4 ms·
The meta argument I am trying to make is that recent arguments about this have shifted to including accounting for jobs (and usually experience levels), since j
by wanderr 9y ago
The meta argument I am trying to make is that recent arguments about this have shifted to including accounting for jobs (and usually experience levels), since jecjec was claiming that it's still the antiquated version that does not account for any of those things. If you want to have a discussion about the quality of any of those articles or the studies they're based on, well, that's a different discussion entirely, I present these as evidence that the discussion has moved, not that any of them are correct.
- kobeya 9y agoThe point is that 2.4% is within the error of such a survey. So effectively the result of the survey is that there is no pay gap.
- wanderr 9y agothe point is, you're arguing with the article, not my point.
- mpweiher 9y ago> arguments about this have shifted Only in a Motte-Bailey sense [1][2]. PM: "77 cents to the dollar, it's a crime!!" DO: "That's complete BS". PM: "Well, you're right, here is more reasonable data" DO: "But that doesn't actually show a gap" PM: "Oh my god, 77 cents to the dollar!!" [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric... [2] https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf