Ignoring the complete nonsense portions of your post, the person you're sitting across (hiring manager or your boss) is a person (and not 'the man' or 'the 1%') who you expect to have or already have some relationship with. There are lots of people that would prefer to sacrifice some salary EV to avoid having a potentially strained relationship with that person.

I went looking for this out of general interest. I couldn't find any actual studies, but this is the closest thing I found:

The previous Queen's College research that they mention is discussed in this NY Times article

There's a Politifact article which discussed all of this and presents some of the caveats here.

The most important point, and it's the same point that is often made about the 80% statistic, is that while this particular measurement isolates a more specific population -- people in their 20s in major metropolitan areas -- like the 80% statistic it also doesn't control at all for variables like education. If you interpret the word "counterpart" in turtletom's claim that these women are paid more than "their male counterparts" to mean a comparison that controls for education or occupation, then his claim is incorrect. If "counterpart" just means young men at about the same age, then the claim is almost correct, he just forgot to specify that this data is limited to people living in cities.

And, of course, if one objects to people implying that the 80% statistic is a measure of discrimination then obviously this statistic also is not a measure of reverse discrimination. As the author of the original research put it, in the Politifact article:

A few other random observatiosn

1) The Time article takes this as evidence of the narrowing of the wage gap in general, but I don't think that conclusion is supported by the totality of the available evidence. That is, I think they see that the most general measure of the gap has reversed among young women and extrapolate out that, as those women get older, they'll maintain parity. But the gap has been narrower for younger women than for older women for quite some time now, and the overall gap (after accounting for education/work experience/etc, c.f. fig. 2 from the NBER study) has been very static for almost 30 years.

2) I think the data supports the point that a large part of the general wage gap involves problems of balancing work and domestic life. That is, the motherhood penalty. What I don't agree with is the attitude that consigns women only to a domestic role and values that role less than the traditionally masculine role of bread-winner. Especially given that the motherhood-penalty/fatherhood-bonus doesn't reduce to a mere difference in work experience or expertise. On that point, cf. the NBER study Table 2. But it is true that the reason the gap is smallest for younger women, or even nonexistent in specific sub-populations, is that this factor doesn't come into play.

3) Someone could argue that, in the longer term, the ongoing trend where more women are graduating from college than men, or just the general trend of women outperforming men in education, is going to cause a social problem all on its own, and that while things like increasing the numbers of women in STEM are absolutely worthwhile, we need to encourage boys and young men to pursue education as well. I'm sympathetic to that argument, and Chung's data shows why it may become more important.

Great work, as usual, well named. I thought I had read something that was controlled for education, and that said the unmarried women with no kids (and same education) out-earned men of same marriage/kids/education status. I will try to look for it as well.

Good write up.

Yeah... this seems like a really really big caveat. It's why I like to make these guys post their sources. Because even when they're not just blatanly lying, its almost always the case that they completely misunderstood/mistated the study that they're quoting.


It's more than this. He claimed it as "unmarried women without children". Young women are not the same as "unmarried women without children". And in fact, I'd be willing to bet good money that older "unmarried women without children" are making less than their counterparts.


These threads rarely get to the point of talking about this because we're usually stuck getting people to realize there's a problem.

I agree completely with this. It's why I think things like parental leave (vs maternity leave) are so important. But even here in Canada where either parent can take the majority of the time off, women take the majority of it. Although certainly its not-rare for a husband to take a portion of it as well.


Yeah, definitely. But these are in many ways different problems. And so while the symptoms of the problems (earning money) may overlap, they require very different approaches. I don't think the majority of people fighting for more equal wages are against approaches to encourage young men to get an education.

in the context of what obama, hilary, the media, college professors, and general public are pedaling, this is really just another demonstration of how dishonest the whole narrative is. the narrative is that society is sexist and there is a 23 cent wage gap. what you provided is another piece demolishing how absurd this is

what has been shown is that women are doing better in the education system and better before they have children. we have a 6-12 cent wage gap overall that isnt explained by sexism. thats light years from the narrative which is divisive and full of resentment

now well named does bring up some questions that are worth looking in to and understanding those things is important, but it certainly isn't going to tell you that society is sexist against women and women doing better in the education system and upon graduation is just slight of hand

i agree. so what?
please don't. the SJW's have been asked to stop throwing around labels and articulate thoughts and ideas. articulate what part of my post was nonsense and why. once again my magic 8 ball says you will fail to do this. for some reason this magic 8 ball is right every time, including the last time you were asked to articulate something

The only thing I am saying is that agreeable people can be as skillfull or more skillfull than others but just be more averse to it. A professor would probably be a concrete example.

