10 ms·

The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less

The statistics for gender are misleading. If you're just comparing the average wage of men and women then of course women are going to earn less: they work less than men on average. If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So these statistics are hardly "disturbing", though they do merit further research to see how much of a problem these things actually are.

igravious 9y ago
Will I believe you or will I believe the secretary-general for the OECD? “We have reached a tipping point. Inequality can no longer be treated as an afterthought. We need to focus the debate on how the benefits of growth are distributed. Our report ‘In it Together’ and our work on inclusive growth have clearly shown that there doesn’t have to be a trade-off between growth and equality. On the contrary, the opening up of opportunity can spur stronger economic performance and improve living standards across the board!” OECD Secretary-General http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm Hmm, I wonder ;-) edit: We know that the USA ranks lower than almost every other OECD country in terms of social mobility, see pages 4 and 5 of this slide deck: https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NERO-22-June-2015-income-inequality-social-mobility-and-economic-growth.pdf https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NERO-22-June-2015-income-ine...
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I was saying the statistics (in the Bloomberg article) don't support that argument.
- dibujante 9y ago
  The previous poster is arguing metrics and the secretary-general is arguing ethics. You can't compare those two. Both statements could be true or false; the truth value of the statements is independent.
- refurb 9y ago
  There have been several papers that show the US is last in income mobility while having other papers show it's in the top 3. Suffice to say there is no consensus. Also, measuring mobility by income quintiles is challenging as quintiles aren't the same across countries. You could move from 1st to 4th income quintile in one country and have a higher wage than some moving from 1st to 5th in another country.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). Actually I have to disagree, a bifurcation in income is reason to worry in itself. In a society where everything is commodified this wealth gap allows the rich to opt out of normal civil society. A society where a small few can buy their way out of a crap education system, out of a crap healthcare system, etc. isn't just no matter how well we swap people in and out of that group.
- skybrian 9y ago
  A windfall (winning the lottery or some other one-off event) is generally considered a good thing, unless you don't know how to handle it and spend it all at once. Everyone getting a windfall, in different years: still not a bad thing, even if it makes inequality statistics look bad. In theory. But that's not the world we live in. Most people don't get windfalls and have little savings.
- closeparen 9y ago
  The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Yes but that's good. >Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. I actually think it would reduce total suffering, just that it's a short-term vs long-term thing. >We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards. You're sort of close to what I want but not quite. We'd shut down all education systems which allow you to buy good results, same for healthcare, it's not about absolute quality it's about the relative quality in exchange for dollars. My point is that when you drag everyone into the same crap system, the most powerful in society who currently get to opt-out are stuck as well. They're forced to advocate for systems which are universally better rather than advocating for systems which are selectively better. By changing the incentives this way we stick everyone on the same side, inside of one side against another, it's better for everyone.
knuththetruth 9y ago
>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How so? We've been through this in American history. It was called the Gilded Age and it was a nightmare for all but a handful of robber barons, resulted in widespread social and political instability, and violence.
- rvo 9y ago
  I don't think you understand what feudalism was/is...
  - knuththetruth 9y ago
    No, I think I do. And so do a number of Silicon Valley "luminaries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
    - rvo 9y ago
      I have no idea why you linked that. The two comments you have posted make absolutely no sense. Non sequitors. Why did you use feudalism first, and then some weird alt right stuff second? What's going through your mind?
      - jadedhacker 9y ago
        The idea is that feudal ideologies are making a comeback with the rise of an aristocratic class. These ideologies are finding support amongst the (conservative/reactionary) lower classes as they try to process why their lives are getting shittier without being provided a clear logical explanation. Thus they reach backwards for older more authoritarian models to try to restore their power. What is missing is the narrative of class struggle. From the linked wikipedia article: "It broadly rejects egalitarianism and the view that history shows inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment (thus, it is in part a reaction against "Whig historiography").[1][2] The movement favors a return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for monarchism or other forms of strong, centralised leadership such as a "neocameralist CEO"[3] of a joint-stock republic,[4] coupled with a right-libertarian, conservative or other approach to economics."
netfire 9y ago
The same could be said for the racial-based statistics, since race might be tied to cultural opinions which could impact how many hours a week or years in a lifetime someone works.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Why should we care the reason people make their choices? What if I like surfing, so I decide to work part time which allows me to surf more? Does my skin color or gender matter? If I want to participate in this "surf culture," why would you feel the need to either force me to work more or demand that others subsidize my surfing habit?
  - netfire 9y ago
    I’m just saying there is a factor that could impact the statistics and that how much a person works should be taken into account for all the findings. Not just the gender-based one, so that we have accurate data from which to make decisions from. I didn’t say anything about forcing anyone to work or subsidizing habits. I think these charts are trying to claim that discrimination is happening and if how much someone is working isn’t taken into account, they don’t support that claim very well. To be clear I’m not stating that discrimination is or isn’t happening. I’d just like better data.
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Well, the difference between race and gender is that most women have children, which take up a lot of time and require taking at least some time away from work. If the difference is due to cultural issues then maybe it makes sense to worry about the differences and try to address them, but if the difference just comes down to women have children so they work less that's a less compelling reason to try to equalize men's and women's wages (and as I noted, in some areas young women out earn men already, partly because they tend to be more educated).
  - watwut 9y ago
    Men have children too. There are not many kids that have no biological father. I mean these comments talk about it as if kids and work around them had zero to do with men and we're some kind of female hobby. Among some men it is so as they don't care, but many men do actually care and do spend time with them.
sbov 9y ago
> If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). I generally agree with this line of thought, but you're also missing the higher level question: why, in our society, do we have to control for women who have children, but we don't have to control for men who have children?
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Because women get pregnant and are the primary caregivers in most families? Edit: Basically you have to control for what's causing women to work less when the have children. And the obvious answer is because if you're a woman it's hard to work when you have a child at home. If you're a man that's not really true since typically your wife/girlfriend takes care of the child. You can argue that maybe men should take more responsibility for raising their kids, but that's more of a social/political issue than an economic one.
  - jadedhacker 9y ago
    Political and social issues and economic issues are one. They are only disconnected in the strange milleu of libertarianism that America finds itself in.
  - watwut 9y ago
    How is that not economic issue? That is just ridiculous claim. It may be issue that is not caused by her employer sexism, but impact on her retirement or perspective in case of divorce or simply buying power or what not is absolutely economic.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      People have a choice in whether or not they procreate. If you can't afford to do it or are unwilling to sacrifice the extra income to focus more on your family, then you shouldn't have children. Just as if I chose to go live in the wilderness, it would only make sense that my income would drop. No one would be at fault and I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference for my "lost" income.
12312390123 9y ago
It's very fascinating to me how the vast majority of time someone is saying "the statistics for gender are misleading" it appears to be a man saying it. > If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). Citation needed. > And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern Citation needed.
- joyeuse6701 9y ago
  What are you implying? Is there some point you want to make about being a man and its relation to gender studies, or was that a sexist statement trying to call out sexism? It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. Let's try not to be facetious while simultaneously undermining our own argument with poorly veiled prejudice.
- vedloseper 9y ago
  If you only ever hear men mention this, maybe you surround yourself with not very intelligent and/or not very honest women. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-g... > One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” In the past, women’s groups have ignored or explained away such findings.
dominotw 9y ago
> And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter Cant they control democracy via increase access to speech though wealth.
gameswithgo 9y ago
>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern Yes it is, history teaches us that it leads to dissastisfaction and in some cases violent revolution.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

