That is a very misleading title for what that chart shows.

Shouldn't the title read pay gap better for women of color?

There is a cite in the paragraph above the one you highlighted albeit it is for people 1 year after graduation vs the 12% for 10 years after graduation.

So might as well split the difference and go with 9% or 10%.

They are different stats, but this is a fair point. Different studies measuring different scenarios have differing conclusions on this number. I glossed over that before, and maybe I shouldn't have.

Last year, there was a pretty good (imo) NBER working paper that went into great detail on the existing research on the wage gap. If you're interested in looking through it, i've uploaded it here. It puts the range for the "unexplained" part of the gap at between 8-18% depending on the study (p. 48-49)

Also from the NBER paper above, the gap declined significantly between 1980-1989 but has been fairly static since then. It's not getting significantly worse at the moment, but also not getting significantly better.

I admittedly know less about the 12% number but the later you go into a career, the harder it seems teasing out all possible factors would be.

The most obvious hurdle would be that people generally start families in that first 10 years and women obviously take more time away from work to do this than men do on average. I'm sure this is accounted for in some ways but avoiding selection bias seems like it might be relatively hard.

There are also factors from the initial condition that would compound naturally but may be hard to account for.

Say you have two equally qualified male workers. One works 40hrs per week, the other works 50. Who is more likely to be promoted?

Now we know that male workers work longer hours than female workers, shouldn't we expect more male workers to be promoted into higher wage positions on average just from that? (We should also expect there would be some set of women who potentially missed out on a promotion because of taking more time away from work for family reasons)

Or going back to the negotiating wage thing, in ten years you have more opportunities to ask for higher wages and so the disadvantage women have in this area gets compounded.

So juan has nothing again? It's just like a weak-jawed beta to run from a challenge.

He was referencing youtubez. Although it would've been one of the better youtubez because I'm pretty sure he's talking about a Norwegian documentary series in which a variant of his argument was made, although a lot more sensibly than Juan ever will and not without controversy.

I haven't watched all of the documentary yet but in case you are actually interested here are a few of the studies referenced:

http://link.springer.com/article/10....508-008-9380-7

http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com...g_etal_BJP.pdf
(The study is about autism but Cohen made the claim that they can predict a child's future interests using fetal testosterone levels)

And here is the documentary:

I haven't looked into this in great detail, but I have seen this study discussed elsewhere, and I think there's at least one point worth making.

I think a lot of people read "sexual dimorphism" and think binary gender, by which I mean something like a very hard separation between biologically male and female persons. But even in this study there's an enormous amount of overlap, which is obvious from the standard deviations in table 2:



If you assume a normal distribution (the authors do; they use a t-test for example) the curves would look like this:



(note: I borrowed this graphic from The Society Pages)

Mostly, I think the "biology" vs "social construction" debate is a red herring. There are people who adhere ideologically to strict social constructionist accounts of gender -- probably in large part for political reasons -- and results like these certainly challenge that ideology. So fair enough as far as that goes. I don't think an absolute social constructionism is a tenable position, but it's also not a mainstream position in the social sciences.

However, I say it's a red herring because acknowledging that physiological differences exist doesn't actually tell you much about some of the sociologically interesting facets of the gender wage gap. Physiological difference may partially explain differences in occupational preference, which is one of the biggest components of the wage gap, but it won't explain why we value traditionally masculine occupations more than traditionally feminine ones. In other words, it may tell you something about occupational sorting but not why occupational sorting creates a gap in wages.

Nor does it explain why there is a fatherhood bonus and a motherhood penalty which don't reduce neatly to differences in time taken off work. Nor can physiological difference ground an account of why the wage gap declined so dramatically during the 1980s. All of these quite obviously involve sociological dynamics. One can acknowledge that biological difference exists and also embrace a political/ethical perspective which calls for cultural change. I think one should also be careful not to fall into overly simplistic essentialisms about biological determinism which aren't really justified by studies like this one, as per above. It's all rather complicated...

That's all really interesting.

I'd argue that biology v culture seems to start to matter once you need to look for solutions. For example, do you think we should use government resources to try to encourage women to enter STEM fields? Knowing whether or not women are naturally disinclined to want to enter these areas seems like something we should figure out before answering this question, right?

I can only guess about why this occupational sorting you mention leads to a gap in wages but isn't the first step to show that this is something different than what we would expect from normal market forces? If it turns out there is a legitimate reason for traditionally masculine jobs to pay more than traditionally feminine jobs (based on something like scalability differences in problem solving vs interpersonal careers), what then?

I certainly agree with you that it is all complicated and my contention is that part of this complexity makes it hard to even know what success looks like.

And that's really the whole point. The 76-77% gender pay gap myth lives on because it makes for good political demagoguery.

Both statistics can tell you useful information, however there has been a concerted misinformation campaign to convince the public that the 77% stat says what the 94% stat is actually saying, when of course it doesn't at all.

In gender wage gap news:
Pay disparities against women at Google are ‘systemic’, labor department testifies
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...rtment-lawsuit

Milo resurfaced briefly today to announce that he's disappointed in Trump's Syria action:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclu...ted-for-daddy/

Muslim kids deserve to die is a pretty ****ing abominable thing to say. lol at any idiot that still follows this guy.

From all reports M.Hokoana was running around pepper-spraying folks. The shooting victim stepped in as a peace keeper to deescalate that violence. Then E.Hokoana panicked and shot him in the gut.

The victim was finally able to leave the hospital, but AFAIK has not been able to return to work, or otherwise resume his previous life.

Decent interview with the victim here, I guess this is what commitment to ones principles really looks like

'I refuse to be like them': why the man shot while protesting Milo Yiannopoulos doesn't want revenge

Is this the Milo thread or some bs gender blah blah propoganda thread?

Jesus Christ this forum went to ****....oh geee closed minded, biased liberal infestation, go figure

Since Milo got caught talking about the virtues of diddling kids the thread has kind of trailed off.

Not to be a dick (but I will), earlier in this thread I argued Milo's career was over and multiple people argued against me that he has quite a future in front of him

As always, I was the one who was correct. The collective idiocy of 2+2 politics has another strike against them. The 2+2 leftists​ are idiotic and consistently wrong about everything.

Pay attention, people. Feelings or truth. Pick one.

Wow you predicted milos career was over? You are a regular Jean Dixon.

Now if Wil correctly predicts France's election.....

If it were possible to keep statistics on this, you'd likely be one of the worst people in this site's history when it comes to being correct. "As always", smh.

Dunning-Kruger to the extreme. By the way - and for some reason this doesn't penetrate no matter how many times people remind you of it - you claimed to be a leftist/liberal/HRC voter for years here.

Milo is a disgrace, same as he was prior to his pedophilia-related comments becoming public. He gets less attention now, sure. He still has a lot of the same loyal, stupid alt-right following on his Youtube channel and FB page he had before. I doubt anyone used the phrase "quite a future' or anything close to it.

Little things please little minds.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stevenperlb...Pw#.bwZneMVAxe

I have almost always been correct about everything.

Unfortunately I entered a bet with LG, so I can't claim I'm perfect.