3 ms·

>How does that relate to a woman only making 80 cents on the dollar? Because women don't make 80 cents on the dollar, unless you think brain surgeons and haird

by tsotha 12y ago

>How does that relate to a woman only making 80 cents on the dollar? Because women don't make 80 cents on the dollar, unless you think brain surgeons and hairdressers ought to make the same amount of money.

untog 12y ago
Amazing people still believe that, despite the evidence staring them in the face. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?abt=0002&abg=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-beca... "Are women paid less than men because they choose to be, by gravitating to lower-paying jobs like teaching and social work? [...] But a majority of the pay gap between men and women actually comes from differences within occupations, not between them — and widens in the highest-paying ones like business, law and medicine according to data from Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University labor economist and a leading scholar on women and the economy."
- tsotha 12y ago
  Amazing people put forth that bogus 81 cents number and then start talking about data as if it supported their position. I was just pointing out that number was obviously fraudulent as it doesn't take occupation into account. But what happens when we look at education, occupation, hours worked, willingness to travel, etc? "This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers." http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20...
  - untog 12y ago
    Amazing that the other reply to my post told me to not have such a "nitpicky attitude" [1] when another tells me that such nitpicking is crucial. It's almost as if people are doing any mental gymnastics they can to derail conversation into insignificant side roads rather than the actual issue at hand. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9279813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9279813
    - tsotha 12y ago
      Amazing that after I present actual data you try to deflect by replying to my post with a criticism of something someone else wrote, completely ignoring the subject.
      - untog 12y ago
        You clearly didn't get my point. For one, I'm not the one that brought up the 80 cents figure. But is it 80 cents? 70? 90? That's not the actual issue. Does sexism exist in tech? If yes, how about talking about that? It's like entering into a conversation about how to fix the problem of racism within the police by asking "ah yes, but how racist are they?".
        tsotha 12y ago
        Sure, let's talk about sexism. My company has a program by which women are promoted even though a man with the same skills and experience would not be promoted. Does this seem fair to you? Somehow I doubt I'll be able to find a lawyer to take the case if I sue.
    - stolio 12y ago
      I can't reply to your comment below: > You clearly didn't get my point. For one, I'm not the one that brought up the 80 cents figure. But is it 80 cents? 70? 90? That's not the actual issue. Does sexism exist in tech? If yes, how about talking about that? > It's like entering into a conversation about how to fix the problem of racism within the police by asking "ah yes, but how racist are they?". I don't understand how you can speak critically of people asking the most mature, rational and productive question in the situation. You can't make a plan to deal with a problem if you don't have at least some idea of how big it is. Person A: "The dam is overfilled, we need to drain some of the water." Person B: "Oh, really? How do you know it's overfilled and how much water do you think we should drain?" Person A: "OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO ASK ME THAT! CLEARLY YOU *WANT* THE DAM TO BE OVERFILLED, DON'T YOU?!?" Person B: "..."
- tomp 12y ago
  This is a pretty shitty article. > Take doctors and surgeons. Women earn 71 percent of men’s wages — after controlling for age, race, hours and education. > A pharmacist who works 40 hours a week generally earns double the salary of a pharmacist who works 20 hours a week, and as a result, the pay gap for pharmacists is one of the smallest. These two quotes reveal that "controlling for hours" means "calculating per-hour wage", i.e. the underlying assumption is that the wage should depend linearly on the number of hours worked. Which is obviously not true. Take finance, for example. If you're not willing to work 50, 60 hour weeks, you won't just get paid proportionally less; what will happen is that your career will stagnate, you won't get promoted, or might even get fired! Also, personally I definitely want to be paid "disproportionately" for all the hours I do outside my "normal" working hours - after all, I want some time to enjoy life as well! The final suggestion in this article is that workers should strive to make themselves as replaceable as possible. But this is, IMO, the worst advice possible; it won't have the effect of "averaging" the wages to make them more equal; instead, the best performer's wages will be pushed down to match the worst performer's wages, as it will no longer be possible to differentiate workers by performance. Brave New World!

