Here's What The Gender Pay Gap Looks Like

[iNow]

What I am asking you to address is the 15-16% difference within the raw wage gap that occurs because men filter into higher paying occupations than women.

Your framing of the issue (whether willfully or not) misses / avoids / is an attempt to distract from the actual point.

 

People will always make different choices. We can and should do better culturally so females are not pushed away from certain career paths (whether consciously or not), but that's not the core issue being discussed. It's merely a hand wavey smoke and mirrors style distraction.

 

You don't need to toss around terms like disingenuous simply because I don't feel like chasing your red herrings. I shared what I would support, and below is further support of my stance / rebuttal of yours:

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2015/04/14/110959/how-the-gender-wage-gap-differs-by-occupation/

Some argue that the wage gap is purely due to womens choices, but such a characterization hides the cultural and social factors that go into womens decisions to enter or stay in a particular job. Moreover, even when women choose the same jobs as men, the wage gap persists. For example, male surgeons earn 37.76 percent more per week than their female counterparts. In real terms, this means that a female surgeon earns $756 less per week than her male colleague, which adds up to nearly $40,000 over the course of one year. And this does not apply only to high-paying, male-dominated careers: Women are 94.6 percent of all secretaries and administrative assistants, yet they earn 84.5 percent of what their male counterparts earn per weeka weekly difference of $126.

 

It is also important to note that differences in womens education do not help explain the gender wage gap. In fact, education has helped shrink the gapbut has not been nearly enough to close it. Women complete college and graduate school at higher rates than men; they earned 47 percent of all law degrees in 2011 and 47 percent of all medical degrees in 2014. All except one of the occupations with the smallest wage gaps do not require education beyond high school, while almost all of the occupations with the largest wage gaps require a college or professional degree. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that, going forward, jobs that require advanced degrees will grow faster than those that do not; they will also continue to have higher entry-level wages than jobs that require less education. Since women are pursuing advanced degrees at the same or slightly higher levels than their male counterparts, it is clear that helping women stay in the labor force and excel in well-paying jobs after completing their education needs to be a societal and a policy priority.

I remind you that I've supplied similar evidence in support of this stance to you here in this thread and in others where you've commented on this topic. You've not rebutted any of it, nor shared any evidence of your own.

 

Whether the gap is 23% or 7% and whether people are voluntarily or unconsciously choosing different fields, the gap is real and unacceptable in a modern society. You're free though to disagree. I cannot, after all, force you to be right.

[Phi for All]

The study by CONSAD Research Corp.

Do you have a link to a copy of this? When I search for it, lots of sites mentions it, but all links lead to nowhere, and CONSAD.com is "Not Available". What happened to this research company?

[CharonY]

I have the study downloaded a few years ago. I am not sure about the website.

[iNow]

Do you have a link to a copy of this?

FYI - https://www.shrm.org/Advocacy/Issues/CivilRights/Documents/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

[overtone]

If you don't want to address it that's okay, what I am trying to point out here is that it is disingenuous to say that the wage gap is 22-23% when in fact there is only a 5-7% difference when you compare men and women side by side within the same occupation.

No.

 

What was actually shown was a 5-7% wage gap right off the mark, first year out, initial hire for the same job.

 

What happens after that - raises, promotions, differential access to horizontal transfers for building skill sets, mentorship and influences, rate of failure influenced by hostile work environments, etc etc etc, - is not constrained by that initial situation. The comparison of men and women side by side within the same occupation remains to be made.

 

 

What I am asking you to address is the 15-16% difference within the raw wage gap that occurs because men filter into higher paying occupations than women.

You have presented no evidence that this "filtering" is the cause of all of that difference, and you have presented no evidence that this "filtering" is itself independent of gender discrimination.

 

It's even possible that those occupations are higher paying because men filter into them, and there is a gender bias in society to pay men more money for whatever they do. That would be the handiest explanation for the common practice of paying high school basketball coaches more than second grade teachers, for example.

 

There is at least one study out there that pegs the long term economic value added by a very good, as opposed to average, second grade teacher at around $300k @ yr. So if second grade teachers were hired the way corporate CEOs are allegedly hired, that's what you would have to pay for the best.

