling" but can also be seen as him objectifying them. See this is why shit like this is plain old BS, everything is so subjective.

[Ertman]

On 5/30/2017 at 6:10 AM, Taf the Ghost said:

It's the rhetorical impact, not that Stats that are the problem.

 

Thus, mock them. (As a side point, this is the reason the Internet discourse has become the way it has. There's no discussion to be had in a politically correct environment. The only recourse is some level of mockery of the stupidity. Thus, memes.  Lots & lots of Memes.)

No point of view really escapes this mocking, you even see this when people discuss SJW.