> I understand, I would hate to be proven wrong as much as you have been in this exchange.
What a revealing sentiment. It speaks to your desire not to engage people here, or share insight or build consensus, but rather a desire to score debate points.
What's more, your entire argument is about addressing tangential (and debatable) inconsistencies and not actually addressing the larger point. If you think observers are blind to this, you're dead wrong.
If you really want to argue that there isn't a wage gap, scoffing and sniping won't work. The overton window, as they say, has shifted. The burden's on you now to provide an alternate hypothesis and shift the consensus.
Consider what this website is for. Folks with math, science or computer education are going to demand a higher standard than sniping around the edges of an argument attempting to discourage the debate.
> I am not arguing there is no wage gap, I am stating a proven fact there is no wage gap.
Oh, you have a proof? Can I see the analysis and its methodology that prove this? What techniques were used? What data sets we're incorporated. How did this model interpret attrition?
> Outside extreme left authoritarian circles,
Sorry, but this doesn't work for leftists or arch conservatives on Hacker News. You make an assertion, you gotta back it up. No appealing to "these bad people" politics here. It's quite off-topic, and speaks the aforementioned lack of sincerity in your engagement with people here.
> To narrow the focus more to what we seem to normally come to "Why are there not very many female programmers", that is not a symptom of employment sexism, that demographic is not going after those jobs. Now we can debate the reason for this, often tracing it to High School or other teenage development factors, not to employment sexism.
So, this really isn't the wage gap your aiming talking to. This is that silly, unsourced, appeal-to-fringe-evolutionary-biology argument Damore posited.
But as I've pointed out in another thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15509045), your appeal to a home&hearth bias sabotaging pipines is not really supported in the data. NSF's data shows better enrollment in CS but more attrition, a phenomenon that is striking considering we don't see it in equally difficult and computer-engaged fields.
Ultimately this is a common argument that says, "Women just prefer less valuable work. They love being cheap or unpaid labor." It's a very just-so argument that let's anyone paint a bullseye around any wage gap and say, "Women just prefer it this way who knows why but it sure is lucky for us!" It's striking in the CS world given the staccatto series of sexual harassment and discrimination claims and suits that 2016 and 2017 bring us. Women are saying, in public and in court, that it's not so. But curiously, listening to them brands you "authoritarian left" and "anti-male."
You claim to be a Libertarian in your writing here. Are you sure though? Unfair systemic bias goes against the heart of the libertarian ideals. If you don't have a commitment to meritocracy, what do you stand for?
It seems to me like you're deliberately avoiding the wealth of data showing a 3-7% in-band pay gap between women and men in our industry. Why?
> You claim there is a wage gap, and have no "backed it up" so show me your research because I guarantee any study you post I can show you how your are misinterpreting the data.
Sorry, you cannot respond to a request for proof with a "well you prove me wrong then!" You entered this conversation with the positive claim divergent from the consensus. The burden is on you.
And again, this shows a profound bias in your thinking. You pre-discard any and all evidence. You're here to demand people assume your point of view, not to have a conversation or expose truth. You're here to browbeat people.
> The reason for women are on lower paying job roles can be debated but it is outside the topic of a pay gap.
So demonstrate, with the data, that women's pay follows the same distribution as men's pay. This is not proving a negative, you made a positive claim. You can prove it. Lots of data is public. Go present the evidence and your analysis and demand people refute it. You cannot simply assert it by force of will and expect it to be taken seriously when so many studies exist on page 1 of google that suggest otherwise have survived scrutiny.
> What this conversation is about is an employer paying a female lower wages for the exact same job simply because she is female.
And yet every refutation you have offered takes this substantiated claim as already disproven then searches for a hypothesis for why the average exists. That's bad analysis.
> Again you have conflated 2 things.
I am trying to focus on the wage gap but you've repeatedly broached alternative hypothesis. I'm just trying to keep up.
> You seem to want to expand this discussion to more than just a gender pay gap
Given the substantiation of the existence of a pay gap, I question the value of listening to hollow and unsubstantiated refutations which as a preconception dismiss any evidence as "misinterpreted."