Edited February 10, 2016 by overtone

[neutrinosalad]

You're free though to disagree. I cannot, after all, force you to be right.

 

\We can agree to disagree on this one. A lot of this is driven purely by perception.

 

One thing here though is, I believe in equal opportunity, but I do not believe in equality of outcome.

 

What happens after that - raises, promotions, differential access to horizontal transfers for building skill sets, mentorship and influences, rate of failure influenced by hostile work environments, etc etc etc, - is not constrained by that initial situation. The comparison of men and women side by side within the same occupation remains to be made.

 

What I am asking you to address is the 15-16% difference within the raw wage gap that occurs because men filter into higher paying occupations than women. You have presented no evidence that this "filtering" is the cause of all of that difference, and you have presented no evidence that this "filtering" is itself independent of gender discrimination.

 

overtone, I don't have an answer for you. I need to do more research.

 

*EDIT: overtone, I have started reading the CONSAD report and most of your questions are actually answered in the report. It is a 95 page slog. I might put down some information that I glean from it that assesses your questions.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Capayan

[Ten oz]

Your framing of the issue (whether willfully or not) misses / avoids / is an attempt to distract from the actual point.

 

People will always make different choices. We can and should do better culturally so females are not pushed away from certain career paths (whether consciously or not), but that's not the core issue being discussed. It's merely a hand wavey smoke and mirrors style distraction.

 

You don't need to toss around terms like disingenuous simply because I don't feel like chasing your red herrings.

 

I remind you that I've supplied similar evidence in support of this stance to you here in this thread and in others where you've commented on this topic. You've not rebutted any of it, nor shared any evidence of your own.

 

Whether the gap is 23% or 7% and whether people are voluntarily or unconsciously choosing different fields, the gap is real and unacceptable in a modern society. You're free though to disagree. I cannot, after all, force you to be right.

Debates about fair treatment and equality are very hard for people to be honest about. Obviously different treatment leads people to make different choices. Opportunity, support, and treatement are critical to outcomes but statistically we can usually only track outcomes. Opportunity, support, and treatement are subtle and often ambigious. With only the outcome being messured a person can either guess that the opportuinity, support, and treatment are different or guess that the majority of individuals (in this case women) are just different. Of course one of those two guesses is considerably more cynical towards the abilities of women.

 

I have seen overt acts of sexism in my life just as I have seen overt acts of racism. Not just in rare moments but throughout my life. I have seen it in school, at work, in my family, and etc. Yet most times I enter into an "intelligent" conversation on the subject people stake out the position that they have never seen such things and that they do not exist broadly. What I have witnessed broadly throughout the country throughout my life becomes something no one is willing to admit is real. This is done because obviously if the point was conceded from the start than plainly opportunity, support, and treatment are different. The debate would be about to what degree rather than if at all. So the field is dishonestly stretched and the goal post is moved far as possible. People strategically play stupid.

 

This game of lengthening the field to height the bar of proof gets played with everything. Debates over the biology of evolution often get stretched to the point where evidence of the big bang is challange. This conversation doesn't need to be so difficult. Either one believes men and women are equally capable or they don't. If they do believe women are as capable than they will see the different outcome as a result of different opportunity, support, or treatement. If they don't believe women are as capable they will view the different outcomes as a standard result with nothing to be addressed.

 

We know the oucomes are different.The question is WHY; why are the outcomes different. Bothsides of the discussion have ideas that must be supported with evidence. Merely pointing out different choices get is evidence of nothing. It doesn't not expalin WHY. That fall back argument is intellectually dishonest and in my opinion cowardly.

[neutrinosalad]

This game of lengthening the field to height the bar of proof gets played with everything. Debates over the biology of evolution often get stretched to the point where evidence of the big bang is challange. This conversation doesn't need to be so difficult. Either one believes men and women are equally capable or they don't. If they do believe women are as capable than they will see the different outcome as a result of different opportunity, support, or treatement. If they don't believe women are as capable they will view the different outcomes as a standard result with nothing to be addressed.