igravious 9y ago

Will I believe you or will I believe the secretary-general for the OECD? “We have reached a tipping point. Inequality can no longer be treated as an afterthought. We need to focus the debate on how the benefits of growth are distributed. Our report ‘In it Together’ and our work on inclusive growth have clearly shown that there doesn’t have to be a trade-off between growth and equality. On the contrary, the opening up of opportunity can spur stronger economic performance and improve living standards across the board!” OECD Secretary-General http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm Hmm, I wonder ;-) edit: We know that the USA ranks lower than almost every other OECD country in terms of social mobility, see pages 4 and 5 of this slide deck: https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NERO-22-June-2015-income-inequality-social-mobility-and-economic-growth.pdf https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NERO-22-June-2015-income-ine...

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I was saying the statistics (in the Bloomberg article) don't support that argument.
dibujante 9y ago
The previous poster is arguing metrics and the secretary-general is arguing ethics. You can't compare those two. Both statements could be true or false; the truth value of the statements is independent.
refurb 9y ago
There have been several papers that show the US is last in income mobility while having other papers show it's in the top 3. Suffice to say there is no consensus. Also, measuring mobility by income quintiles is challenging as quintiles aren't the same across countries. You could move from 1st to 4th income quintile in one country and have a higher wage than some moving from 1st to 5th in another country.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). Actually I have to disagree, a bifurcation in income is reason to worry in itself. In a society where everything is commodified this wealth gap allows the rich to opt out of normal civil society. A society where a small few can buy their way out of a crap education system, out of a crap healthcare system, etc. isn't just no matter how well we swap people in and out of that group.

skybrian 9y ago
A windfall (winning the lottery or some other one-off event) is generally considered a good thing, unless you don't know how to handle it and spend it all at once. Everyone getting a windfall, in different years: still not a bad thing, even if it makes inequality statistics look bad. In theory. But that's not the world we live in. Most people don't get windfalls and have little savings.
closeparen 9y ago
The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >The problem with the “inequality” framing is that your victory condition is dragging everyone down into the crap systems. Yes but that's good. >Engineering greater total suffering so that you don’t have to be indignant at others suffering less, is not exactly noble. I actually think it would reduce total suffering, just that it's a short-term vs long-term thing. >We could end education and healthcare inequality today by shutting down all the good universities and banning all good health insurance. But that’s backwards. You're sort of close to what I want but not quite. We'd shut down all education systems which allow you to buy good results, same for healthcare, it's not about absolute quality it's about the relative quality in exchange for dollars. My point is that when you drag everyone into the same crap system, the most powerful in society who currently get to opt-out are stuck as well. They're forced to advocate for systems which are universally better rather than advocating for systems which are selectively better. By changing the incentives this way we stick everyone on the same side, inside of one side against another, it's better for everyone.

