"Gender Wage Gap" Explained Entirely by Work Choices of Men and Women

[beefheart]

The “gender wage gap” is as real as unicorns and has been killed more times than Michael Myers.

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-st...ed-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/
"...Remember, if we truly want to measure the impact of sexism on male and female relative earnings, we want to look at men and women doing exactly the same job at exactly the same place. Fortunately, a new study by Valentin Bolotnyy and Natalia Emanuel of Harvard University—again, listed in that order because that is how they are presented in their paper—does just this."

think this will stop Dems from pandering and wildly misreading stats?NAHHHHHHHHHH

Really? Tell that to computer engineers....

 

[BrainNebula]

So now you are calling women simpleton dupes. And the mystery continues.

Anybody can be duped by propaganda, not just women.

 

[poweRob]

Anybody can be duped by propaganda, not just women.

:lol:

Why won't women vote for cons? :lol:

 

[Grim17]

So now you are calling women simpleton dupes. And the mystery continues.

Not at all. When you have academia, Hollywood and the mainstream news media all pushing the same false narrative that the gender pay gap is the direct result of male oppression, I expect vast numbers of women and men to accept it as fact.

Because we have such a large information imbalance in our society, misinformation like this can't help but take root.

.

 

[BrainNebula]

:lol:

Why won't women vote for cons? :lol:

Women vote for conservatives all of the time. Trump won White women. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[poweRob]

Not at all. When you have academia, Hollywood and the mainstream news media all pushing the same false narrative that the gender pay gap is the direct result of male oppression, I expect vast numbers of women and men to accept it as fact.

Because we have such a large information imbalance in our society, misinformation like this can't help but take root.

.

Oh that evil hollywood. :roll:

 

[poweRob]

Women vote for conservatives all of the time. Trump won White women. What in the world are you talking about?

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that all women were white.

 

[BrainNebula]

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that all women were white.

White women are women. You asked why women won't vote for conservatives. They do all of the time. Many non-White women do as well, but a significant size obviously vote for Conservatives if Trump won a whole demographic. Here you go again, a Progressive dehumanizing White people based on their skin color. Apparently women aren't women when they are White.

 

[Josie]

Any clear-thinking person already knew this. You can't just look at basic numbers --- average salary of women v. average salary of men --- and logically conclude that the reason for the wage difference is sexist. There are a number of reasons why the difference exists which have nothing to do with anything nefarious, but with personal choice.

A few years ago I was discussing this with some other women. They believed that the statistics showed sexism. So I brought up the employees at Barack Obama's White House and administration. I showed them the chart that showed that, on average, women in Obama's White House made considerably less than the men. They immediately countered with "Well, they have different jobs with different salaries!"

Exactly the point.

I think a few of them got it after that.

 

[Visbek]

Here's the problem with that study:

Here are some of the problems with the criticism of that study:

• His primary objection is that he read a WSJ article on an as-yet unpublished paper, written by PhD candidates, which only covers a 6-year period at one, count it one, government agency. That's not to say they are wrong -- but it is to say that someone is being awfully selective about their preferred studies.

• The rest of the objection kinda seems like... he didn't actually read the study, rather he read a blurb on the IWPR site. While there is value in comparing same to same, the reality is that women aren't working the same jobs -- and in some cases (especially tech) there is no question that is due to discrimination and sexism.

He also completely missed how the study shows critical aspects like women who take time out of the workforce are penalized more than men who take time out (a factor that generally isn't dependent on the nature of the work); how women are becoming more engaged with the workforce, while men are less engaged; how policies in other nations close the gap, and so forth.

If anything, it sounds like Phelan is the one who starts with a conclusion ("there is no sexism, see?!?") and is hunting for whatever evidence he can cull to support it.

 

[Grim17]

Really? Tell that to computer engineers....

If you're talking about the lack of women who have careers in the STEM fields, studies have already shown that the societies that are more egalitarian (Gender equal) have ended up with fewer women in the STEM fields... not more. That's the exact opposite of what was expected. It seems that when you remove the social barriers for women and allow them the freedom to make their own career choices, not many opt for a career in the STEM fields and instead choose careers that are more oriented toward people.