 

We know the oucomes are different.The question is WHY; why are the outcomes different. Bothsides of the discussion have ideas that must be supported with evidence. Merely pointing out different choices get is evidence of nothing. It doesn't not expalin WHY. That fall back argument is intellectually dishonest and in my opinion cowardly.

 

Men and women are not equally capable. The clearest difference is that women have a womb and the biological capacity to produce human offspring within their bodies. Men do not have this ability. Please show me a man who has the biological capacity to produce offspring within his body.

 

In construction it is clear why men far outnumber women. I found a scientific article that compares muscular composition of men and women: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00235103. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall, and I had trouble finding other articles. Still the summary is enough to back up my point:

 

 

 

The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass.

 

Men having overall increased muscular strength gives them an advantage at performing well in jobs that directly relate to physical performance. This is a strong explanation as to why men dominate construction and other physically laborious jobs.

 

Edit: I am going to go even further and present an article that is possible evidence that women are superior to men in terms of empathy: http://ujpb.org/research/volume-7/are-there-gender-differences-in-empathy/

 

 

 

A simple effect analysis revealed no significant difference in scores of males and females in the social abilities condition (F (1,39) = 0.50, p > .05). The analysis revealed a significant difference between the scores of males and females in the empathy condition (F (1,39) = 19.01, p < .001) with males scoring significantly lower than females. This indicates gender differences in empathy were only present in the empathy condition.

 

There is evidence that women have superior levels of empathy, which could be a possible explanation of their dominance in positions that require increased levels of empathy like nursing and office management.

 

I have now presented evidence that explains part of the difference in occupational choices, please provide any evidence that contradicts my point.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Capayan

[CharonY]

Explain how muscle mass affects jobs that do not require them? Also can you demonstrate that being physically stronger is tied to higher income? How much stronger are CEOs, for example?

 

Edit for not being able to English.

Edited February 11, 2016 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

Men and women are not equally capable. The clearest difference is that women have a womb and the biological capacity to produce human offspring within their bodies. Men do not have this ability. Please show me a man who has the biological capacity to produce offspring within his body.

 

 

 

Absolutely meaningless to a conversation about employment and pay.

[iNow]

In addition to Charon's point, it's absurd to suggest we should focus on construction jobs in this context. Talk about grasping at straws...

 

Construction makes up perhaps 4% of all jobs and has median annual wage of $31,460 versus the national average median across all jobs of $47,230.

 

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm

http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag23.htm

 

The point is so self-evidently silly and nonsequitur that I can hardly believe I'm even bothering to respond.

Edited February 11, 2016 by iNow

[Ten oz]

In addition to Charon's point, it's absurd to suggest we should focus on construction jobs in this context. Talk about grasping at straws...Construction makes up perhaps 4% of all jobs and has median annual wage of $31,460 versus the national average across all jobs of $47,230.http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag23.htmThe point is so self-evidently silly and nonsequitur that I can hardly believe I'm even bothering to respond.

The argument was that men pick higher paying career fields but shifted to how much stronger and better able to do low paying labor intensive jobs men are. It is a purely argumentive approach to the discussion that demands increasing amounts of prove while only provided ever evolving arguments.

[neutrinosalad]

Explain how muscle mass affects jobs that do not require them? Also can you demonstrate that being physically stronger is tied to higher income? How much stronger are CEOs, for example?

 

Edit for not being able to English.

 

What I am trying to point out is that there is clear evidence that there are biological factors at play that drive occupational choices. I am not saying that they apply to every occupation.

 

I chose physical strength because it is less abstract than things like culture or how the differing hormonal makeup of men and women affect their behavior and life choices. I don't think these things can be proven either way until neuroscience progresses and the understanding of male female behavior moves from abstractions towards a deeper understanding of how the differing biological makeup affects our lives and life choices. I believe your expertise lies in the area of neuroscience, so you might know more than me.

 

So I will admit, I do know outside of the physical strength/construction arena. It is still too abstract for me to make any concrete argument.

 

The argument was that men pick higher paying career fields but shifted to how much stronger and better able to do low paying labor intensive jobs men are. It is a purely argumentive approach to the discussion that demands increasing amounts of prove while only provided ever evolving arguments.

