3 ms·
did you actually read the research you cited? because it DOES NOT control for hours worked nor experience, and lumps up narrow specialties with wide specialtie
by slt2021 2y ago
did you actually read the research you cited?
because it DOES NOT control for hours worked nor experience, and lumps up narrow specialties with wide specialties together in a single "finance".
There is a huge difference in finance as a "bank teller" and finance as a "investment banker at Wall St".
This is a problem of large scale population level wage research, it misses very important confounding variables and lumps up everything they failed to explain as some magical gender pay gap.
This is the epitome of how low replicability social sciences research is done: download dataset from JSTOR, load it in Stata/Matlab, run some regressions and call it a day.
- l33t7332273 2y agoI agree about the diversity of finance as a sector. I know many people that work ”in finance” and that varies from glorified interior decorating for corporate real estate to running macros on spreadsheets to check loans to defining investment portfolios
- SiempreViernes 2y agoIt is a quote from a summary, they don't write out the full list of jobs that fall under the heading to keep it short. Examples of jobs in that category given in full report reads: "securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents (0.55), financial managers (0.66), and personal financial advisors (0.68)."
- SiempreViernes 2y agoThe first sentence in the quote talks about trying to explain wage differences by hours worked? I can also tell you didn't bother to peruse the linked summary, because it also talks about experience though they call it work history.