Talk:Gender pay gap

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Contradictory dependent sentences

"When adjusted for these factors, leaving only what is unexplained or is a result of workplace discrimination, the pay gap does diminish considerably. This has led many conservatives and libertarians to denounce the gap as a myth — because when you correct for the discrimination, the discrimination vanishes!" The case for "this" in the second sentence is the 'removing all factors except for discrimination and unknown factors'. But the snarky end to these sentences claims that the discrimination is removed from the POV conclusion. The first sentence upon which that statement is dependent clearly says the discrimination has not been "corrected" in the "libertarian and conservative" estimate. It's also quite sad to see an issue on this website boiled down to differences in American political factions. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Typo

@FuzzyCatPotato In this edit, I think you accidentally left out a word: (eg, mothers get paid ). I assume you meant mothers get paid less? CowHouse (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is bad

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#55940ce72596 Forbes https://www.vox.com/2017/9/8/16268362/gender-wage-gap-explained Vox https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap Harvard https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth Washington ExaminerDoublethink (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doublethink You are wrong. Do you see the problem with mere assertions? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I had article, data, and supporting experts? What did you have?Doublethink (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doublethink You brought up a counter-claim, and need to wait so others can examine your reasoning and evidence. If all it took for someone to change anything in an article was merely linking a few articles, it is likely that most if not all of the articles would be a mess of conflicting opinions. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's why sysops exist. Also I hardly changed anything. I just mixed some obvious bias and added in another possible reason.Doublethink (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

From what I'm getting from Vox: it's complicated. @GrammarCommie I remember reading this article. It does not deny a wage gap but more like it's very varied across all fields and as women see the gap fluctuate, and some careers have lower gaps than others. It still culminates into an average but the citing the average itself is superficial. I do believe the article engages in the detail, and I don't think it's bad. Some quotes from the Vox article.

That’s an accurate statistic, but it doesn’t capture the complexity of the wage gap. It doesn’t, for example, reveal that the wage gap changes over the course of a female lawyer’s career. Or that some professions have really big wage gaps and others have small ones.

Instead, the workforce disadvantages women in subtler ways — ways that ultimately show up in their paycheck but don’t always begin there. The highest-paying jobs disproportionately reward those who can work the longest, least flexible hours.

These types of job penalize workers who have caregiving responsibilities outside the workplace. Those workers tend to be women.

As Goldin put it in her speech, "The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might even vanish if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who worked long hours and worked particular hours."

How this translates to "this article is bad" (i.e. "I disagree with it"), I'm not sure. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think this article is a little biased and simplifies the issue too much.Doublethink (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's simplified. But it states outright that the the causes for the pay gap is complicated. You can outright say it's not because employers hate women. I do think this article can use details and provide more examples on the gender pay gap, but either way, we know it exists and we can't fully discount the discrimination aspect of it, both deliberate and subconscious internalization of generations and generations of culture devaluing women in general. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

But if the gap exists then why don't women do something about it. Equal pay act is law, whistleblower protections are in place. Why don't women just sue?Doublethink (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. They are doing a lot about it. There is a lot of studies on discussing this issue (stated by the article). The issue is deeply embedded. Our own article states that "The gender pay gap will probably not end entirely without huge cultural shifts." Demonstrating discriminatory pay is also difficult as a lot of factors go into how much someone is paid. Again, people don't normally act as blatant like Riot Games (who are, for your information, getting sued) because most employers are not assholes that go out of the way to discriminate. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unclear and unsigned

It's called rational wiki so let me questioning this conception, because it does not look crystal clear for me, even after the article.

First, does anybody has explanation how wage gap could exist in countries with free market? According to logic, if one company pay worker of some group less then to workers from other groups of same qualification, then someone will lure them to another job with better payment.

Second, is there any explanation, why Mosambic or Rwanda has lesser gap than Austria or even Sweden? Not like Rwanda or Mosambic are caring about any humans right at all, so can we check this statistics in more details anywhere?

Maybe I will ask a few more questions latter, after reading references. ^{— Unsigned, by: Eh... L. / talk / contribs}

@LeftyGreenMario You want to take this? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

1. The free market does not actually represent a meaningful utility optimization algorithm, and the notion it is easily refuted with parallel arguments. "If a free market existed, wouldn't businesses that segregated make less money than those that didn't and those that didn't take their customers". This argument assumes an untrue premise. Business behavior is not actually guided purely by maximizing profit, but is, in fact, affected by cultural norms.
2. Yes, here's a fairly direct analysis of that idea. Assuming a base linear correlation between numbers implies causation is a classic mistake in reasoning. In particular this example illustrates Simpson's paradox where several subsets can individually show one trend, but their superset shows another. Also it's a bit racist to assume they don't care about human rights in Rwanda.

Broadly, I'd say, our article does a bad job of answering your questions, but they're far from unanswered by organizations trying to solve the problem. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I will presume these decent sources

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/28/young-women-are-out-earning-young-men-in-several-u-s-cities/, seems in some cases the gender pay gap is in the reverse, in fact one of these says a 20 percent higher earning than men, then what about these two articles, one from abc the other from theguardian, both claim to count in unmarried women only, do the issue seems much less or even essentially not something to be concerned about if it is a matter of people simply not focusing on work, https://abcnews.go.com/WN/reverse-gender-gap-study-young-childless-women-earn/story?id=11538401, and https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds, now keep in mind these are old ones, one from fucking 12 years ago and the other from 7, as an addition, maybe rationalwiki as a whole could use one article detailing the issue of male education which seems to be failing, I for one would like to learn on it and the reasons, some studies and so. I also would like to ask a question, in this article here talking about said pewresearch article https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-04-07/where-women-earn-more-than-men, it claims there is an assumed motherhood penalty, is this simply a misdiagnosing of the issue, since there may be other potential issues like possibly less education for older women than younger ones, "First, it only applies to young women. Nationally, women under 30 make 93% of men their age but that figure drops to 80% by the time a woman hits 35. Women advance more slowly in their careers (presumably because they start to have children, although not necessarily; research shows that even single, childless women suffer from an assumed motherhood penalty once they hit a certain age). Women can’t avoid this professional stereotyping, even in places like Wenatchee." ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:448a:1082:b3c6:c4b7:94f9:c736:43fc / talk}