Is this sex discrimination?

[Philosophy Explorer]

That a woman gets paid $.77 on the dollar that a man gets paid? Yet employers are supposed to pay based on how they value the employee (along with other factors).

What is the resolution?

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

That a woman gets paid $.77 on the dollar that a man gets paid

...No. Not like you would think, anyway. That particular estimate of the 'gender pay gap' is an overly simplistic one which compares the median income between men and women. It does not account for things like job differences or qualifications. There are more sophisticated calculations by people like Claudia Goldin that attempt to account for these things - but even she fails to account for one of the most important factors, which is that men tend to gravitate towards competitive fields that often allow for more raises. They also tend to ask for more raises, in general.

The reality is things such as the gender and racial pay gaps are an attempt to find equality where you should intuitively expect chaos, because it is not so simple that you can just take a random selection of any group of people, and expect them to be paid the same. That is patently ridiculous. It's why when most labor economists discuss something like the 'gender pay gap,' it's typically not in advocacy against it, but a lecture about why it exists - because they know better.

If you want look into something which really brings out the absurdity of 'pay gaps,' look into how much more money normal people get paid over the physically handicapped. Very few advocates against the 'gender pay gap' will ever bring something like this up, because it points out the absurdity of not considering someone's individual situation.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That a woman gets paid $.77 on the dollar that a man gets paid

...No. Not like you would think, anyway. That particular estimate of the 'gender pay gap' is an overly simplistic one which compares the median income between men and women. It does not account for things like job differences or qualifications. There are more sophisticated calculations by people like Claudia Goldin that attempt to account for these things - but even she fails to account for one of the most important factors, which is that men tend to gravitate towards competitive fields that often allow for more raises. They also tend to ask for more raises, in general.

The reality is things such as the gender and racial pay gaps are an attempt to find equality where you should intuitively expect chaos, because it is not so simple that you can just take a random selection of any group of people, and expect them to be paid the same. That is patently ridiculous. It's why when most labor economists discuss something like the 'gender pay gap,' it's typically not in advocacy against it, but a lecture about why it exists - because they know better.

If you want look into something which really brings out the absurdity of 'pay gaps,' look into how much more money normal people get paid over the physically handicapped. Very few advocates against the 'gender pay gap' will ever bring something like this up, because it points out the absurdity of not considering someone's individual situation.

Very good reply SSOS. I don't see how even the most PC twat could argue with that.

[Philosophy Explorer]

That a woman gets paid $.77 on the dollar that a man gets paid

...No. Not like you would think, anyway. That particular estimate of the 'gender pay gap' is an overly simplistic one which compares the median income between men and women. It does not account for things like job differences or qualifications. There are more sophisticated calculations by people like Claudia Goldin that attempt to account for these things - but even she fails to account for one of the most important factors, which is that men tend to gravitate towards competitive fields that often allow for more raises. They also tend to ask for more raises, in general.

The reality is things such as the gender and racial pay gaps are an attempt to find equality where you should intuitively expect chaos, because it is not so simple that you can just take a random selection of any group of people, and expect them to be paid the same. That is patently ridiculous. It's why when most labor economists discuss something like the 'gender pay gap,' it's typically not in advocacy against it, but a lecture about why it exists - because they know better.

If you want look into something which really brings out the absurdity of 'pay gaps,' look into how much more money normal people get paid over the physically handicapped. Very few advocates against the 'gender pay gap' will ever bring something like this up, because it points out the absurdity of not considering someone's individual situation.

SSoS:

That $.77 figure is one I consistently see coming up (in one case it was $.75).

I think the real issue is whether the employer has the absolute right to set a value upon the employees he wishes to employ (this includes who the employer wants to work for him). A start towards reducing the gap may be to educate employers.

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

That $.77 figure is one I consistently see coming up (in one case it was $.75).

Right. It would be from 2010 statistics only measuring pay disparity. I'm not entirely sure where all the other numbers come from. I think some of them are based on more local numbers, and some of them are coming from economists like Goldin who do actually try to compare the same fields.

A start towards reducing the gap may be to educate employers.

Did you pick up on anything I said? We don't need to reduce it, because it's not at all a bad thing (doesn't exist for the reason people think it does) unless it's your goal to stifle competition; While I think it's easily demonstrated to not be there due to gender-discrimination, I don't even need to do that, because the burden of proof isn't on me to show that it isn't.

The feminists and progressives who are arguing for this nonsense can't just show us the raw numbers, whether it be .77 cents from the 2011 government census, or even something like 85 cents from Goldin's advanced calculations - and act that's an argument in itself, and then just assume the pay disparity must exist due to gender-based discrimination. That is an argument from ignorance, as just because you can't think of any other reason for why the gap could exist, doesn't mean it's due to gender discrimination. They have to show, with something like extraneous data, that bosses are making these differences in the payroll due to systemic bias.

[Philosophy Explorer]

That $.77 figure is one I consistently see coming up (in one case it was $.75).

Right. It would be from 2010 statistics only measuring pay disparity. I'm not entirely sure where all the other numbers come from. I think some of them are based on more local numbers, and some of them are coming from economists like Goldin who do actually try to compare the same fields.

A start towards reducing the gap may be to educate employers.

Did you pick up on anything I said? We don't need to reduce it, because it's not at all a bad thing (doesn't exist for the reason people think it does) unless it's your goal to stifle competition; While I think it's easily demonstrated to not be there due to gender-discrimination, I don't even need to do that, because the burden of proof isn't on me to show that it isn't.