 

Physical strength was the only thing that I had hard evidence to show that biological differences can affect occupational choice, so that's why I jumped on it.

 

Beyond that I don't have proof of anything and I do not know why men and women move into different occupations.

 

Also, yes, it is purely argumentative. If we were discussing this in real life, I would be able to go on for hours. Sadly, on forums, all I can do is make a few incomprehensible posts and then eventually give up.

[iNow]

There may be differences. There are myriad sources of those differences, perhaps biological, perhaps societal, perhaps something else. Those differences often lead to different occupational choices.

 

None of that matters.

None of that is relevant.

 

Even when you control for those factors, even when you look at one-to-one comparisons within the exact same job with the exact same competencies and qualifications, and even when you control for competence, skill, and ability... even when you control for productivity, quality, and overall merit and outcome...

 

The wage gap persists and females are making less than males for no recognizable reason other than the ridiculous fact that they have a second X chromosome and some private lady bits instead of a Y chromosome and some external boy plumbing.

Edited February 12, 2016 by iNow

[physica]

The wage gap persists and females are making less than males for no recognizable reason other than the ridiculous fact that they have a second X chromosome and some private lady bits instead of a Y chromosome and some external boy plumbing.

Wow took a break and people took the chance to ignore the fact that women earn more than men per hour ages of 22 and 39 (excluding overtime).

http://www.ons.gov.u...1778_385428.pdf [page12]

If you're pushing forward the theory that women are discriminated against because of their sex in turn getting lower pay you have to explain why women get paid more when over time is excluded. I see that the dirty tricks have come out of the closet again, ignore stats that go against your theory in favour of stats with less controls and more noise and try and get people who are not proposing a theory to try and prove a negative.

[iNow]

...people took the chance to ignore the fact that women earn more than men per hour ages of 22 and 39 (excluding overtime). (snip) I see that the dirty tricks have come out of the closet again, ignore stats that go against your theory in favour of stats with less controls ...

Since when did we start talking only about the UK, and only one set of ages, and at the exclusion of actual time worked if it's overtime?

 

Also, just to clarify, are you now pretending that a purposely narrow selective slice of the data in one region and one band of ages and with actual time worked trimmed/truncated just so you can make a point is a relevant negation and/or rebuttal of the overall deltas in pay by gender we've been discussing across age groups, across job sectors, and across decades?

 

For someone so offended by "dirty tricks" and people prioritizing personal opinion over data, you sure seem guilty of that which you accuse others of doing / don't seem willing to lead by example on this issue you clearly agree is important.

Edited February 13, 2016 by iNow

[physica]

Since when did we start talking only about the UK and only one set of ages?

 

Also, just to clarify, are you now pretending that a purposely narrow selective slice of the data in one region is a relevant negation and/or rebuttal of the overall deltas we've been discussing across age groups, across job sectors, and across decades?

 

For someone so offended by "dirty tricks" and people prioritizing personal opinion over data, you sure seem guilty of that which you accuse others of doing / don't seem willing to lead by example.

Again this is another example of a dirty trick. I have shown you that taking into account age and excluding over time shows different results. YOU are proposing the theory. If YOU want to prove that women in the USA are discriminated against then show me the stats that take into account age and exclude overtime that women are discriminated against. Again YOU are proving the theory. If you want it to be:

across age groups, across job sectors, and across decades?

 

it only makes YOUR job harder not mine. It baffles me as to why the scientific method gets turned on it's head when female victimhood gets chucked into the mix. This is what it's like at the moment:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL9lVE5MJ9A

[iNow]

My intent is to highlight disparity, not assert discrimination.

