4 ms·

Do Men Really Earn More Than Women? (Infographic)

8 points by Errorcod3 11y ago

dudul 11y ago
So basically, no.
maxharris 11y ago
I found this Maddox video on the subject very informative: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women
- anonbanker 11y ago
  came here to post this, and to wait for SJW's to notice and downvote-bomb.
unholiness 11y ago
Equal pay for equal work, at the end of the day, is an incredibly low bar to set for gender equality. I would get equal pay for equal work at a sweatshop in China, but a sweatshop worker by no means has the same income opportunities as I do. Gender income inequality is a matter of opportunities. It happens at the education level, where women are less likely to be encouraged to go into higher paying fields, at the hiring level, where equally qualified women are less likely to be hired for the same job as men, and at the promotion level, where women are less likely to ask for, and be taken seriously when asking for, increased position. Looking at salary differences after all these effects takes the real issue of opportunity differences, and replaces it with a non-issue of salary differences within the same position.
- dudul 11y ago
  The infographic shows that there is no pay gap, so why are you talking about lack of opportunities for women? They do get paid the same for the same job/qualification. This is equality period. Let's move on. And btw, all your examples are daily proven to be wrong - see the recent study showing a huge bias in favor of women to be hired in STEM fields over equally qualified men.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    You answer your own question. Women are hired in low-paying jobs like 'teacher'; men get the high-paying jobs. If a woman Could get hired as a CEO (and it makes the news every time it happens) then sure she gets (about) the same pay. That's a far cry from 'equality'. That's a clear sign of bias, and a socially institutionalized marginalization of women. So ingrained in our society, that men feel compelled to defend the practice online with lazy arguments and denial.
    - dudul 11y ago
      You mean this kind of bias? http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/04/22/396672571/could-it-be-researchers-find-a-hiring-bias-that-favors-women http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/04/22/396672571/could-it-be... Seriously, people have to stop blindly buying into the feminist narrative.
      - caseydurfee 11y ago
        Serious question, bro: Are you unaware that you have completely and miserably failed to address the point OP was making, or are you aware but just don't care?
        dudul 11y ago
        I guess I did miss the point. English is not my first language and I may not have understood what he was trying to say. You're welcome to explain/rephrase. My understanding was that he's complaining that this type of study has no value since "yes women have the same salary for the same job/qualification but they can't get the same job since there is a bias against them"; that's why I posted a link to a recent study showing that there is actually a very strong bias in favor of women.
    - Varkiil 11y ago
      You look for studies about women going to school ending up in high paying jobs. They are fewer than men but have a greater percentage of graduating. If women end up in low paying positions it is because they do not attend to the right classes, just as men but at higher rate.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  Parent Post is a Moving The Goalposts Fallacy[1]. 1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
  - unholiness 11y ago
    Not at all. The oft-cited 77-cents-on-the-dollar statistic never referred to people in the same positions, or even the same fields. It simply claimed that the average woman's salary is 77% of the average man's. The article refutes something totally different, but this is where the goalposts have always been.
caseydurfee 11y ago
curl https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9427468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9427468 | grep "SJW" Every damn time, Hacker News. Every damn time.

8 points by Errorcod3 11y ago

dudul 11y ago

So basically, no.

I found this Maddox video on the subject very informative: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women

anonbanker 11y ago
came here to post this, and to wait for SJW's to notice and downvote-bomb.

unholiness 11y ago

Equal pay for equal work, at the end of the day, is an incredibly low bar to set for gender equality. I would get equal pay for equal work at a sweatshop in China, but a sweatshop worker by no means has the same income opportunities as I do. Gender income inequality is a matter of opportunities. It happens at the education level, where women are less likely to be encouraged to go into higher paying fields, at the hiring level, where equally qualified women are less likely to be hired for the same job as men, and at the promotion level, where women are less likely to ask for, and be taken seriously when asking for, increased position. Looking at salary differences after all these effects takes the real issue of opportunity differences, and replaces it with a non-issue of salary differences within the same position.

dudul 11y ago
The infographic shows that there is no pay gap, so why are you talking about lack of opportunities for women? They do get paid the same for the same job/qualification. This is equality period. Let's move on. And btw, all your examples are daily proven to be wrong - see the recent study showing a huge bias in favor of women to be hired in STEM fields over equally qualified men.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  You answer your own question. Women are hired in low-paying jobs like 'teacher'; men get the high-paying jobs. If a woman Could get hired as a CEO (and it makes the news every time it happens) then sure she gets (about) the same pay. That's a far cry from 'equality'. That's a clear sign of bias, and a socially institutionalized marginalization of women. So ingrained in our society, that men feel compelled to defend the practice online with lazy arguments and denial.
  - dudul 11y ago
    You mean this kind of bias? http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/04/22/396672571/could-it-be-researchers-find-a-hiring-bias-that-favors-women http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/04/22/396672571/could-it-be... Seriously, people have to stop blindly buying into the feminist narrative.
    - caseydurfee 11y ago
      Serious question, bro: Are you unaware that you have completely and miserably failed to address the point OP was making, or are you aware but just don't care?
      - dudul 11y ago
        I guess I did miss the point. English is not my first language and I may not have understood what he was trying to say. You're welcome to explain/rephrase. My understanding was that he's complaining that this type of study has no value since "yes women have the same salary for the same job/qualification but they can't get the same job since there is a bias against them"; that's why I posted a link to a recent study showing that there is actually a very strong bias in favor of women.
  - Varkiil 11y ago
    You look for studies about women going to school ending up in high paying jobs. They are fewer than men but have a greater percentage of graduating. If women end up in low paying positions it is because they do not attend to the right classes, just as men but at higher rate.
anonbanker 11y ago
Parent Post is a Moving The Goalposts Fallacy[1]. 1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
- unholiness 11y ago
  Not at all. The oft-cited 77-cents-on-the-dollar statistic never referred to people in the same positions, or even the same fields. It simply claimed that the average woman's salary is 77% of the average man's. The article refutes something totally different, but this is where the goalposts have always been.

caseydurfee 11y ago

curl https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9427468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9427468 | grep "SJW" Every damn time, Hacker News. Every damn time.