So.... it contradicts what you were saying and agrees with what Sklansky was saying.

Too rich. Stop being a baby. But this is like the perfect example of your problem. You want people to stop doing what you yourself are doing. You REALLY want to be the victim.

Lol, why don't you scroll back and see which one of us stopped responding to the other. I'll even help you out, last time you said something like this I responded with post #53. I've had discussions with idiots like you a lot though, and if I repeated myself (or what others have already said/linked) every time one of you wing-nuts demanded it, that's all I would do. You're not special or intelligent enough for me to jump through specific hoops just for you.

And just for the record, you're the one that dropped the conversation and wouldn't answer post #58.

Also keep in mind the other aspect of my original point. I would think that in many situations the employee's aversion might not be to annoying the boss, but rather an aversion to implying that they deserve more than their coworker. Of course in that second case the aversion would disappear if they knew they were being paid less.

the only reason anyone in your situation could possibly want to do this is delusion. when you play with barbies you get to create the dialogue between barbie and ken. on a forum you need to deal with reality, or what someone actually said. then you should probably reflect on how you have responded

i acknowledged a wage gap. i asked specific questions that could be verified or disputed by looking at labor participation stats, single vs married women in the labor force, and then apply a wage gap. none of that has been done. the claim was based on simple math. if 100% of women were married then the wage gap could affect them individually but not really as a group. if you want to argue against that, go ahead. if that is true, then obviously single women are being penalized by a hypothetical wage gap

... your response....
i never said or suggested any of that. im not the one playing identity games with gender, the wage gap police are. they are the ones lumping women together as a group, i am responding with group consequences. you dont get to complain about group disparity and then when someone starts to question the validity, switch to individual inequality. right, lets stick with individual rights and equality.
im pretty sure i established a wage gap exists at this point, right?
ok did this add anything or articulate anything?
ok so then i attempt your claim that people get uncomfortable in talking about the wage gap myth when the opposite is true. theres zero stigma in perpetuating the myth and a lot of people totally uncomfortable pointing out its a myth. thats reality, but you seem to disagree
so now you are asserting a wage gap exists in response to me posting it exists many times over and demand i dispell that a wage gap exists contrary to my belief. quality stuff
um... ok.... what? did you answer any of the questions or articulate a point? you just responded that a wage gap exists after i pointed out that it exists multiple times and then re affirmed that position after you falsely accused me of denying a wage gap. this is actual delusion
i mean, seriously?
i expect the nonsense part of my post to never be articulated, just like everything else

lol at most of that. So your defense is that the 'wage gap myth' is just that the wage gap isn't quite as big as some people say? But you still totally believe there is a wage gap...


Just for you snowflake:

is nonsense.


Edit: And of course, the 77% number isn't a lie. It's one way of looking at. Because as you get deeper into the issue you realize that there are things like 'the motherhood penalty', unequal opportunities, etc. that are still real problems and that aren't exposed when we look at a pure like-for-like comparison of men and women. But we don't ever talk about these things because snowflakes like you are too busy trying to convince everyone there isn't an even more basic problem when we do look at like-for-like.

ok but i am not sure how that is relevant. people are claiming that a part of the wage gap could be attributed to the fact that wages are negotiable. i asserted that people high in trait agreeableness do worse in negotiation. this is true, and its also true that women tend to be higher in trait agreeableness than men. this is because it is tied to compassion which is beneficial for maternal reasons. you don't make a judgement of validity when a baby cries, you sympathize. we also see maternal instincts play out in politics in the form of oppression olympics

anyways asserting that skill isnt really the issue is generally false and generally irrelevant. if you have a poor outcome in a particular area, a lack of desire to participate might be a valid reason for the poor outcome but when we are talking about negotiation, obviously a strong tendency to avoid conflict leads to poor outcomes. it doesn't really matter if the group could theoretically do better on a written test about negotiation skills if they will avoid the conflict required to actually negotiate. also people who are high in agreeableness have generally been this way their whole life, which means they don't get much practice. agreeableness doesn't just mean you buy in to what everyone says, on the contrary its a recipe for a massive amount of resentment to build up

after getting buried in the reality of your epic straw man history, you respond with more strawman. on top of all that, there were questions highlighted for you, none of which you have even attempted to answer. the magic 8 ball vs idealogues is just pure magic

Oh sorry, I didn't realize I owed you a bunch of questions from your essay. Let's see.

The size of the problem is between 77% to 90%? Who knows what it is exactly.

Um, no, Hilary and Obama saying 77% doesn't show "the wage gap myth" (as I covered above). And, as I've said, I'm not American.


That, actually seems to answer most of your repetitive questions.

