Pope laments broken marriage bonds, calls for equal pay for equal work [CC]

[unstoppable_II]

Also

advisory.com/daily-briefing/blog/2014/04/why-do-male-nurses-get-paid-more

Good article. Contrary to the report nodito cited, it compares oranges with oranges instead of lumping coconuts in with pomegranates.

 

[Brendan]

Did you read the report?

It does take into consideration factors like education, years in the workforce, etc. There is still a pay gap of 7% even after controlling for these factors. This is unexplained by any of the factors that we might consider relevant to job earnings.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12939247&postcount=37

 

[unstoppable_II]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12939247&postcount=37

My cousin’s daughter got a job like that, but it was in Bakersfield, CA. Not much snow or cold water there.

 

[AnnArbor]

blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/02/25/male-nurses-make-more-money/

But even this article acknowledges that with those factors taken into account, female nurses make approximately 9% less than men.

I don’t understand why people so desperately want to believe this doesn’t exist. Not a snarky comment – I really don’t understand.

 

[SWolf]

But even this article acknowledges that with those factors taken into account, female nurses make approximately 9% less than men.

Actually, no it doesn’t.

When looking only at full-time, year-round workers, the gap narrows, but it doesn’t disappear; female nurses working full-time, year-round earned 9% less than their male counterparts.

 

[unstoppable_II]

But even this article acknowledges that with those factors taken into account, female nurses make approximately 9% less than men.

Because there are any number of other factors.

I don’t understand why people so desperately want to believe this doesn’t exist.

Because there are so many who desperately want to believe it for political reasons and know nothing about statistics. A study once concluded that black home loan applicants did not have proportionately as many approvals as whites. Howls of DISCRIMINATION appealed to heaven for justice. When leveler heads looked at the data, they observed that black default rates were about the same as white default rates. Translation: blacks were being evaluated the same as whites and were approved the same. The numbers just didn’t happen to conform to the liberal pre-conceived notion that approval should be absolutely proportional, and white racism was to blame for the difference. To conclude otherwise would require them to abandon their Victim Industrial Complex.

If you look at liberal view of life, you will find that reality must conform to their ideology; conservatives look at reality and decide their ideology.

 

[nodito]

If you look at liberal view of life, you will find that reality must conform to their ideology; conservatives look at reality and decide their ideology.

I’m a conservative. I’ve also studied statistics. I think the evidence in support of a 7% pay gap due to unexplained factors is compelling. Your schema doesn’t fit.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m a conservative. I’ve also studied statistics. I think the evidence in support of a 7% pay gap due to unexplained factors is compelling. Your schema doesn’t fit.

Is there a national wage and salary scale somewhere that shows this as intentional? Or is it because some people are better negotiators and have more leverage than others?

I quit my second-to-last job because I would be given a 10% raise job hopping. Then later I found out inadvertently the guy who offered me the job was allowed to offer me $10,000 more. Was I supposed to cry foul? I accepted it, vowing to work harder to get larger increases, that’s all.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… I think the evidence in support of a 7% pay gap due to unexplained factors is compelling. Your schema doesn’t fit.

I didn’t say that it doesn’t exist; I just don’t think it is because of some sexism or a broader “war on women”. There are probably as many non-sexist reasons for the 7% as there are working women.

During my research on male-female differences for my book Economic Facts and Fallacies, I was amazed to learn that young male doctors earned much higher incomes than young female doctors. But it wasn’t so amazing after I discovered that young male doctors worked over 500 hours more per year than young female doctors.

Even when women and men work at jobs that have the same title − whether doctors, lawyers, economists or whatever − people do not get paid for what their job title is, but for what they actually do.

Women lawyers who are pregnant, or who have young children, may have good reasons to prefer a 9 to 5 job in a government agency to working 60 hours a week in a high-powered law firm. But there is no point comparing male lawyers as a group with female lawyers as a group, if you don’t look any deeper than job titles. Unless, of course, you are not looking for the truth, but for political talking points to excite the gullible. … The “war on women” political slogan is in fact a war against common sense.

The ‘77 percent’ statistical fraud on gender pay gap issue
By Thomas Sowell | April 15, 2014 |

Go back to my home loan approval example. If blacks were being held to higher standards for a loan, causing fewer of their applications to be approved, you would expect their default rates to be lower than whites’ because they would necessarily have higher credit scores. But their default rates were about the same. How do you explain that?

 

[nodito]

Is there a national wage and salary scale somewhere that shows this as intentional? Or is it because some people are better negotiators and have more leverage than others?

I quit my second-to-last job because I would be given a 10% raise job hopping. Then later I found out inadvertently the guy who offered me the job was allowed to offer me $10,000 more. Was I supposed to cry foul? I accepted it, vowing to work harder to get larger increases, that’s all.

