Here's What The Gender Pay Gap Looks Like

[physica]

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.

No one has produced USA stats that look at age and exclude overtime. I have shown that there is an inconsistent 17 year period in the UK that no one dares touch. If you want to push your conspiracy theory you have you have to show that the wage gap is consistent throughout the ages when over time is excluded. Right now you're sticking your head in the sand and saying look at all this other poor quality data that doesn't address the 17 year inconsistency that you have shown in the UK. Again YOU are proposing you know what's going on not me it is up to you to show this. Right now you've failed to do so, so your theory is more of a speculation with insufficient data.

 

 

 

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.

Looking at the bigger picture if you are unemployed for a period of time then you will not progress in your career at the same rate as others who do not take time out.

 

 

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).

If we look at the bigger picture we have to acknowledge a 17-year inconsistency when you exclude overtime and look at age. If you want YOUR model to explain why there is a pay gap you have to look at why at 39 there is a change which is over 100% of the pay gap. If YOU want to assert that the gender pay gap is consistent against women throughout age in the USA YOU have to provide stats that exclude overtime and look at hourly earnings throughout age.

 

 

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.

This is very directionless. No one is disputing the fact that there is a gender pay gap for SOME AGE GROUPS however, there is a small cult that seems to think they know the reasons why and the reason why is their conspiracy theory. I say we don't know enough, there is a lot of noise and their is an inconsistancy in the stats if you exclude overtime and look at it over age. If you want your conspiracy theory to fit you will have to explain how this conspiracy theory fits with the inconsistency in the stats. If you can't do that and want to retreat back to just the USA you have to show that the wage gap is consistent for all ages when overtime is excluded.

 

If you think that consipracy theory is a little harsh look at the reasoning that's being accepted:

 

 

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.

With no evidence this screams consipracy theory. Also doens't even bother to explain how my points, links and claims support this. However, you and iNow haven't pulled this up. This did not recieve a vote down yet my posts have. Hence why I describe a cult mentality and this thread has been rife with doucle standards and cheap tricks. This is mainly iNow and ovetone, CharonY I appreciate the dialog with you. Thank you for not getting involved with the mob/cult mentality.

 

 

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?

Keep throwing your toys out the pram and down voting. You know you can't touch my points

Edited February 14, 2016 by physica

[overtone]

 

 

No one is disputing the fact that there is a gender pay gap for SOME AGE GROUPS

There is an average gender pay gap favoring men for all the age/occupation groups except one, and that one is explained by the same proposed mechanisms of gender discrimination against women that account for the larger and inclusive and dominant pattern.

 

 

 

With no evidence this screams consipracy theory.

I don't know of any mainstream feminist theories that require the men be consciously conspiring against women. Most of the feminists expounding on the topic seem to think the men are fairly clueless, oblivious to what they are doing. For that I believe you have plenty of evidence in front of you. There are posters here who think that very young women getting paid more by the hour on average for part time and short week entry level jobs than very young men get paid for their regular hours at equivalently unskilled entry level full time jobs is a "slap in the face" to that feminist theory - you can't get much more oblivious than that.

 

If you are trying to argue that men in patriarchies do not organize themselves for their mutual benefit, that any such observation "screams conspiracy theory", allow me to refer you to the dictionary definition of "patriarchy". Unless you are contending that patriarchy does not exist?

 

 

Also doens't even bother to explain how my points, links and claims support this.

See post 105 and 115 of mine, and several others of others, on this thread - you have yet to deal with these responses to your posting here.

[physica]

There is an average gender pay gap favoring men for all the age/occupation groups except one, and that one is explained by the same proposed mechanisms of gender discrimination against women that account for the larger and inclusive and dominant pattern.

This is flat out wrong. I have shown you stats where between 22 and 39 they earn more when you exclude overtime. If you think this is different in the USA please provide stats that excude overtime and account for age. YOU are proposing the theory, YOU have the burden of proof.