[CharonY]

Most of the discussion here was focused on the US, and the data shown were mostly taken from the US labour statistics. In Europe there are quite a few difference, with some countries doing quite well in terms of parity, whereas are not so well. Of course it depends on metrics. In general, however the trends seems to be that the gap widens with age. This also visible in the UK statistics, and as you can see, the advantage of women is at most 1%, between 22-39 whereas in all other groups we are in the double digits (except 18-21). And while we are the UK, the chart also show that in the public sector the gap is wider than in the public, which typically has a lot of rules in terms of salary. And when looking at all the other charts it also shows that if you look at the workforce at whole or in specific sectors wage gaps 5-25% are seen, even with overtime excluded. The highest gap again visible in skilled trades. So basically iNow has a point that one would have to slice the data heavily to find one element where the gap is no visible.

 

Now as others have mentioned that a large chunk of the gap is due to the fact that women tend to go into low paying jobs, invest more time in household and child care etc. One could state that these are choices but it creates issues. The largest being that women are more dependent on their partners as going into low-income jobs (e.g. to accommodate childcare) means increasing poverty at old age. This is a bad trajectory especially as pensions are also heavily impacted.

 

This is especially true for unmarried or divorced women (the latter being dependent on respective laws). So even it is a choice, the question remains whether these traditional roles can be maintained in modern economy and also why the choices are made. One discussion point is that it is an old gender role that is perpetuated by society but ultimately leaves them more vulnerable than men.

 

Some people say that the women have to put up with what men are expected to do, but ignore that this in top of fulfilling roles expected from them as women. Especially having a child (or even having the ability to bear children) has an enormous impact on income, and one has to ask oneself whether this should be the case.

 

Now back to Europe, I do not know the statistics for most countries by in Germany various studies have showed about a 7% unexplained gap when adjusted for position, hours worked, and experience. This, again, does not take into account that very few women rank among top earners.

 

I think the situation in the US is a bit better where estimates are closer to 5%. That is, even if we take into account all the things that make women to go into lower paying job, work less etc. they still have pretty in almost every country (in which these calculations were made) a disadvantage.

Edited February 13, 2016 by CharonY

[physica]

My intent is to highlight disparity, not assert discrimination.

stop trying to be dishonest.

 

 

iNow, on 12 Feb 2016 - 03:17 AM, said:

The wage gap persists and females are making less than males for no recognizable reason other than the ridiculous fact that they have a second X chromosome and some private lady bits instead of a Y chromosome and some external boy plumbing.

 

Now I appreciate that my statements lock you down and you can't really respond to them. You try a few tricks, try and get me to prove why your theory is wrong as opposed to proving it yourself. Again I lock you down quickly. You then flat out lie and say that you're simply highlighting the gap. The second quote shows you're not. Last but not least you try and seek solace in voting me down even though I have been consistent and held your feet to the fire with facts as opposed to trying tricks. Keep it up. A hypothetical rating system doesn't disprove my facts and you know this.

 

 

Most of the discussion here was focused on the US, and the data shown were mostly taken from the US labour statistics. In Europe there are quite a few difference, with some countries doing quite well in terms of parity, whereas are not so well. Of course it depends on metrics. In general, however the trends seems to be that the gap widens with age. This also visible in the UK statistics, and as you can see, the advantage of women is at most 1%, between 22-39 whereas in all other groups we are in the double digits (except 18-21).

I haven't seen any good quality data excluding overtime in the USA. If you can find it will help you proving your theory that women are discriminated against. We know that men are twice as likely to do over time, relying on data that doesn't exclude overtime is just messy and disingenuous. Again I have to keep focusing on the scientific method here. I have not proposed that I know the forces behind these gaps. However, if we are to be consistent with the scientific method someone who does claim has to explain why they are earning more in their prime out of university and why it drops off at 39. I'll do a little bit of your job for you and chuck out a speculation but this is in no means an invite to force me to produce a theory and start defending it distracting from the fact that your are coming to the table with a theory. Women who recently graduate are less likely to be raising a child and can focus on work. The fact that there is a period where women earn more than men suggests that 100% of the pay gap later on could be down to external factors like raising children. You have to explain how women are discriminated from pay and promotions despite earning more for 17 years (I think people generally get promotions and pay rises when working for 17 years). You play down this section but women are earning more suggests that there are changes at 39 that accounts more than 100% of the gender pay gap later on.