.

 

[Grim17]

Here are some of the problems with the criticism of that study:

• The rest of the objection kinda seems like... he didn't actually read the study, rather he read a blurb on the IWPR site. While there is value in comparing same to same, the reality is that women aren't working the same jobs -- and in some cases (especially tech) there is no question that is due to discrimination and sexism.

I'll address the rest of your post when I return... but for now read post #36 and this.

 

[poweRob]

White women are women. You asked why women won't vote for conservatives. They do all of the time. Many non-White women do as well, but a significant size obviously vote for Conservatives if Trump won a whole demographic. Here you go again, a Progressive dehumanizing White people based on their skin color. Apparently women aren't women when they are White.

I never said that. Why do you feel the need to lie to make your point? Is it because you point is pointless?

 

[Chillfolks]

I never said that. Why do you feel the need to lie to make your point? Is it because you point is pointless?

You did say this

:lol:

Why won't women vote for cons? :lol:

So why lie about women voting for cons when its easily proven that yes women do vote for cons

 

[beefheart]

If you're talking about the lack of women who have careers in the STEM fields, studies have already shown that the societies that are more egalitarian (Gender equal) have ended up with fewer women in the STEM fields... not more. That's the exact opposite of what was expected. It seems that when you remove the social barriers for women and allow them the freedom to make their own career choices, not many opt for a career in the STEM fields and instead choose careers that are more oriented toward people.

.

This is something that I do for a living at a Silicon Valley company. Trust me, I know, I see the data every single day.

 

[poweRob]

You did say this

So why lie about women voting for cons when its easily proven that yes women do vote for cons

My bad... should've clarified as majority. Should've also realized that someone would try to literalize their way out of it.

 

[Grim17]

Here are some of the problems with the criticism of that study:

• His primary objection is that he read a WSJ article on an as-yet unpublished paper, written by PhD candidates, which only covers a 6-year period at one, count it one, government agency. That's not to say they are wrong -- but it is to say that someone is being awfully selective about their preferred studies.

• The rest of the objection kinda seems like... he didn't actually read the study, rather he read a blurb on the IWPR site. While there is value in comparing same to same, the reality is that women aren't working the same jobs -- and in some cases (especially tech) there is no question that is due to discrimination and sexism.

He also completely missed how the study shows critical aspects like women who take time out of the workforce are penalized more than men who take time out (a factor that generally isn't dependent on the nature of the work); how women are becoming more engaged with the workforce, while men are less engaged; how policies in other nations close the gap, and so forth.

If anything, it sounds like Phelan is the one who starts with a conclusion ("there is no sexism, see?!?") and is hunting for whatever evidence he can cull to support it.

There's a plethora of peer reviewed studies and multivariate analysis conducted over the last decade that 100% support the findings of this study. You can find many of them published in Psychology Today.

I'll go over just a few of the factors that explain the gender pay gap

Personality traits:

There are 2 personality traits in people that differ significantly between men and women, and most agree they are biological, rather than socially constructed.

1. Agreeableness - Psycolgists have found that trait (partnered with IQ) to be an excellent predicter of a persons futur financial success in the workplace. They found that a more agreeable person on average will make less money, while a more disagreeable person tends to make more. A disagreeable person will stand up and demand a raise, while an agreeable person will either not demand a raise, or if they do, accept the employers reason why they can't give them a raise.

When it comes to agreeableness, aproximently 70% of women are higher in agreeableness than the average man, who overall are more disagreeable than agreeable.

2. Interest in people vs. things - By an even higher margin, psycologists found women to be more interested in "people", while men were more interested in things.

This trait goes a long way in explaining why study after study has shown, that in the most egalitarian societies on earth, the percentage of female nurses has gone up, while the percentage of females in the STEM fields has gone down.

Most psycologists believed (as most on the left still do) that the roles men and women played were more of a social construct, than based on human biology, which is why the results came as such a shock to most in the psycological community, and why those results have been dubbed the "Gender-Equality Paradox".



Another study that was released last February confirmed this finding and was the topic of a story written in the Atlantic:

What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at.

...

The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.

