Actully you dont have to measure it but it does help to have indirect metrics like the gender pay gap which is partly why I think it's a very good idea.


It's precisely because they are such a large group that the averages are meaningful


What we have a fair idea about is that if we keep putting on pressure to reduce inequality then inequality will reduce - which is all what matters.

More equal outcomes is entirely possible and I don't care if companies don't care about it. There's loads of measures of inequality.

I'm not sure why you think it exists in more ways than I think. I think cognitive bias impacts on everything we perceive - both conscious and unconscious.

Here we are focusing on gender bias because that's the topic.

I'll just pick this from you because there seems to be a miscommunication. IQ difference is real but we as a society get a huge say in how that translates into difference in wealth. That though is is nothing to do with bias or prejudice.

We may simply disagree. I'm against huge wealth disparity in society - I'd argue that on the grounds of a) I simply don't want society to be like that and b) it's incompatible with a well functioning democratic system.

[I've skipped some because your post covers too much ground]. I've no idea what make you think that I think the world is fair.

I do want to see it more fair and that's a large part of what politics is about.

It amazes me how utterly vacuous the people arguing for fixing the wage gap sound. Did you guys think about this at all? You obviously did not think it all the way through, but how did you actually get past step 1, that it is illegal to pay females less than males?

It seems so many of you will blindly follow leftist doctrine. They make a claim, so it MUST be true, I'll defend it publicly even though I didn't think about it.

What the **** is wrong with you people? I guess this is a good place to practice your arguments, on the internets where nothing really matters, but when you go out in public and speak to actual human beings, don't make yourselves look like utter fools. It'll actually have consequences and your reputation may suffer.

Interesting article about a real wage gap:

http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...ught-to-close/

"It found that among those with a high school diploma... these federal workers get 52% more than their private sector counterparts."
"Those with a bachelor's degree made 21% more in government, the CBO found, and those with a master's degree made 5% more in wages and benefits."

"The CBO also found that this pay gap has sharply widened for most federal workers — thanks to the fact that the government kept passing out raises throughout the Obama years while private sector wages flatlined. The report shows that federal workers got raises averaging more than 3% from 2009 through 2015."

"The CBO finding confirms other reports that have found a substantial pay gap between government and private sector workers. The libertarian Cato Institute, for example, put it at 78% — and rising."

"And these figures do not take into account the wide gap in productivity between private sector workers and their government counterparts. One example: When The Conference Board took over reporting on international labor comparisons from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics a few years ago, it found that it needed three employees to do what took 16 government bureaucrats."

chez, you seriously need to step back and consider how absurd your bias is. i mean your goal is to combat ghosts of bias, but you are the perfect example of bias run wild

if you cant measure gender discrimination then how can you prove it exists? where is your proof? we obviously know individual cases of sexism exist. you have provided zero proof that the workforce as a whole discriminates against womens wages negatively. you have failed to even attempt to provide a methodology to determine where a gender-wide wage gap is caused by sexism.

all you have done is inserted your extreme bias. you cant even attempt to quantify or determine if or how much of a gender wage gap is due to gender discrimination and yet you would like to go ahead and propose affirmative action to solve the problem you have failed to identify. it is pure quackery. even if you and well named put your heads together, you couldn't come within a light year of doing this. thats why he avoided my questions and you will to. you will stick to thinking your biases are right in the absence of evidence

there are now studies that show women are earning more prior to taking a maternity leave. do you believe this is due to sexism against men? should we not penalize the women benefiting here? women are also doing better in school these days. should we now have affirmative action in favor of white and asian men? we already have affirmative action at schools in favor of non asian minorities and it now turns out women are doing better than men. should we now create affirmative action to help level the gender gap here? of course not and you would never advocate that, because you're biased to the core

its maternal instinct. its why you are biased towards "vulnerable groups" which basically means anyone but white and asian men. in the free speech thread i challenged the entire forum when they defended communism to actually try to figure out why its a genocidal failure. its obvious you belong in the group that has no clue how and why its a genocidal failure. i highly recommend you investigate that because the learning process might illuminate the obvious biases you have and how they play out in your political views. then once you understand how those biased flaws play out, you can then understand how feeble all of this identity politics nonsense is


we have discrimination laws. comments like "more fair" are just screaming bias

cite?

I don't mind if you call it a bias but I generally take the fact of cognitive biases as a premise in politics and leave the interesting part about cognition aside. I may well over or under estimate how significant it is - that's only going to matter if there a significant enough competing political objective.

Are you claiming there are no cognitive biases at work or can we just take that there are as read?

Juan?

You'll be lucky.