I doubt it’s intentional. I think it’s possible that some it may be that men negotiate harder, but then, I’ve also read that employers view negotiations by men more favorably than negotiations by women. I think it’s possible that there’s still just a little bias against women in some fields. Pure conjecture on my part, but I imagine it going something like this: So you have an employer who’s considering annual bonus amounts he weighs a lot of factors when considering how much to give each employee like experience and their success that year and their teamwork and his need to retain them for another year and maybe he doesn’t realize that he’s giving a little less weight to the contribution of the women on his team. Maybe he thinks he’s being completely objective, and it would be impossible to say otherwise or acccuse him of overtly discriminating against any one person on his team because he knows their quirks and their skills and could absolutely make a legitimate case to himself or others that he’s judging them fairly. But taken across the board, when you have women on average making 7% less than their equally-trained counterparts, who have the same skills and report working the same hours, it indicates a bias.

I think making people aware of this can help reduce the temptation to undervalue the contributions of women and also to help make women more aware of their need to be assertive in the workplace.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Is there a national wage and salary scale somewhere that shows this as intentional? Or is it because some people are better negotiators and have more leverage than others?

I quit my second-to-last job because I would be given a 10% raise job hopping. Then later I found out inadvertently the guy who offered me the job was allowed to offer me $10,000 more. Was I supposed to cry foul? I accepted it, vowing to work harder to get larger increases, that’s all.

Some job-hoppers get less … or none. That was the case when I declined to hire an individual who, for years, job-hopped between company A, company B, and my company, spending on average only two years with each in this merry-go-round. [It should be noted that in my field, it takes an average of three years to become proficient.] If he had been a woman, I would have been up on sex discrimination charges.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… But taken across the board, when you have women on average making 7% less than their equally-trained counterparts, who have the same skills and report working the same hours, it indicates a bias.

Bean dip. I supervised men and women engineers. They all had the same bachelors degree and roughly equal experience, and worked roughly the same hours. The women performed better on average than the men on average. You are forgetting that self-motivation is a big factor in productivity, and as we noted in my previous post, people get paid for what they do, not what their job title says. The women who worked for me got rewarded more than the men, so they earned more. In the liberal world, the only thing that saved me was it is costless to discriminate against men. Had the situation been the reverse and all other factors equal, the men would have earned more and there would have been fueled false charges of sexism.

I think making people aware of this can help reduce the temptation to undervalue the contributions of women and also to help make women more aware of their need to be assertive in the workplace.

More bean dip. All it accomplishes is to sow hate and discontent in the ranks for imaginary grievances.

 

[nodito]

unstoppable II:

Go back to my home loan approval example. If blacks were being held to higher standards for a loan, causing fewer of their applications to be approved, you would expect their default rates to be lower than whites’ because they would necessarily have higher credit scores. But their default rates were about the same. How do you explain that?

I don’t have to. I haven’t studied racial discrimination in loan applications and I don’t think it’s relevant to our discussion, unless you’re trying to lump me in with all of those people who can “find racism under a rock.” I can assure you I’m not one of them. Whether or not banks discriminate against people of color is not related to whether or not there exists a bias against women in the workforce.
unstoppable II:

Bean dip. I supervised men and women engineers. They all had the same bachelors degree and roughly equal experience, and worked roughly the same hours. The women performed better on average than the men on average. You are forgetting that self-motivation is a big factor in productivity, and as we noted in my previous post, people get paid for what they do, not what their job title says. The women who worked for me got rewarded more than the men, so they earned more. In the liberal world, the only thing that saved me was it is costless to discriminate against men. Had the situation been the reverse and all other factors equal, the men would have earned more and there would have been fueled false charges of sexism.

Okay, so if in your company the women were more productive and earned more and in other companies the men were more productive and earned more, then it should all average out across the board, right? Because men and women are equal and equally capable and so some some individual women will be highly motivated and the same for men. EXCEPT, it doesn’t turn out like that. Women make less money than their male counterparts when you control for factors like education and years in the workforce. If it’s entirely merit-based, and there’s no bias, then you must conclude that women are not as hardworking or intelligent or motivated or creative or capable as men. Is that what you’re claiming?

Regarding your Thomas Sowell article, this is one of his conclusions:

Although comparing women and men who are in fact comparable is not easy to do, when you look at women and men who are similar on multiple factors, the sex differential in pay shrinks drastically and gets close to the vanishing point.

I would agree that 7% down from 33% is “shrinking drastically.” But it’s not inconsequential and I wouldn’t say it “gets close to vanishing.” Have you read his book? Maybe you can share what number he reaches when you compare comparable men and women, and also comment on whether or not you feel that’s fair.
unstoppable II:

All it accomplishes is to sow hate and discontent in the ranks for imaginary grievances.

Maybe it’s sowing hate in you? Not in me.

 

[unstoppable_II]

I don’t have to. I haven’t studied racial discrimination in loan applications and I don’t think it’s relevant to our discussion, unless you’re trying to lump me in with all of those people who can “find racism under a rock.” I can assure you I’m not one of them. Whether or not banks discriminate against people of color is not related to whether or not there exists a bias against women in the workforce.