 

 

And while we are the UK, the chart also show that in the public sector the gap is wider than in the public, which typically has a lot of rules in terms of salary. And when looking at all the other charts it also shows that if you look at the workforce at whole or in specific sectors wage gaps 5-25% are seen, even with overtime excluded. The highest gap again visible in skilled trades. So basically iNow has a point that one would have to slice the data heavily to find one element where the gap is no visible.

Nice spin but you but lets look at the other side people chose to ignore earlier on:

 

Percentage of men employed with children:

age

16-24 69.5%

25-34 88.6%

35-49 92.1%

Percentage of women employed with children:

age

16-24 35.8%

25-34 63.0%

35-49 75.0%

Percentage of men employed without children:

age

16-24 48.6%

25-34 83.6%

35-49 82.0%

Percentage of women employed without children:

age

16-24 51.1%

25-34 85.0%

35-49 79.7%

Office of national statistics [page: 9] http://www.ons.gov.u...1776_328352.pdf

When we look at the later years the difference between men and women going to work when children are involved is also in the double digits. Look there's a lot of noise and guess work here. Your model of sexual discrimination doesn't even come close to a conspiracy theory yet.

 

The highest gap again visible in skilled trades.

If you take time out of a highly skilled trade you deskill quicker. Physics/tech and engineering jobs move a lot faster than caring professions and people who work in history departments or libraries etc. We are all agreeing that women take time out to raise kids. Instead of discrimination is it just that these jobs are fast paced?

 

Now back to Europe, I do not know the statistics for most countries by in Germany various studies have showed about a 7% unexplained gap when adjusted for position, hours worked, and experience. This, again, does not take into account that very few women rank among top earners.

Again I'm going to introduce some more noise here. If we look at Europe poor countries like Lithuania have nearly 50/50 men and women in senior management jobs. When you look at wealthy stable countries like Germany and France women account for less than 10% of senior management jobs. Why is it that in richer countries were the households are more stable and have more expendable income women are less likely to be in a senior management role??? Do you think women's' choice might be a factor???

 

 

I think the situation in the US is a bit better where estimates are closer to 5%. That is, even if we take into account all the things that make women to go into lower paying job, work less etc. they still have pretty in almost every country (in which these calculations were made) a disadvantage.

Show me some USA stats that takes overtime into account and age and I'll believe you that there's a consistent gap.

Edited February 14, 2016 by physica

[iNow]

stop trying to be dishonest.

Whike it's clearly difficult to find a valid reason for the pay disparity other than differential treatment of women, that hasn't been my focus. My focus has been the disparity itself and possible ways to address it. My focus has not been the possibility discrimination.

 

Again I'm going to introduce some more noise here.

Clearly, that goes without saying.

 

Do you think women's' choice might be a factor???

Do you bother reading threads before replying to them?

[overtone]

Wow took a break and people took the chance to ignore the fact that women earn more than men per hour ages of 22 and 39 (excluding overtime)

 

That was settled in 105 and 115 from me, and several posts from several others.

It was not ignored. If you are going to repost it, you need to pay some attention to its various rebuttals.

 

 

If you take time out of a highly skilled trade you deskill quicker. Physics/tech and engineering jobs move a lot faster than caring professions and people who work in history departments or libraries etc.

Civil engineering jobs "move faster" than library management has been moving these past few decades? That seems unlikely. I doubt the job of professor of physics has "moved faster" than nursing, either.

 

And the executive jobs that supply the largest pay gaps of all don't move any faster for women than they do for men, nor do they seem to "deskill" rapidly.

 

 

Why is it that in richer countries were the households are more stable and have more expendable income women are less likely to be in a senior management role???

One reason is because senior management roles pay better in richer countries, and men in patriarchies self-organize in various ways to restrict high paying jobs to men. That's the standard feminist explanation, well supported by your links and claims. Edited February 14, 2016 by overtone

[physica]

That was settled in 105 and 115 from me, and several posts from several others.

It was not ignored. If you are going to repost it, you need to pay some attention to its various rebuttals.

 

You haven't even come close to it and you and your friends know it which is why they were trying to downplay it as a small irrlevent slice of data a few posts ago, 105 was a question and 115 was waffle without a single piece of evidence to back it up. Nice try but you're dirty tricks are not touching me.

