im not sure if it was a typo or a post got deleted but i was referencing post 205 in the previous post

ok now we have studies showing what i claimed they showed. now what? i said they existed. i was called a liar. now what? do you really think this is going to spawn any discussion or anyone retracting the liar comment? of course not

theres also studies showing a gender gap in higher education now. women are doing much better. let me guess..... cite? ..... im a liar? having common knowledge or you can easily google before acting like a dope? pay attention to who i was responding to and their posting habits

http://content.time.com/time/busines...015274,00.html

i asked you two very straight forward questions. if you're going to participate, participate. if not, even better

Lol. Juan is the gift that keeps on giving.

He has definitely improved his trolling skills for mo bettah laughs.

Women getting paid more because they have better/more education is what I'd expect. No one objects to men with better/more education getting paid more than women.

BTW, you should pay ATC for doing your homework for you.

Which of these exclusions would you have them eliminate, and why?

If women get paid less than men for the same work, why don't corporations hire all women and destroy the competition? Oh right, because corporations are more concerned with being misogynist than with making profit. Thomas Sowell is an African-American economist, so you can't accuse him of racism ( I mean he obviously hates women with a passion to be saying this though, right? Cause reality is ****ing hateful).

You should look up what he has to say about the wage gap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4

They'd get sued for employment discrimination.

Also of course because for the most part corporations aren't interested in maximizing profits by intentionally discriminating against either women or men.

Like Hooters?

Hooters is a pretty clearly a special case. Most companies products/services are not explicitly tied to the gender of their employees.

Stuff like this is why I said "for the most part"

Ok so their discrimination against women is unintentional then?

Anyone who has run a company would disagree with you. I certainly wouldn't be hiring many women for my heavy construction company, for example, or many men for my babysitting project. For the most part, the wage gap is a disproved myth.

To the extent that the wage gap is (in part) caused by discrimination, it's pretty likely it mostly involves more implicit and subtle biases than outright intent to discriminate. For example, in the past I've cited the example of PWC in the UK, and what happened there after they began to more explicitly measure their wage gaps. That story is included in this article. I think it's an instructive example.

Come on WN. We know what happened at PWC. You're smarter than that dude.

You assumed this conclusion. The fact is that reality discriminates. Discrimination is a good thing in certain senses, for example discriminating between a partner who is likely to be disloyal and one that isn't.

Women and men are, in general, suited to different things with regards to employment. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the rule, or that everyone who wants to should be able to pick their careers how they choose. But if a 5'4" skinny white guy wants to play professional basketball he has to go in realizing he is at a disadvantage, and he is going to have to be better at everyone at a lot of things in order to be competitive. He doesn't whine and cry and complain and lobby for laws to be passed against height-discrimination in the NBA.

If you refused to hire any men for your babysitting job solely on the basis that they were men and you think men are incapable of providing child care, then that would be employment discrimination, and so both illegal and in my opinion immoral.

If you refused to hire a woman for your construction job because she was physically incapable of doing the job, that would not be employment discrimination, and is perfectly reasonable. If you refused to hire any women for your construction job, even ones who were able to demonstrate their physical capacity for the job, then you would again be discriminating both illegally and immorally.

I've been around the block on this topic too many times recently to feel like doing it again. If you scroll back through this thread you'll find links, both to research on the wage gap as well as explanations about said research.

Obama's white house had a 20% wage gap. Who'd have thought Obama hated women so much?

To be clear. I mean that I'm not up to starting from scratch. If you take the time to go back and see some of the posts and want to jump in and respond to something, I'm happy to engage then. Unfortunately, things are spread out across different threads, so it's a bit of a pain. Or if you want to elaborate on what it means to you to say that the wage gap is mostly a disproved myth.

It is likely at some point I'm going to refer you to this 2016 overview of research on the wage gap, so I'll just get it out of the way.

And of course no one in their right mind would do such a thing, which is why the legislation is absolutely pointless anyway.

Because you don't see the subtleties of reality, or because you believe untrue things about reality (that we are all equal, for example). In my opinion it's positively necessary for employers to discriminate. You wouldn't want a pedophile working at a daycare, you wouldn't want a tiny woman in a prison guard role, and you wouldn't want a 6'8", 350 lb man for a jockey.

If a woman could do the job on the same level of competence as a man, then discrimination would indeed be immoral. However, if a man can do the same job better, no employer in their right mind would hire the woman, and rightly so. Same thing goes for employers that hire women over men because they are better suited, which happens every day. And indeed if an employer refuses to hire a better qualified woman or man simply because of their sex/color/race/sexual orientation/religion/social justice cause 1678, it is to the employers sole detriment.



I can find research on google that the earth is flat or the moon landing didn't happen. It has no bearing on reality.

Just to be clear, the position you're taking is that all research is not to be trusted because conspiracy theorists exist and that, therefore, we can only argue based on our personal feelings and guesses about what might be happening in the world?

Well, on the one hand you have an academic article co-written by Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn -- professors of economics at Cornell -- and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It refers to dozens of other academic publications over a couple of decades. On the other hand you have some guy's youtube channel.

Six of one, half dozen of the other obviously.

The entire internet is invalid because look at DoOrDoNot's posts.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm voting Do Not.

This is too facile. Employers don't have perfect information about how applicants will perform as employees. This often means that they will make decisions about who to hire based on (let's assume accurate) stereotypes. But let's say you are a person who runs counter to a negative stereotype. You will probably have a more difficult time getting hired than the person who is in line with the positive stereotype, because you have to not only show that you are qualified, but also overcome the negative stereotype.

No one here has claimed this.

You are overly focused on firm-level analysis here. For instance, there are many more men who work in tech fields than women. To some extent, this is explained by the fact that there are many more men that study tech fields in college. So when a tech firm makes a hiring decision, they can use a completely blind process and still end up with a gender imbalance, because the pool of male applicants is larger. However, this doesn't explain why more men than women study tech subjects in college (or earlier). This educational imbalance is not necessarily subject to market forces, so it isn't clear that those making decisions leading to this educational imbalance are bearing any cost for it (I'm not assuming any particular reason for this educational imbalance here, including whether or not it is natural).

Also, I'll point out that this is kind of discrimination is not to the employer's sole detriment - the job applicant also pays a cost.

No my position is that 1. Academia is infused with progressivist rhetoric 2. Anyone can find myriad 'studies' verifying their position, regardless of their side.

The fact is no one assaults the logic I use because it is unassailable. The scandinavian countries, which have the greatest 'gender equality' in the world, have seen even LESS women entering high paying stem professions than they did before when they were 'treated unfairly by the system.' There's a clear reason. In general they care less about high paying career fields than men do. There might be a wage gap, but a. legislation doesn't cure it b. it's not because the system is misogynist.

Liberals draw emotional conclusions like this all the time, throw a hissy fit, lobby for legislation to change what they believe should be the outcome of a fair system, and then continue to ***** and complain when it's proven beyond any doubt their pre-determined conclusion about the nature of society was false. People with common sense are frankly sick of it, which is why you have Donald Trump in the white house and see a general walking away from progressive agendas in western nations. You're full of **** regardless of how many studies you cite, and everyone knows it but you.