You wrote,

"There's lots of ways to implement "no negotiating" policies that still handles these sorts of issues. One way I've seen it done is that salary is tied to titles/positions. The company chooses what they're going to pay for each title - and that's where they make their decision about how they're going to pay relative to the market."

How exactly should that be interpreted? Seems like you're advocating for pay based on title, and by extension that people know the salaries attached to everyones title. This either limits the ability of employers to compensate people based on value, or else creates a nearly infinite number of job titles / caveats to reflect the complexities of how compensation is structured.

The spirit of what you're arguing for is transparency in terms of how the company is compensating their employees. Putting aside the difficulty of putting this into practice though, it creates a new problem since what you'll find is that if employers were showing preference to some group for reasons that they couldn't (or wouldnt) define they'll just now err on the side of not employing members of the group who they would normally pay less. And even assuming you could actually get them to be completely transparent about the process, and I don't think you could, it would introduce all sorts of costs associated with litigation from people disagreeing about how the number was arrived at.

The most efficient and transparent way to define what a fair market wage is, is by seeing what the market will pay for it. You might still think that the outcome is unfair. But there're a lot of other ways to deal with inequality in the world than through labor laws.... the intention of which should be that people aren't unduly discriminated against for things that have nothing to do with the value of their work.

How irrational do you think people are? Under the conditions im laying out people wouldn't even need to walk into their bosses office to ask. It can all be handled through a licensed professional.
It's much more reasonable to think that the limiting factors are predominantly lack of confidence in how to navigate the process, and the difficulty of getting competing offers because they don't have hard evidence of their value as an employee. You fix both of these things by requiring hard copies of performance reviews and guiding people towards professionals who can give them qualified advice on how to represent their interests.

Um, that there are lots of ways to implement "no negotiating" policies?

I'm not. I'm saying its an option. I think its a good option in some cases. Poor option in others.

Of course it limits it to some extent. But there are lots of things that do this. Very very few employers actually have policies that do this. In fact, I only really know of one (https://blog.expensify.com/2016/06/1...eview-process/). In most cases things like seniority, job titles, unions, negotiating ability, differences in management, etc. all mean that its impossible for a company to actually compensate people completely based on value.

Edit: By the way, I think Expensify's strategy isn't very good for a bunch of reasons, but we won't get into that.

Just embarrassing how many people in this thread and in our society don't understand basic economics.

A wild LordLhgA appears.

If I were a leftist, I'd abandon ship with the whole "pay gap" nonsense.

The majority of people have wised up to the fact that its a myth, and it only serves to discredit left-wing opinions on other topics by demonstrating that SJWs are more than comfortable with doctoring statistics and misleading people in order to score a political point.

Best take the fight elsewhere I would.

It is truly sad and offensive that some people narrowly view this topic as a partisan political issue.

Ran into some interesting research tangential to this topic:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/...nest-than-men/

This study finds that in individual decision-making, men are slightly more dishonest than women, though the findings are not statistically significant:

However, when making group decisions, the presence of men greatly increased the likelihood of unethical behavior:

Perhaps this effect could be something that prevents women from being brought into an all-male workplace (though it may not be a conscious effect at all.) Or it could affect a single woman who is evaluated by a group of men?

But also, if these results are replicated and confirmed, then it could be that female employees are even more valuable than many realize because they can mitigate dishonesty in group dynamics. (Of course this assumes that ethical behavior makes a business more productive/efficient and that female groups don't become as unethical as male groups as stakes increase.)

The evidence itt shows that the pay gap isn't a myth at all. Pay attention or you might discredit right wing opinions on other topics because conservatives are more than comfortable ignoring statistics and misleading about what the facts are in order to score a political point.

IF (and I mean if) 100% of the wage gap could be explained away by the extra risk women carry to employers as they are more likely to go part time, quit early or take a few months off to have a baby is the wage gap still considered sexist?

Would your answer be different if 100% of women took some time off for having a baby and 0% of men did? What if 98% of women did and only 2% of men?

Yes.

No.

Note: The wage gap can be sexist but not necessarily the fault of employers. If 100% of women took some time off for having a baby and 0% of men did, then that society has some very serious sexist policies in place.

Sure, it is horribly sexist against men to grant maternity leave to women and give no equivalent to men. And while that was changed in the 70s but for whatever reason women are significantly more likely to take it, and in a lot of cases take it multiple times. That makes women of child bearing age a significantly worse option than their male counterparts all else equal.

To call them sexist for using that information though is like calling an insurance agency ageist because they charge higher fees for senior citizens.

If you really want to eliminate the gap attributable to that one factor just eliminate maternity/paternity leave. Couples who can't figure out a way to make it work just shouldn't be having children.