I'll admit, I never thought about this. But you're right. It's illegal so it doesn't happen--just like everything else that's illegal.

Guys, wil schooled us again. We have got to get our **** together.

To be fair, he has to watch 150 youtubes to see which one it was in.

The funny thing is, it's almost certainly the study that Well Named linked earlier. It's just that it doesn't actually say what he's been told it says.

you are so intellectually dishonest, simple, and predictable that its rare your comments are going get anything other than an eye roll or a yawn. google it. theres results and graphs all over the place

its nice to see i also have a fan club waiting for me to pluck results off the first page of google for them

Just admit you were lying.

Lol. You know when someone who has had no problems writing wall of texts in this thread goes with the "I'm not going to cite it, just google it" excuse that they're full of bull****.

Let's at least understand what the Equal Pay Act in the United States mandates. The law requires companies to have equal pay by gender for equal work in similar working conditions in the same working establishment.

Here is a list of factors that allow a company to have unequal pay:
- seniority
- education
- work experience
- quality of work
- quantity of work
- work effort
- work skill
- work responsibility
- merit
- any other factor the company deems important (other than gender)
- does not apply to management employees
- does not apply to professional employees
- does not apply to administrative employees.

It should be obvious to all that the exclusions list above is highly problematic. Many of the exclusions can be used to perpetuate unequal pay. In addition, many of the exclusions are "perceptual" in nature and therefore can be used (intentionally or unintentionally) to perpetuate unequal pay.

At this point in time, the Equal Pay Act is largely a symbolic law. A very important symbolic law, but largely symbolic nonetheless.

Nobody can argue that the Equal Pay Act alone can eliminate the gender pay gap. Nobody can argue that the Equal Pay Act alone can eliminate gender pay discrimination.

At least employers aren't legally able to blatantly say we are discriminating against a person based on their sex in the same way life insurance and car insurance companies can.

why would you want to eliminate a gender pay gap?
which gender is the beneficiary of gender pay discrimination?

Hey Juan! Still too scared to cite your 'study'?

what would posting multiple results off the first page of a google search accomplish? is bing not working for you or something?

It would establish a common source which will allow the discussion to continue. Clearly, they are skeptical, and if they merely google something and find a flawed study and raise their critiques here, then you have the out of saying, having wasted their time, "no that's not one of the ones I meant."

And for balance, they also have the out of intentionally picking a very stupid or biased "study" on Google and ripping it to shreds and asserting your position is bogus because it's based on such flawed studies.

there is no discussion with those two. ever. they just hurl insults and labels. they cant actually formulate thoughts or arguments. i recently multi quoted jj demonstrating the most epic strawman arguments post after post that would lead someone to conclude he is either a troll, has a learning disability, or a mental disorder perpetuating some sort of delusion

what they are demanding is me google something for them which will result in nothing. no argument or discussion. they can do this themselves

for a shortcut look at post 206. the validity is irrelevant. they are demanding proof of existence. google it. stop acting like complete weirdos

providing google results won't move any discussion forward. you can go ahead and spend 5 seconds entering in a google search and pasting some results off the first page. nothing will happen. thats not their intention. if you don't believe me i just gave you a method to find out

The forum has a clear rule pertaining to situations such as this:

7) Citations. If posters make a claim without a citation in a Content thread and are then challenged by other posters then the initial post will not be deleted but the claim should not be repeated or defended without a credible source being provided.

I searched for "gender gap maternity leave study" on Google. The first result was:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ender-pay-gap/

which is interesting, but doesn't relate to your point.

I also found this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/bu...nequality.html

which also doesn't say that women earned more prior to maternity leave. This Google search was a dead end.

I decided to Google your exact wording "women earn more than men before maternity leave." This turned up the study discussed here about the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...ge-study-finds

in which UK women in their mid to late twenties are shown to earn slightly more than men of the same age on average, before a sizable gap the emerges the other way beyond age 30. Although the authors of the study do not cite maternity leave as an explanation, this op ed on the study attributes the difference to motherhood.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#b7b70463ef25

Not only does your study show that in their 20s women earn more than men, but motherless women also earn more than men in their 30s.

"And it's worth noting that never married and childless women continue to earn more than men who are not fathers during that decade of their 30s."

Lol. We can even look up my intention from the last time someone made this stupid claim and Well Named tried to give them a benefit of the doubt and source it.

And you're almost certainly making the same mistake and substituting "prior to taking a maternity leave" in for "young women".

But of course, none of this is the reason you're not posting your source. It's because you don't have one and you're just repeating something you heard in a youtubez. It's completely obvious to every single person in this thread.