There's also IQ data that further explains why more men are in STEM fields than women, and before you go after me, men and women basically have the same average IQ, so don't even go there.

This is enough for now.

.

 

[KLATTU]

I just don't understand why more women don't vote for conservatives... it's all just a big mystery.

Because liberals promise them free money. DUHHHHHHHHHH

 

[KLATTU]

Here are some of the problems with the criticism of that study:

• His primary objection is that he read a WSJ article on an as-yet unpublished paper, written by PhD candidates, which only covers a 6-year period at one, count it one, government agency. ies.
t it.

Certainly superior to just taking BLS average stats.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Did the cons who are cheering this article on actually read the article? Because looking at some of the studies, they focused on union workers who can get overtime. They are basing men making more on getting more overtime. What about the jobs that are salaried and no overtime? men are making more than women is a fact. And it has nothing to do with overtime. See, that's how bias people twist results


Also, don't pretend just because there was a study cited that the writer is not twisting it and making a biased article, just look at this passage.

The “gender wage gap” is as real as unicorns and has been killed more times than Michael Myers[/B]. Yet politicians feel the need to genuflect before this phantom figure. President Obama’s White House was obsessed with that ridiculous 80-cent number. Let us substitute the quest for phantoms with serious research into the causes of relative incomes.

Sorry, that's not reporting facts, that's putting bias into the article, so the author loses credibility (other thant to hacks who don't care about the facts. If you can't see bias in that bull**** passage above from the article, you have no credibility

And conservatives, spare me your typical bull**** of "we don't need a study for what we already know". like most of the things you believe, it is not based on fact. You just look for article titled and biased blogs that reinforce your incorrect opinions


Now, cue the usual deflections and lack of any rebuttal that is common from way too many conservatives

 

[poweRob]

Because liberals promise them free money. DUHHHHHHHHHH

I must've missed that bill.

 

[Moderate Right]

The “gender wage gap” is as real as unicorns and has been killed more times than Michael Myers.

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-st...ed-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/
"...Remember, if we truly want to measure the impact of sexism on male and female relative earnings, we want to look at men and women doing exactly the same job at exactly the same place. Fortunately, a new study by Valentin Bolotnyy and Natalia Emanuel of Harvard University—again, listed in that order because that is how they are presented in their paper—does just this."

think this will stop Dems from pandering and wildly misreading stats?NAHHHHHHHHHH

I thought it was very partisan of Hillary to campaign and champion for equal pay rights for women when there are already laws on the books regarding equal pay for women. In other words, if a sign holder thinks they are being pay discriminated against for not making as much as a high bridge painter, they can sue the employer in court. Good luck to them. But, it's rather stupid to campaign for laws on the books regarding equal pay when there are already laws on the books regarding equal pay. It just proves how stupid liberals are when they demand something they've already got. Next election they will be campaigning for the right to vote.

 

[KLATTU]

I thought it was very partisan of Hillary to campaign and champion for equal pay rights for women when there are already laws on the books regarding equal pay for women. In other words, if a sign holder thinks they are being pay discriminated against for not making as much as a high bridge painter, they can sue the employer in court. Good luck to them. But, it's rather stupid to campaign for laws on the books regarding equal pay when there are already laws on the books regarding equal pay. It just proves how stupid liberals are when they demand something they've already got. Next election they will be campaigning for the right to vote.

Well, I think they are 'demanding ' equal pay for equal work. Which is problematic on so many levels.

Taking even the simplest jobs. If a male applies for a job as a cashier at Walmart, and has 5 years experience and a high school diploma, shouldn't he command a higher wage than a woman with no diploma and no work experience ?
It gets worse for more more complicated jobs.
Example- an entry level accounting job at Peat Marwick.

Who should be paid more- a man who got a 3-8 cum from Wharton or a woman who got a 3.0 from Penn state?

In other words, what's the incentive for studying or workingh hard if the Govt is going to level the field

 

[KLATTU]

I must've missed that bill.

you sure did.
https://observer.com/2018/04/new-jersey-strongest-pay-equity-law/

 

[poweRob]

you sure did.
https://observer.com/2018/04/new-jersey-strongest-pay-equity-law/

Your article doesn't support your claim.