It’s relevant because it’s another example of the idea that any differences in people [especially members of “victim” groups] are caused by racism, sexism, et cetera-ism. You said you know something about statistics, and you didn’t hesitate to draw some conclusion about the differences in women’s incomes, so you should be able to draw some conclusion about the differences in home loan approval rates.

Okay, so if in your company the women were more productive and earned more and in other companies the men were more productive and earned more, then it should all average out across the board, right? Because men and women are equal and equally capable and so some some individual women will be highly motivated and the same for men. EXCEPT, it doesn’t turn out like that. Women make less money than their male counterparts when you control for factors like education and years in the workforce. If it’s entirely merit-based, and there’s no bias, then you must conclude that women are not as hardworking or intelligent or motivated or creative or capable as men. Is that what you’re claiming?

NO! You didn’t read carefully enough what I wrote.

Regarding your Thomas Sowell article, this is one of his conclusions:

I would agree that 7% down from 33% is “shrinking drastically.” But it’s not inconsequential and I wouldn’t say it “gets close to vanishing.” Have you read his book? Maybe you can share what number he reaches when you compare comparable men and women, and also comment on whether or not you feel that’s fair.

I thought my personal example did that.

Maybe it’s sowing hate in you? Not in me.

Because you are the sower when you repeat the fraud.

 

[nodito]

It’s relevant because it’s another example of the idea that any differences in people [especially members of “victim” groups] are caused by racism, sexism, et cetera-ism. You said you know something about statistics, and you didn’t hesitate to draw some conclusion about the differences in women’s incomes, so you should be able to draw some conclusion about the differences in home loan approval rates.

As I’ve said, I haven’t studied this. And you haven’t linked to any articles about it. Post something for me to review and I can comment on it if you wish, but the fact that there may or may not be bias in one circumstance does not really have any bearing on whether bias exists somewhere else.

NO! You didn’t read carefully enough what I wrote.

You gave a personal example about how the women in your workforce made more money because they were more highly motivated than the men you supervised. Okay, fine. It’s anecdotal evidence, and a bit atypical, but whatever. How does that address the 7% pay gap? I’m not claiming the pay gap exists on your particular engineering team, but on average, across the United States.

Here is what we have:

Controlling for a whole host of things (education, years in the workforce, childlessness, reported hours worked, job title, etc etc), women make on average 7% less than their male counterparts. This is less than the 33% claim that you often hear, but still substantial, in my opinion. The 7% is only what can’t be explained by things like differences in majors or hours worked.

You believe men and women are equal, correct? And equally capable, intelligent, hard working, motivated etc, right? And that merit ought to be rewarded.

So where does that leave us? Women are equal, but are not being paid equally. I truly don’t see it as a stretch to suggest that there may be some unintentional bias there. If you can explain it some other way, by all means…

I thought my personal example did that.

No, what I meant was, do you know what % pay gap Thomas Sowell concluded when he compared his two groups of comparable men and women and do you think that percentage is acceptable. If it’s 1% and you think it’s statistically insignifcant, fine. If it is, in fact, 7%, are you okay with that?

Because you are the sower when you repeat the fraud.

What fraud? I feel like a broken record, but all I’ve been saying is that there is a pay gap that is unexplained by men’s and women’s choices (which you don’t deny) and the most reasonable explanation to me is bias.

 

[unstoppable_II]

As I’ve said, I haven’t studied this. And you haven’t linked to any articles about it. Post something for me to review and I can comment on it if you wish, but the fact that there may or may not be bias in one circumstance does not really have any bearing on whether bias exists somewhere else.

You gave a personal example about how the women in your workforce made more money because they were more highly motivated than the men you supervised. Okay, fine. It’s anecdotal evidence, and a bit atypical, but whatever. How does that address the 7% pay gap? I’m not claiming the pay gap exists on your particular engineering team, but on average, across the United States.

Here is what we have:

Controlling for a whole host of things (education, years in the workforce, childlessness, reported hours worked, job title, etc etc), women make on average 7% less than their male counterparts. This is less than the 33% claim that you often hear, but still substantial, in my opinion. The 7% is only what can’t be explained by things like differences in majors or hours worked.

You believe men and women are equal, correct? And equally capable, intelligent, hard working, motivated etc, right? And that merit ought to be rewarded.

So where does that leave us? Women are equal, but are not being paid equally. I truly don’t see it as a stretch to suggest that there may be some unintentional bias there. If you can explain it some other way, by all means…

No, what I meant was, do you know what % pay gap Thomas Sowell concluded when he compared his two groups of comparable men and women and do you think that percentage is acceptable. If it’s 1% and you think it’s statistically insignifcant, fine. If it is, in fact, 7%, are you okay with that?

What fraud? I feel like a broken record, but all I’ve been saying is that there is a pay gap that is unexplained by men’s and women’s choices (which you don’t deny) and the most reasonable explanation to me is bias.

I could respond to all this, but it would be a waste of my time, and I’d feel like the broken record.