by tsotha 12y ago

untog 12y ago

Amazing people still believe that, despite the evidence staring them in the face. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-because-of-gender-not-jobs.html?abt=0002&abg=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/the-pay-gap-is-beca... "Are women paid less than men because they choose to be, by gravitating to lower-paying jobs like teaching and social work? [...] But a majority of the pay gap between men and women actually comes from differences within occupations, not between them — and widens in the highest-paying ones like business, law and medicine according to data from Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University labor economist and a leading scholar on women and the economy."

tsotha 12y ago
Amazing people put forth that bogus 81 cents number and then start talking about data as if it supported their position. I was just pointing out that number was obviously fraudulent as it doesn't take occupation into account. But what happens when we look at education, occupation, hours worked, willingness to travel, etc? "This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers." http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20...
- untog 12y ago
  Amazing that the other reply to my post told me to not have such a "nitpicky attitude" [1] when another tells me that such nitpicking is crucial. It's almost as if people are doing any mental gymnastics they can to derail conversation into insignificant side roads rather than the actual issue at hand. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9279813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9279813
  - tsotha 12y ago
    Amazing that after I present actual data you try to deflect by replying to my post with a criticism of something someone else wrote, completely ignoring the subject.
    - untog 12y ago
      You clearly didn't get my point. For one, I'm not the one that brought up the 80 cents figure. But is it 80 cents? 70? 90? That's not the actual issue. Does sexism exist in tech? If yes, how about talking about that? It's like entering into a conversation about how to fix the problem of racism within the police by asking "ah yes, but how racist are they?".
      - tsotha 12y ago
        Sure, let's talk about sexism. My company has a program by which women are promoted even though a man with the same skills and experience would not be promoted. Does this seem fair to you? Somehow I doubt I'll be able to find a lawyer to take the case if I sue.
  - stolio 12y ago
    I can't reply to your comment below: > You clearly didn't get my point. For one, I'm not the one that brought up the 80 cents figure. But is it 80 cents? 70? 90? That's not the actual issue. Does sexism exist in tech? If yes, how about talking about that? > It's like entering into a conversation about how to fix the problem of racism within the police by asking "ah yes, but how racist are they?". I don't understand how you can speak critically of people asking the most mature, rational and productive question in the situation. You can't make a plan to deal with a problem if you don't have at least some idea of how big it is. Person A: "The dam is overfilled, we need to drain some of the water." Person B: "Oh, really? How do you know it's overfilled and how much water do you think we should drain?" Person A: "OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO ASK ME THAT! CLEARLY YOU *WANT* THE DAM TO BE OVERFILLED, DON'T YOU?!?" Person B: "..."
tomp 12y ago
This is a pretty shitty article. > Take doctors and surgeons. Women earn 71 percent of men’s wages — after controlling for age, race, hours and education. > A pharmacist who works 40 hours a week generally earns double the salary of a pharmacist who works 20 hours a week, and as a result, the pay gap for pharmacists is one of the smallest. These two quotes reveal that "controlling for hours" means "calculating per-hour wage", i.e. the underlying assumption is that the wage should depend linearly on the number of hours worked. Which is obviously not true. Take finance, for example. If you're not willing to work 50, 60 hour weeks, you won't just get paid proportionally less; what will happen is that your career will stagnate, you won't get promoted, or might even get fired! Also, personally I definitely want to be paid "disproportionately" for all the hours I do outside my "normal" working hours - after all, I want some time to enjoy life as well! The final suggestion in this article is that workers should strive to make themselves as replaceable as possible. But this is, IMO, the worst advice possible; it won't have the effect of "averaging" the wages to make them more equal; instead, the best performer's wages will be pushed down to match the worst performer's wages, as it will no longer be possible to differentiate workers by performance. Brave New World!