 

 

I don't know of any mainstream feminist theories that require the men be consciously conspiring against women. Most of the feminists expounding on the topic seem to think the men are fairly clueless, oblivious to what they are doing. For that I believe you have plenty of evidence in front of you. There are posters here who think that very young women getting paid more by the hour on average for part time and short week entry level jobs than very young men get paid for their regular hours at equivalently unskilled entry level full time jobs is a "slap in the face" to that feminist theory - you can't get much more oblivious than that.

Your response to me saying that you provide no evidence is to waffle and provide no links or evidence...... good one. Luckily you're fighting for the female victimhood cult so no one will pick you up on this.

 

 

If you are trying to argue that men in patriarchies do not organize themselves for their mutual benefit, that any such observation "screams conspiracy theory", allow me to refer you to the dictionary definition of "patriarchy". Unless you are contending that patriarchy does not exist?

Enough with the cheap dirty tricks. Stop trying to reverse the scientific method. YOU are proposing the theory that part of the gender pay gap is because of the organising of the patriarchy. YOU have to provide the evidence. If YOU provide no evidence then it is as good as a conspiracy theory. This is very basic concept or science.... how are you not getting it.

 

 

 

See post 105 and 115 of mine, and several others of others, on this thread - you have yet to deal with these responses to your posting here.

Another cheap trick, pretend that you answered the question and refer back to the post..... If you really answered it copying and pasting would be an easy solution... sigh I'll go the extra mile and point out how you have done nothing.

 

 

here is 105

 

 

 

So?

What's your point? What "female victimhood conspiratory theory" does that contradict?

The explanations for that sound like an interesting inquiry, but plenty of them fit the normal descriptions of a society that - say - rewards youth in women and punishes age, regardless of other attributes, while rewarding ability and experience and hard work in men. Just to point to one stereotype often incorporated into standard feminist theory.

So you have a question. Another cheap trick of trying to reverse the scientific method. Then just some vague statement with no evidence or links. Also how does the stat that women 22-39 earn more than men prove that women get rewarded for their youth??? If that was the case then women under 22 would be earning more. Also your vague statement (I'll be generous and call a model) doesn't acount for women earning more for 17 years. If they were getting punished for aging you would see a decline as the age increases. Instead you see a dramatic change from 39 onwards. This is just vague statements with no links, it's compariable to pub talk. Really not an answer to what I'm bringing up.

 

This is post 115:

 

 

I made no such assertion. My only claim was that bias against age in women, more than men, is a standard trope of the standard feminist approach.

I merely pointed out that the standard, stereotypical feminist theory in the matter has no problem handling the circumstance described - contrary to the claim of the post I argued against.

(There are of course many factors that could be mentioned, if one were to address the study itself, including but not limited to : the data was from the UK, which has a different set of cultural factors from the US; employed women in that age bracket are likely on average to come from higher social strata, and have longer history at a given job; the exclusion of overtime biases the data regarding categories of employment that include gender disparities - there are kinds of male-dominated jobs (such as heavy seasonal work the trades) in which overtime is built in to the yearly compensation, and specifically compensates for the lower hourly base rate. And so forth. )

Ok hate to break it to you but again this is just vague speculating with zero links. It's as good as pub talk. Just saying the US has cultural differences doesn't cut it. I have given you stats that show that when age is concerned women earn more than men per hour from the ages of 22-39 when overtime is excluded in the UK. If YOU want to propose the theory that the wage gap is consistent against women through all ages in the USA the YOU have to provide stats that show this is the case when taking into account age and excluding overtime. Basically you've done nothing but just spew your own opinions...... man this is easy.

 

Guess what guys you're going to have to try some more cheap tricks, hide behind the downvoting and do anything possible not to take my points head on because guess what........ YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS

[Endy0816]

I'm not too worried. Women are simply going to pass men in terms of earnings then form a good ol' girl network to keep the new regime in place.

 

This college's stat's are a good example of what is to come:

 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/statistics/tables/e/2015-16

 

We males will finally be doing the jobs we were always meant for. Fighting and fixing crap.

