4 ms·

I'm not saying the difference is explained by difference in hours worked. I'm saying it's a possible explanation. You on the other hand are trying to draw conc

I'm not saying the difference is explained by difference in hours worked. I'm saying it's a possible explanation. You on the other hand are trying to draw conclusions that aren't backed by the data.

ajross 10y ago
What? That's 100% up-is-downism. What you say is simply incorrect. The conclusions is backed by data. The data is in the link. Go look at it. See? Glass Door says women are underpaid. That's data! What you are doing is saying "No, I don't think the conclusion should be what the data says", and then you're going out and finding ("cherry picking") different data about related but not identical subjects that appears to contradict it. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you if you want to make a numeric argument here. And you're doing it with extraordinarily bad analysis.
- flukus 10y ago
  Not all data is equal. The collection methodology for glassdoor isn't much better than an online poll.
  - ajross 10y ago
    Still better than "Hey guyz! I found a link on Forbes to a BLS study about some other subject that totally makes you wrong!" Believe what you want. Just like climate change denial, there's enough uncertainty in these numbers to make any level of ostrich-headery justifiable. I just want to know why no one ever manages to show data that is "wrong" in the other direction...
- sheepmullet 10y ago
  > The conclusions is backed by data. The data is in the link. Go look at it. See? Glass Door says women are underpaid. That's data! The data shows there is a difference in pay. Underpaid means less pay for the same work. That's not the same thing. Not even close. In fact it is intentionally misleading.
- JakeAl 10y ago
  Even if the data says women are paid less, it doesn't say why. Correlation does not show causation. The implication is that there is gender discrimination. Research by women into the gender wage gap has explored a large number (but not all) reasons for this and shown the actual gender wage gap when taking into account actual reasons is only as high as 8%, with more research and experimentation underway to account for additional reasons. This is the most current objective research on the subject I am aware of. Summary with a link to the research paper, which is really good science as demonstrated with experimentation and doesn't try to sell a narrative, BTW. Worth the read. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/ilr-school-research-finds-persistent-gender-pay-gap http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/ilr-school-resea... "New research by ILR School professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn finds an eight percent gender wage gap that cannot be accounted for, even after controlling for observable variables that influence workers’ pay. Gender discrimination in the workplace COULD be a cause, they suggest."

I'm not saying the difference is explained by difference in hours worked. I'm saying it's a possible explanation. You on the other hand are trying to draw conclusions that aren't backed by the data.

ajross 10y ago

What? That's 100% up-is-downism. What you say is simply incorrect. The conclusions is backed by data. The data is in the link. Go look at it. See? Glass Door says women are underpaid. That's data! What you are doing is saying "No, I don't think the conclusion should be what the data says", and then you're going out and finding ("cherry picking") different data about related but not identical subjects that appears to contradict it. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you if you want to make a numeric argument here. And you're doing it with extraordinarily bad analysis.

flukus 10y ago
Not all data is equal. The collection methodology for glassdoor isn't much better than an online poll.
- ajross 10y ago
  Still better than "Hey guyz! I found a link on Forbes to a BLS study about some other subject that totally makes you wrong!" Believe what you want. Just like climate change denial, there's enough uncertainty in these numbers to make any level of ostrich-headery justifiable. I just want to know why no one ever manages to show data that is "wrong" in the other direction...
sheepmullet 10y ago
> The conclusions is backed by data. The data is in the link. Go look at it. See? Glass Door says women are underpaid. That's data! The data shows there is a difference in pay. Underpaid means less pay for the same work. That's not the same thing. Not even close. In fact it is intentionally misleading.
JakeAl 10y ago
Even if the data says women are paid less, it doesn't say why. Correlation does not show causation. The implication is that there is gender discrimination. Research by women into the gender wage gap has explored a large number (but not all) reasons for this and shown the actual gender wage gap when taking into account actual reasons is only as high as 8%, with more research and experimentation underway to account for additional reasons. This is the most current objective research on the subject I am aware of. Summary with a link to the research paper, which is really good science as demonstrated with experimentation and doesn't try to sell a narrative, BTW. Worth the read. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/ilr-school-research-finds-persistent-gender-pay-gap http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/ilr-school-resea... "New research by ILR School professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn finds an eight percent gender wage gap that cannot be accounted for, even after controlling for observable variables that influence workers’ pay. Gender discrimination in the workplace COULD be a cause, they suggest."