5 ms·
From your link: "$3.27 less per hour than men. The median hourly wage is $15.67 for women and $18.94 for men. The gender wage gap is a measure of what women a
by malvosenior 8y ago
From your link:
"$3.27 less per hour than men. The median hourly wage is $15.67 for women and $18.94 for men.
The gender wage gap is a measure of what women are paid relative to men. It is commonly calculated by dividing women’s wages by men’s wages, and this ratio is often expressed as a percent, or in dollar terms. This tells us how much a woman is paid for each dollar paid to a man. This gender pay ratio is often measured for year-round, full-time workers and compares the annual wages (of hourly wage and salaried workers) of the median (“typical”) man with that of the median (“typical”) woman; measured this way, the current gender pay ratio is 0.796, or, expressed as a percent, it is 79.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2016). In other words, for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes about 80 cents."
It's meaningless to compare different positions pay to each other. "Typical" men vs "typical" women doesn't tell us anything about potential discrimination.
- astura 8y agoOh, FFS, c'mon. There's over 12,800 words in the article and 67 citations. It includes sections such as "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the gender wage gap?", "How do education and job and occupational characteristics affect the gender wage gap?", "Does a woman’s race, age, or pay level affect the gender gap she experiences?", and "What role do 'unobservables' like discrimination and productivity play in the wage gap?" yet you choose to ignore all of it and argue against something from the introduction that's expanded upon further down. You're arguing on bad faith here.
- malvosenior 8y agoIt's an argument against adjusted wage gap calculations or comparing salaries in the same roles. I fundamentally object to the very premise. > You're arguing on bad faith here. No, I just disagree with you.
- orf 8y agoNo, you're clearly arguing in bad faith with him and you clearly have not read the article. The sections titled "Women earn less than men at every wage level" and "How might discrimination—in the form of norms and expectations—be affecting the wage gap by constraining women’s choices?" might be enlightening to you, given your original cherry picked issue.
- malvosenior 8y agoHow am I arguing in bad faith? He responded to my comment with link to a far left think tank that uses an alternate definition of wage gap than what were talking about. > "Women earn less than men at every wage level" It's utterly useless to compare wage levels across different roles. I read the article, I strongly disagree with it. Do you really think comparing the pay of people in different roles is useful? It's apples and oranges. I don't expect a nurse and an engineer to make the same amount of money. This is my argument and it's not in bad faith.
- orf 8y agoNo, he responded with a 12,000 word article with over 60 references. Your reply was nitpicking a single thing that you feel is something important. Its not, the discussion is wider and deeper than that. By the way your point is dealt with in the article itself. The one you definitely read
- _Tev 8y agoWhat about citing some arguments from the article, so not everyone has to read 12000 words and wade throuh 60 references. It would be easier for everyone to check the validity of the argument then. There has not been any counterpoint to original disputing of the citation.