 

You see a silver back go hunt down a wild boor? No. Bringing home the bacon was never what we were meant to be doing. This is the natural solution. No guy can develop the emotional intelligence needed in modern CEO's and managers. We need to focus what we are good at and let the women handle all the complicated parts of life.

[neutrinosalad]

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.

 

Charon, one thing to consider is that the State has solutions in place for the burden single mothers may face.

 

For one, it is entirely possible for a woman to extract child care from a father unwilling to fulfill his duty as a provider. If he escapes this role, there are welfare programs available for single mothers if they qualify.

 

It is still flawed, but the welfare state is still expanding. I read this article recently: http://Obama’s final budget proposal calls for $4.15 trillion in spending If you look at the graphic for social security, it becomes clear that federal government spending on social security is literally skyrocketing.

 

Based on the way that social security funding is growing, my prediction is that the problem you are bringing up should be resolved by the welfare state growing sufficiently to economically replace men who have abandoned their children.

 

One thing the state can't replace though is the psychological benefits a man can provide to the children in a cohesive family unit.

[CharonY]

Of course, that is one of the reasons for these studies, to figure out if and how the state should step in. The question with policies is actually quite complicated as research is needed to figure out whether the implemented policies are effective. The issues can be rather complex as in some cases the persons in need may not know that they are eligible for certain sources. I have not read through the available data, but just by googling census data this showed up. I.e. that especially at higher age the percentage of people below the poverty line is about equal aged under 18, starts go become higher between 18-64 and is ~1.7 times higher for females in retirement age. At least up until 2013 it seems that whatever policies were in place it at least not efficient in bridging the difference.

It has to be that for both genders the percentage of dropping below the poverty line has increased over the years. Just for fun I have extracted the poverty data over the years to see whether there are significant changes in the ratio between men to women since 1966.

For the pre-retirement group the situations seems to have improved over time. The average relative risk of females is about 1.4 that of men, and where ~1.5-1.6 before the 90s. and have then dropped down to about 1.3.

For the retirement group it looks worse. Average is about 1.7. However, the lowest values were before the 70s (`1.4), have then increased to almost 2 in the mid-90s and have fluctuated between 1.6 and 1.8 since then.

One would need more detailed data to figure out whether it is really related to children, though.

Edited February 15, 2016 by CharonY

[overtone]

There is an average gender pay gap favoring men for all the age/occupation groups except one, and that one is explained by the same proposed mechanisms of gender discrimination against women that account for the larger and inclusive and dominant pattern.

This is flat out wrong. I have shown you stats where between 22 and 39 they earn more when you exclude overtime.

Yes - that was the one. Your point?

 

Your response to me saying that you provide no evidence is to waffle and provide no links or evidence...... good one

Uh, I did point to evidence - and you keep providing more.

 

YOU are proposing the theory that part of the gender pay gap is because of the organising of the patriarchy. YOU have to provide the evidence.

I don't think I have to provide evidence that men organize themselves for their mutual benefit in a patriarchy. Beyond that, it is the contention of standard feminist theory that such organization accounts for all manner of burdens on women, including wage gaps - not my theory, standard feminist theory. I agree with it, but that's here nor there.

 

Also how does the stat that women 22-39 earn more than men prove that women get rewarded for their youth???

It doesn't prove anything - it just agrees with standard feminist theory in the matter. Your contention was that it conflicted. It does not.

 

If that was the case then women under 22 would be earning more. Also your vague statement (I'll be generous and call a model) doesn't acount for women earning more for 17 years. If they were getting punished for aging you would see a decline as the age increases. Instead you see a dramatic change from 39 onwards.

You are confused about your stats. They do not show a dramatic change at age 39.

 

I have given you stats that show that when age is concerned women earn more than men per hour from the ages of 22-39 when overtime is excluded in the UK.

You then proceeded to assert, without evidence or argument and contrary to standard feminist theory, that this contradicted or conflicted with the contention that women were in general handicapped and discriminated against by men in the workplace as feminist theory proposes.