The feminists and progressives who are arguing for this nonsense can't just show us the raw numbers, whether it be .77 cents from the 2011 government census, or even something like 85 cents from Goldin's advanced calculations - and act that's an argument in itself, and then just assume the pay disparity must exist due to gender-based discrimination. That is an argument from ignorance, as just because you can't think of any other reason for why the gap could exist, doesn't mean it's due to gender discrimination. They have to show, with something like extraneous data, that bosses are making these differences in the payroll due to systemic bias.

I'm not easy to convince about that, however I have a proposal. If it's true that women are being discriminated against, there should be court cases on this matter. If so, I would like to see their summaries and see how judges have ruled. So I remain convinced of a need to reduce the gender pay gap.

PhilX

PS If we're talking about the same employer and the same job (although for federal purposes, the jobs may be substantially the same), then the starting pay should be the same which many employers do, regardless of experience and other factors, which would be adjusted over time for performance and other factors. That $.77 pay is a substantial difference from a dollar (my judgment) which I don't attribute to a quirk in the stats - the question is how much of it is due to discrimination?

I read up on Claudia Goldin from Harvard Magazine. She attributes the pay gap to "non-linearity" which is a less popular idea than discrimination (the article's words).

[Judaka]

The pay gap is not even talking about an employer paying his staff differently based on their gender lol. The figures you're talking about aren't even conducted within a single industry let alone within the same company and the same profession within that company. You should pretty much be ashamed that you even hold a view on this subject when you don't even have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I'm not easy to convince about that

Well what convinced you that the pay gap exists due to gender discrimination, in the first place? It's not enough to just point out how there's a pay disparity, you have to prove that pay disparity exists specifically due to female discrimination.

PS If we're talking about the same employer and the same job (although for federal purposes, the jobs may be substantially the same), then the starting pay should be the same which many employers do, regardless of experience and other factors, which would be adjusted over time for performance and other factors.

Not even, because people can ask for a higher starting pay; Men do more of this according to stats, as well.

I read up on Claudia Goldin from Harvard Magazine. She attributes the pay gap to "non-linearity" which is a less popular idea than discrimination (the article's words).

Well to a point, she just specifically believes the .77 cents claim is misleading (which it is - there is really no way you can dispute this because the male populace and the female population are not making the exact same choices) because it doesn't take the same field into consideration. She believes there's still a gap we need to close, though.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I'm not easy to convince about that

Well what convinced you that the pay gap exists due to gender discrimination, in the first place? It's not enough to just point out how there's a pay disparity, you have to prove that pay disparity exists specifically due to female discrimination.

PS If we're talking about the same employer and the same job (although for federal purposes, the jobs may be substantially the same), then the starting pay should be the same which many employers do, regardless of experience and other factors, which would be adjusted over time for performance and other factors.

Not even, because people can ask for a higher starting pay; Men do more of this according to stats, as well.

I read up on Claudia Goldin from Harvard Magazine. She attributes the pay gap to "non-linearity" which is a less popular idea than discrimination (the article's words).

Well to a point, she just specifically believes the .77 cents claim is misleading (which it is - there is really no way you can dispute this because the male populace and the female population are not making the exact same choices) because it doesn't take the same field into consideration. She believes there's still a gap we need to close, though.

I still think the best answer is the court system.

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

What do you mean? What do you want the court system to do?

[Philosophy Explorer]

What do you mean? What do you want the court system to do?

They're the ones who have the official, final say in this matter,

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

They're the ones who have the official, final say in this matter

But what do you want them to do about it, specifically? You want them to penalize these companies who give out higher pay to those who negotiate for it? And what do you imagine as the response from these companies, the increase of everyone's paycheck to ensure the 'gender pay disparity' just doesn't exist, or the docking of everyone's pay to ensure that the 'gender pay disparity' doesn't exist?

Even with either solution - that's not entirely where the 'wage' gap is coming from. Overall, women just don't have as many work-hours as men. So even in this scenario, there will be an income disparity.

..Anyway, you completely ignored the question that even makes this solution warranted; I'll ask you again, what lead you to think the pay disparity exists due to gender discrimination?

[Philosophy Explorer]

They're the ones who have the official, final say in this matter

But what do you want them to do about it, specifically? You want them to penalize these companies who give out higher pay to those who negotiate for it? And what do you imagine as the response from these companies, the increase of everyone's paycheck to ensure the 'gender pay disparity' just doesn't exist, or the docking of everyone's pay to ensure that the 'gender pay disparity' doesn't exist?

Even with either solution - that's not entirely where the 'wage' gap is coming from. Overall, women just don't have as many work-hours as men. So even in this scenario, there will be an income disparity.

..Anyway, you completely ignored the question that even makes this solution warranted; I'll ask you again, what lead you to think the pay disparity exists due to gender discrimination?

What do I want them to do about it? Their job.

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

What do I want them to do about it? Their job.

..And what is that? What does their job entail, to you? 'Fixing' something that isn't a problem in the first place, by ruining a drive for competition?

[Philosophy Explorer]

What do I want them to do about it? Their job.

..And what is that? What does their job entail, to you? 'Fixing' something that isn't a problem in the first place, by ruining a drive for competition?

So far you're not giving any worthwhile arguments and I still stand with the court system.

PhilX