I think you're being intellectually dishonest here. I think you want to disprove the pay gap because you don't like it. But you lack the techniques or motivation to do so, so you are trying to push that forward via pure force of will, inverting the burden of proof as if the null hypothesis is not a testable and verifiable claim.
I've given you a great deal of my time and been as gracious as I know how to be about calling you on these tactics. I will not reply further unless you bring concrete data to the thread. Good luck & good day.
"that’s the median (midpoint) for all women in all jobs, not for women doing “the same work” or even necessarily working the same number of hours. Furthermore, the raw gap for all women is not quite as large when looking at weekly earnings rather than yearly earnings."
"Female bookkeeping clerks and stock clerks actually made slightly more than their male counterparts, for example. Registered nurses made nearly 96 percent, elementary and middle school teachers made 91 percent, secondary school teachers made 94 percent, and police officers made 99 percent."
"however wide or narrow the gap, discrimination by employers isn’t responsible for all of it. In fact, a women’s pay specialist in Obama’s own Department of Labor — even as she was arguing that pay discrimination is not a “myth” — said research shows discrimination accounts for less than half of the raw pay gap."
"flatly wrong to say that women are paid 77 percent of the pay of men for the “same work.” And the fact that women’s median annual earnings are 77 percent of men’s isn’t all or even mostly due to discrimination, as the ad implies."
" Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.
1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.... Additional portions of the
raw gender wage gap are attributable to other explanatory factors that have been identified in the existing economic literature, but cannot be analyzed satisfactorily using only data from the 2007 CPS. Those factors include, for example, health insurance, other fringe benefits, and detailed features of overtime work, which are sources of wage adjustments that compensate specific groups of workers for benefits or duties that disproportionately affect them. Analysis of such compensating wage adjustments generally requires data from several independent and, often,
specialized sources.
"The size and pattern of quantitative results found in those studies and their coherence with the corresponding quantitative results in this study indicate that the results in this study describe wage differentials experienced by people who actually interrupted their careers, rather than wage adjustments imposed broadly on groups of workers with specific attributes"
Basically they conclude that there is a small pay gap, that is often attributable to other factors then gender discrimination such as employers that offer more family benefits longer vacations and have more lack sick time policy often pay less as well. In additional to many women taking more time off for leave after having a child than a man does, this interruption in work experience has a negative impact on earning potential
Time has some good sources
http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/
"No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."
Not a study but I think it is a good read on the subject (https://fee.org/articles/truth-and-myth-on-the-gender-pay-ga...) and more or less lays what I have been attempting to say, that there likely is sexism but it is not at the employer level at least not when it comes to wage setting
"All the economic studies say is that differences in skills, experiences, and preferences between men and women explain the clear majority of the gap. What such studies do not address is the degree to which the differences in men’s and women’s skills and knowledge (their “human capital”) is due to sexism before they come to the labor market. Nor do such studies ask whether differences in preferences or job experience by gender are also due to sexism or other aspects of socialization.
For example, if girls are told from a young age that girls aren’t very good at math and science, and are thereby discouraged from majoring in those areas and earning higher salaries as a result, those factors will contribute to the 80% figure. But notice, that’s not because employers are discriminating. If sexism pushes women into lower paying fields, that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily being paid less than men for the same work in that field. What’s causing their lower wages is sexism in places other than the markets. "
You are focusing on the aggregate earning gap when you take all the wages of all women, and then compare them to the wage of all men.
While that might have value in social science on some wider scale, in the this topic today it has none as we are talking about a law that prevents potential employers from asking about previous wages and how that can "help solve the pay gap", that type of pay gap does not exist female programmers do not earn significantly less money than male programmers at the same company, with the same experience. The problem is not a employer pay gap, but the fact there are not as many female programmers
Go work on that, not attempting to solve a none problem of a mythical pay gap
I don't have any problem with being proven wrong. You haven't proven anything I have said wrong. You are merely being contemptuous and not engaging in a good faith fashion.