 

 

Civil engineering jobs "move faster" than library management has been moving these past few decades? That seems unlikely. I doubt the job of professor of physics has "moved faster" than nursing, either.

 

And the executive jobs that supply the largest pay gaps of all don't move any faster for women than they do for men, nor do they seem to "deskill" rapidly.

It's very likely. Coming from someone who went from medical back to study physics and now doing physics and eningeering in medicine postgrad the pace is a lot faster. With medical there is a ton of regulation, the change is a change in the biology memorised. In tech and engineering jobs new programming languages come out, other programming languages become obsolete. Take a couple of years out of a biotech company and you stuggle to get a company to take you on due to the competative nature. Nursing is famous for being easy in terms of part time and maternity leave. Still lets not turn the scientific method on it's head. I was speculating party doing your job. You claim you know the cause of the gender pay gap, tell me your model that explains why women earn more than men from 22-39 and how the discrimination kicks in after that.

 

One reason is because senior management roles pay better in richer countries, and men in patriarchies self-organize in various ways to restrict high paying jobs to men. That's the standard feminist explanation, well supported by your links and claims.

 

This is nice pub talk but do you have any evidence to back this up? This is compariable to a conspiracy theory. The fact that at age 39 women go from earning more than earning less (accounting for over 100% of the pay gap) means that there must be some serious restirctions on women which would be very easy for you to find. Without evidence your theory is nothing. Once again Overtone you've added nothing. iNow usually picks you up for slopply contributions but luckily for you you're supporting the female victimhood conspiracy so anything for the cause hey iNow?

 

 

Do you bother reading threads before replying to them?

Are you even going to try and approach the facts I produce that smash you position into the ground or are you going to dance around and snipe hiding behind the downvote?

 

In conclusion no one has even come close to producing evidence of this consipracy theory, produce good quality data or even attempt to exaplain inconsistencies when good quality data is produced, instead it's been ingored and downplayed. The proof is the fact that no one even dares to attempt to explain the facts I've been laying out here. overtone has waffled mildly about them but it's pub talk at best with illogical explainations and zero evidence.

 

this is what's going on right now:

 

 

Carry on voting down because that is all that you can do. This female victimhood cult has pushed good people away from the science forums.

[iNow]

You asked me a question I'd already answered. Why did you ask it again? Why do you feel the need to act childish and lash out instead of having a mature discussion?

[CharonY]

Oh dear, I would have hope that you would actually look at the various links provided by yourself and the other posters.

 

 

I haven't seen any good quality data excluding overtime in the USA.

 

These would include all statistics that account for that and other factors. Usually they are summarized under explainable factors (adjusted for hours worked). The CONSAD study (just a few posts above) concluded that factoring in things including lower pay, part-time work etc. a gap of 5-7% persists.Likewise an AAUW study found that after adjustment ~7% remained unexplained.

 

I have also no idea why you think that the employment rate on has any bearing on the adjusted full-time income. It basically states that women with children are less likely to be in the workforce throughout all age groups. And that is what it has been mentioned in many studies (and touched upon your own link) that women may suffer from loss of income due to child care.

 

And if you cared to look at the big picture it demonstrates that in the US (and now we added UK) an income gap persists that to ~5% is not explainable by known confounding factors (such as time worked, experience etc., and I know I am repeating myself but apparently this is the theme of this thread). The overall gap is much higher, however, witch dropping off the workforce due to children being one of the reasons. This has consequences especially for elderly (as also reflected in the statistic you provided).

Thus the gender gap, regardless of why it exists (never mind the unexplainable part), still puts a higher burden on women than men. Child care was one of the factors that were used parts of the gap. And here the question is again whether it is alright to have an unequal distribution of the burden. Of course one could argue that it should be the role of women, and many may agree. Yet it also means that their purchasing power is likely to be lower and then it becomes more attractive not to have children. That is also partially in the provided statistics as it shows that women without children are employed at a similar rate as men, whereas disparity shows when children are involved. But again, these are all arguments buried back in this thread already.