knuththetruth 9y ago

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern, only if the members of the top income brackets are largely static does it matter (since it means income is going to a small group of individuals, rather than a broader group of individuals who are swapped in and out of the top income groups). So a society in which there's competition to be among a handful of feudal lords, but where everyone else suffers tenuous and desperation is unconcerning? How so? We've been through this in American history. It was called the Gilded Age and it was a nightmare for all but a handful of robber barons, resulted in widespread social and political instability, and violence.

rvo 9y ago
I don't think you understand what feudalism was/is...
- knuththetruth 9y ago
  No, I think I do. And so do a number of Silicon Valley "luminaries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
  - rvo 9y ago
    I have no idea why you linked that. The two comments you have posted make absolutely no sense. Non sequitors. Why did you use feudalism first, and then some weird alt right stuff second? What's going through your mind?
    - jadedhacker 9y ago
      The idea is that feudal ideologies are making a comeback with the rise of an aristocratic class. These ideologies are finding support amongst the (conservative/reactionary) lower classes as they try to process why their lives are getting shittier without being provided a clear logical explanation. Thus they reach backwards for older more authoritarian models to try to restore their power. What is missing is the narrative of class struggle. From the linked wikipedia article: "It broadly rejects egalitarianism and the view that history shows inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment (thus, it is in part a reaction against "Whig historiography").[1][2] The movement favors a return to older societal constructs and forms of government, including support for monarchism or other forms of strong, centralised leadership such as a "neocameralist CEO"[3] of a joint-stock republic,[4] coupled with a right-libertarian, conservative or other approach to economics."

netfire 9y ago

The same could be said for the racial-based statistics, since race might be tied to cultural opinions which could impact how many hours a week or years in a lifetime someone works.

Consultant32452 9y ago
Why should we care the reason people make their choices? What if I like surfing, so I decide to work part time which allows me to surf more? Does my skin color or gender matter? If I want to participate in this "surf culture," why would you feel the need to either force me to work more or demand that others subsidize my surfing habit?
- netfire 9y ago
  I’m just saying there is a factor that could impact the statistics and that how much a person works should be taken into account for all the findings. Not just the gender-based one, so that we have accurate data from which to make decisions from. I didn’t say anything about forcing anyone to work or subsidizing habits. I think these charts are trying to claim that discrimination is happening and if how much someone is working isn’t taken into account, they don’t support that claim very well. To be clear I’m not stating that discrimination is or isn’t happening. I’d just like better data.
jeffreyrogers 9y ago
Well, the difference between race and gender is that most women have children, which take up a lot of time and require taking at least some time away from work. If the difference is due to cultural issues then maybe it makes sense to worry about the differences and try to address them, but if the difference just comes down to women have children so they work less that's a less compelling reason to try to equalize men's and women's wages (and as I noted, in some areas young women out earn men already, partly because they tend to be more educated).
- watwut 9y ago
  Men have children too. There are not many kids that have no biological father. I mean these comments talk about it as if kids and work around them had zero to do with men and we're some kind of female hobby. Among some men it is so as they don't care, but many men do actually care and do spend time with them.

sbov 9y ago

> If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). I generally agree with this line of thought, but you're also missing the higher level question: why, in our society, do we have to control for women who have children, but we don't have to control for men who have children?

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
Because women get pregnant and are the primary caregivers in most families? Edit: Basically you have to control for what's causing women to work less when the have children. And the obvious answer is because if you're a woman it's hard to work when you have a child at home. If you're a man that's not really true since typically your wife/girlfriend takes care of the child. You can argue that maybe men should take more responsibility for raising their kids, but that's more of a social/political issue than an economic one.
- jadedhacker 9y ago
  Political and social issues and economic issues are one. They are only disconnected in the strange milleu of libertarianism that America finds itself in.
- watwut 9y ago
  How is that not economic issue? That is just ridiculous claim. It may be issue that is not caused by her employer sexism, but impact on her retirement or perspective in case of divorce or simply buying power or what not is absolutely economic.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    People have a choice in whether or not they procreate. If you can't afford to do it or are unwilling to sacrifice the extra income to focus more on your family, then you shouldn't have children. Just as if I chose to go live in the wilderness, it would only make sense that my income would drop. No one would be at fault and I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference for my "lost" income.

12312390123 9y ago

It's very fascinating to me how the vast majority of time someone is saying "the statistics for gender are misleading" it appears to be a man saying it. > If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). Citation needed. > And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern Citation needed.

joyeuse6701 9y ago
What are you implying? Is there some point you want to make about being a man and its relation to gender studies, or was that a sexist statement trying to call out sexism? It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. Let's try not to be facetious while simultaneously undermining our own argument with poorly veiled prejudice.
vedloseper 9y ago
If you only ever hear men mention this, maybe you surround yourself with not very intelligent and/or not very honest women. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-g... > One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” In the past, women’s groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

dominotw 9y ago

gameswithgo 9y ago

>And an increasing share of wages going to the top income brackets isn't in itself cause for concern Yes it is, history teaches us that it leads to dissastisfaction and in some cases violent revolution.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]