4 ms·

Misleading title. It does not say whether or not the salaries were normalized based on the type of job inside each occupation (hours, position, etc.). Almost su

by azth 11y ago

Misleading title. It does not say whether or not the salaries were normalized based on the type of job inside each occupation (hours, position, etc.). Almost surely they have not been.

zorpner 11y ago
Exactly! A big part of the problem is that women aren't promoted as often and much of the work they're expected to do (admin tasks, coordination that falls outside the scope of their official title) isn't accounted for in estimates of their work hours. Thanks for pointing out this important reason that there's a gender-based pay gap in so many occupations.
- Kalium 11y ago
  I'm reasonably certain that that is not what azth was attempting to communicate. Is there a particular reason you are commenting in this manner?
  - zorpner 11y ago
    I was under the impression that they were pointing out the mechanisms responsible for the evident pay gap. What do you think they were attempting to communicate?
    - Kalium 11y ago
      I believe azth was attempting to communicate that as processed and presented, this visualization can serve only to mislead. That it does not offer an accurate - and thus useful - amount of insight because it fails to account for a number of factors known to be significant.
angersock 11y ago
Sourced from here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm I somewhat trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  I mostly trust the BLS, but I don't necessarily trust every statistical conclusion someone can draw from running a script on BLS data. Just as an example of how the numbers might not mean what they appear to: "lawyers" is near the middle of the chart, at around the 82% mark, while "legal occupations" is way at the bottom, around 57%. Does "legal occupations" include lawyers, or is it everything else in the law field aside from lawyers? If lawyers are included, then there's an obvious explanation for the large gap in legal occupations as a whole (namely, more male lawyers, and lawyers being higher-paid than assistants etc., dragging up the median compensation of males in the legal field); if they're not included, then there's a huge and unexplained gender discrepancy in pay among legal assistants etc. These numbers have a very different meaning if they don't account for seniority, hours worked, or level of responsibility than if they do.
  - thomasz 11y ago
    > These numbers have a very different meaning if they don't account for seniority, hours worked, or level of responsibility than if they do. I don't undestand your point. Those are exactly the mechanisms most likely responsible for the pay gap. No employer would ever pay double wage for an y chromosome, but it's not unlikely that preconceived gender roles influence decisions about who gets promoted, who stays home with the kids and stuff like that.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      By failing to account for obvious and known confounds, the graph is rendered significantly less meaningful. By way of analogy, one could look at rainfall averages over the whole of the US and conclude that some place is/is not in a drought. You could do this by ignoring the obvious confound that different places get different amounts of rainfall. For some places, it would be true. For others, not.
    - omonra 11y ago
      That's the crux of the matter. Most people unhappy about the 'pay gap' are indeed implying that employers are paying double (or 21% more) wage for a y chromosome. If the wage gap rather has to do with decisions employees make themselves (such as who stays home with the kids and thus works fewer hours / has less experience / doesn't get promoted) - then it's not really the problem of employers to contend with.
onion2k 11y ago
So instead of indicating a level of inequality in pay for doing the same job, the data might indicate a level of sexism in the type of jobs people have (or number of hours worked, or number of years people are in the profession, etc). That still demonstrates there's a significant problem. There is no way to read that graph, or the data behind it, that indicates things should stay the way they are.
- bitJericho 11y ago
  Is it sexism, or is it women not wanting to promote due to external factors? Is it women not asking for raises as often as men? There is a lot of missing data here.
- Hyperborian 11y ago
  > That still demonstrates there's a significant problem. Of course, but it's a different problem with a different solution. Isn't that important to know?
- Kalium 11y ago
  As I understand azth's objection, it basically means "This data has been stripped of all context that could make it meaningful". Which is to say it's a shocking, but ultimately useless graph. You can say there's no way to read it as indicating things should stay the way they are. I believe azth's point is that there's no way to read it as saying anything coherent at all. (EDIT: Typo.)
- reitzensteinm 11y ago
  There absolutely are ways to read the graph in a positive light. If pay is heavily influenced by seniority, and a profession used to be sexist in its hiring practices but no longer is, then it follows that there'll be a significant gender pay gap until the older - mostly male - members of a profession die out. Of course, there are many ways to read it negatively too. It's so devoid of information that it's just meaningless.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  How about women are more likely to change professions/jobs, so they don't get to the same levels of seniority as men. That might indicate they have a more varied and interesting life. Maybe that suits women better than men. So yea the graph says nothing.

by azth 11y ago

Misleading title. It does not say whether or not the salaries were normalized based on the type of job inside each occupation (hours, position, etc.). Almost surely they have not been.

zorpner 11y ago

Exactly! A big part of the problem is that women aren't promoted as often and much of the work they're expected to do (admin tasks, coordination that falls outside the scope of their official title) isn't accounted for in estimates of their work hours. Thanks for pointing out this important reason that there's a gender-based pay gap in so many occupations.