Edited February 15, 2016 by overtone

[neutrinosalad]

Of course, that is one of the reasons for these studies, to figure out if and how the state should step in. The question with policies is actually quite complicated as research is needed to figure out whether the implemented policies are effective. The issues can be rather complex as in some cases the persons in need may not know that they are eligible for certain sources. I have not read through the available data, but just by googling census data this showed up. I.e. that especially at higher age the percentage of people below the poverty line is about equal aged under 18, starts go become higher between 18-64 and is ~1.7 times higher for females in retirement age. At least up until 2013 it seems that whatever policies were in place it at least not efficient in bridging the difference.

It has to be that for both genders the percentage of dropping below the poverty line has increased over the years. Just for fun I have extracted the poverty data over the years to see whether there are significant changes in the ratio between men to women since 1966.

For the pre-retirement group the situations seems to have improved over time. The average relative risk of females is about 1.4 that of men, and where ~1.5-1.6 before the 90s. and have then dropped down to about 1.3.

For the retirement group it looks worse. Average is about 1.7. However, the lowest values were before the 70s (`1.4), have then increased to almost 2 in the mid-90s and have fluctuated between 1.6 and 1.8 since then.

One would need more detailed data to figure out whether it is really related to children, though.

 

For the statement I highlighted, if I am reading it correctly, more men and women are dropping below the poverty line as time goes one.

 

Charon, this is totally unrelated to the gender gap, but it is very interesting to think about. If you look at Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google, they are all investing in artificial intelligence. The precedence being set here is that as artificial intelligence is deployed to provide automated solutions to jobs that were previously performed by humans, more and more of the income will be retained by the companies rather than distributed to the workers.

 

We are on the pathway to widespread poverty if the US government does not apply corrective action by expanding the welfare state and using taxes to redistribute the income that was displaced through increases in automation. We don't have to discuss this as it is off topic, but it is very interesting to think about when you are thinking in the context of poverty and the future of workers in the US.

[iNow]

...this is totally unrelated to the gender gap, but it is very interesting to think about... If you look at Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google, they are all investing in artificial intelligence. The precedence being set here is that as artificial intelligence is deployed to provide automated solutions to jobs that were previously performed by humans, more and more of the income will be retained by the companies rather than distributed to the workers.

 

We are on the pathway to widespread poverty if the US government does not apply corrective action by expanding the welfare state and using taxes to redistribute the income that was displaced through increases in automation. We don't have to discuss this as it is off topic, but it is very interesting to think about when you are thinking in the context of poverty and the future of workers in the US.

In case you want to explore the topic in more detail, here is a good place: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/90113-robots-will-take-your-job/page-1

[CharonY]

 

For the statement I highlighted, if I am reading it correctly, more men and women are dropping below the poverty line as time goes one.

 

Charon, this is totally unrelated to the gender gap, but it is very interesting to think about. If you look at Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google, they are all investing in artificial intelligence. The precedence being set here is that as artificial intelligence is deployed to provide automated solutions to jobs that were previously performed by humans, more and more of the income will be retained by the companies rather than distributed to the workers.

 

We are on the pathway to widespread poverty if the US government does not apply corrective action by expanding the welfare state and using taxes to redistribute the income that was displaced through increases in automation. We don't have to discuss this as it is off topic, but it is very interesting to think about when you are thinking in the context of poverty and the future of workers in the US.

 

It is actually related in so far as it can be suspected that having a lower income puts you at higher risk of poverty. Women do earn less and the question has been asked whether they are also at higher risk to drop to poverty levels. And the data at least does not contradict the notion. In fact, it is almost a trivial correlation as poverty is directly tied to income. It was more to support the notion I had earlier that due to the fact that women make less, there are age-related effects, including increased poverty (the UK data suggested that and so does the US).

 

Now it is possible that with that data it is not possible to see whether welfare can catch these cases as welfare may kick in only when that line is crossed, anyway, so my previous statement on that may be inaccurate (I am not familiar with all the programs).