4 ms·
I'd actually be interested in running the numbers on this data, but I don't really want to grab actual numbers from at the DOL. Tangentially, I also also find
by tylerritchie 15y ago
I'd actually be interested in running the numbers on this data, but I don't really want to grab actual numbers from at the DOL.
Tangentially, I also also find it interesting that yours is the only comment that calls the numbers into question and doesn't imply that women actually deserve 5% less pay (controlling for experience, cost to employers, negotiating tactics). Though, to be fair, guan does mention that it might be statistically insignificant as an aside.
- sp332 15y agoMaybe this page would make it easier? http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab8.htm http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab8.htm Also (just to be clear) my point wasn't that women deserve less, but that compensation has practically nothing to do with what a person deserves.
- jack-r-abbit 15y agoTangentially, I do believe my comment also calls the numbers into question and doesn't imply that women actually deserve 5% less pay. I would never advocate for a person to make more/less money solely based on gender (or race, sexual preference, religion, etc for that matter). But there are a good number of possible and logical reasons why such a sub-set of a population might, in fact, make less money statistically. Yes, one can argue that some programmers make 5% less money BECAUSE they are women (cause and effect). While others can just as well argue that some programmers make 5% less money AND they are women (two unrelated facts). Mark Twain wrote in his autobiography: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."