Kalium 11y ago
I'm reasonably certain that that is not what azth was attempting to communicate. Is there a particular reason you are commenting in this manner?
- zorpner 11y ago
  I was under the impression that they were pointing out the mechanisms responsible for the evident pay gap. What do you think they were attempting to communicate?
  - Kalium 11y ago
    I believe azth was attempting to communicate that as processed and presented, this visualization can serve only to mislead. That it does not offer an accurate - and thus useful - amount of insight because it fails to account for a number of factors known to be significant.

angersock 11y ago

Sourced from here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm I somewhat trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

lotharbot 11y ago
I mostly trust the BLS, but I don't necessarily trust every statistical conclusion someone can draw from running a script on BLS data. Just as an example of how the numbers might not mean what they appear to: "lawyers" is near the middle of the chart, at around the 82% mark, while "legal occupations" is way at the bottom, around 57%. Does "legal occupations" include lawyers, or is it everything else in the law field aside from lawyers? If lawyers are included, then there's an obvious explanation for the large gap in legal occupations as a whole (namely, more male lawyers, and lawyers being higher-paid than assistants etc., dragging up the median compensation of males in the legal field); if they're not included, then there's a huge and unexplained gender discrepancy in pay among legal assistants etc. These numbers have a very different meaning if they don't account for seniority, hours worked, or level of responsibility than if they do.
- thomasz 11y ago
  > These numbers have a very different meaning if they don't account for seniority, hours worked, or level of responsibility than if they do. I don't undestand your point. Those are exactly the mechanisms most likely responsible for the pay gap. No employer would ever pay double wage for an y chromosome, but it's not unlikely that preconceived gender roles influence decisions about who gets promoted, who stays home with the kids and stuff like that.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    By failing to account for obvious and known confounds, the graph is rendered significantly less meaningful. By way of analogy, one could look at rainfall averages over the whole of the US and conclude that some place is/is not in a drought. You could do this by ignoring the obvious confound that different places get different amounts of rainfall. For some places, it would be true. For others, not.
  - omonra 11y ago
    That's the crux of the matter. Most people unhappy about the 'pay gap' are indeed implying that employers are paying double (or 21% more) wage for a y chromosome. If the wage gap rather has to do with decisions employees make themselves (such as who stays home with the kids and thus works fewer hours / has less experience / doesn't get promoted) - then it's not really the problem of employers to contend with.

onion2k 11y ago

So instead of indicating a level of inequality in pay for doing the same job, the data might indicate a level of sexism in the type of jobs people have (or number of hours worked, or number of years people are in the profession, etc). That still demonstrates there's a significant problem. There is no way to read that graph, or the data behind it, that indicates things should stay the way they are.

bitJericho 11y ago
Is it sexism, or is it women not wanting to promote due to external factors? Is it women not asking for raises as often as men? There is a lot of missing data here.
Hyperborian 11y ago
> That still demonstrates there's a significant problem. Of course, but it's a different problem with a different solution. Isn't that important to know?
Kalium 11y ago
As I understand azth's objection, it basically means "This data has been stripped of all context that could make it meaningful". Which is to say it's a shocking, but ultimately useless graph. You can say there's no way to read it as indicating things should stay the way they are. I believe azth's point is that there's no way to read it as saying anything coherent at all. (EDIT: Typo.)
reitzensteinm 11y ago
There absolutely are ways to read the graph in a positive light. If pay is heavily influenced by seniority, and a profession used to be sexist in its hiring practices but no longer is, then it follows that there'll be a significant gender pay gap until the older - mostly male - members of a profession die out. Of course, there are many ways to read it negatively too. It's so devoid of information that it's just meaningless.
Asbostos 11y ago
How about women are more likely to change professions/jobs, so they don't get to the same levels of seniority as men. That might indicate they have a more varied and interesting life. Maybe that suits women better than men. So yea the graph says nothing.