29 ms·
Well there are other factors you need to control for too, men are more likely to try and choose higher paying jobs because social status and attractiveness to p
by vivekd 8y ago
Well there are other factors you need to control for too, men are more likely to try and choose higher paying jobs because social status and attractiveness to potential mates is impacted by a man's wealth. This is not the case for women, studies show that men are indifferent to a women's economic status when it comes to mate choice and focus more on physical appearance.
There certainly is sexism in the workplace, although the court ruled different I think Ellen Pao was a victim of this. That said, I don't know if it as prevalent and widespread so as to lead to meaningful and statistically significant wage gaps when all the factors are considered. Certainly the evidence for this sort of widespread institutionalized sexism is lacking in my mind.
Still I think the conversation here is more that the wage gap numbers are not as significant as they are often presented in discourse about gender equality
- joshuamorton 8y agoI'm just going to point out that status-chasing is controlled for in what he described. The .95 cents on the dollar figure appears when you compare populations of men and women in similar roles with similar performance. You're confusing wage gap 1 (pay for performance) with gap 2 (seniority/glass ceiling). Saying you need to control for things that have already been controlled for doesn't leave a particularly good impression.
- vivekd 8y agoI assume you're refering to the CONSAD reserach study which found a gap of between 95 to 93 cents on the dollar. That study did not in fact control for status chasing - nor did it compare men and women in similar roles with similar performance, they also found that the wage gap was not statistically significant enough to warrant corrective action
- joshuamorton 8y agoYes it did. It controlled for hours worked and industry. That is, it controlled for men working harder and choosing higher paying jobs.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoWhat makes “that the wage gap numbers are not as significant as they are often presented” an important conversation for you? To me it seems like an uninteresting tautology. Like these others: “False statements about immigration numbers are often presented in discourse about naturalization policies” “Misleading financial figures are often presented in discourse about what stocks to buy.” It’s like... yah. So? All discourse is full of garbage. If you are interested in the truth, you weed through that and evaluate the numbers and, according to best practices, find a good estimate. When you do that, you find there is a substantial gender-attributable pay gap in many countries in many industries. Why that is and how we change it seems like a worthy discussion. I am curious to why you think the existence of people with a poor understanding of the facts is a worthy topic of conversation. There will always be people in “the discourse” saying wrong things. If that’s all it takes to halt the important conversation about how women get pay equity, then you have yourself a surefire tool to ensure that conversation never happens. Or at least that you never have to participate.
- vivekd 8y agoWell in this case the people who are wrong include most of academia, most of the popular media, and the former president of the United States. They were all touting the 77 cents figure I think that's a pretty big deal.
- noelsusman 8y agoYou should read some actual research if you truly think the broad academic consensus is that women make 77 cents on the dollar and that's the end of the story.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoI see much more media disputing the 77 percent figure than presuming it. Don’t you? (And as a side note, the existence of a raw 77% gap is factually true. Media would have to argue that it’s entirely due to sexism for them to step into territory you object to)