Maybe why we tend to support equal pay laws and other interventions.

We wouldn't object so much if it there was no gender (or other group) bias but clearly there is a bias for whatever reason so a lot of us think something as to be done about it even if we're not entirely sure of the reason. I'm not sure I even care about the reason as long as it's resolved.

I mean Bahbah, I'll resist the temptation of filling in the blank for you. What's your proposed solution? Do you even recognize a problem?

As I write I realize you're almost surely one of those who think there isn't a gender pay gap and it's a liberal lie concocted by liberal PHDs who need grant money so publication bias etc etc etc derp derp derp.

Guess I did fill in the blank for you after all.

Collective bargaining is very different from this situation. I have no idea why you are talking about MRA and quoting my posts. I am not a MRA (actually had to look up what that stood for).

I think the whole idea is funny so the whole plan would be great, but if I can't get that just an explanation on why you think it would work would suffice.

If you have time, can you put together another public service announcement that talks big retail stores like wal-mart into supporting mom and pop stores. Maybe WM can let the mom & pops use some of their infrastructure to help keep their costs down?

There is definitely a pay gap and yes I see it as a problem. I am not saying we should ignore the problem, I was just saying your solution would not work (for the reason I pointed out). I don't know what the solution is though. I always make fun of liberals for pointing out problems and not coming up with solutions, but this is one of those rare problems that doesn't have an easy fix.

I believe that a huge majority of the reason for the pay gap is that employers, rightly or wrongly, are hesitant to hire a young woman because he/she may think there is a risk of her going part time or quitting when a kid comes along.

I have been in a HR meetings where this was talked about. We were between 2 candidates, one woman in her early 30s and a woman in her late 50s. I argued hard for the younger woman because IMO she was by far the best candidate in my eyes, but someone pointed out the possibility of her having kids soon as she was fairly newly married. We ended up hiring the younger woman and she was awesome and better at the job than any of us expected. Unfortunately she ended up moving away after a year and a half because of her husbands job, but given the chance I'd hire her again in a heartbeat. There are others in the meeting with me that may not say they'd hire given the chance again.

But you didn't point out reasons, you eye-rolled as you suggested a public awareness campaign that utilized the internet and TV commercials.

Is your issue that the awareness of the public couldn't possibly be raised, that it could be raised but it wouldn't be effective, or...?

Evident.

That's a top notch HR department you had there!

I get that it's talked about and used in making decisions in some places - but it shouldn't be (hence why it's illegal in most places) and that's why we should admit the wage gap is a real problem.

Hey man, if we can't discriminate against women for being the only gender that can carry babies, or for getting periods, or for having breasts, what can we discriminate against them for?!

For generally being the lesser of the two sexes? Does that work?

The reason it wouldn't work is because a) you can't reasonable think anyone (or entity) can get the word out to a reasonable amount of negotiators for them to do this b) it isn't reasonable to assume that the negotiators would act in a way that would (slightly) harm themselves. This is a ridiculous plan and I am starting to think I am being leveled.

I wouldn't say it is a top notched HR department, but better than a huge majority of small businesses in America (and the world). I agree that it shouldn't be discussed in this manner, but assuming it isn't is just irresponsible.

A huge % of Americans know the wage gap is a real problem so we are already past the stage of getting people to admitting we have a problem.

1. I have a hard time believing its better than a huge majority when its blatantly doing illegal things. I think many small businesses know that at the very least you don't talk about it explicitly like that.

2. This thread seems to indicate otherwise about the % of people admitting its a real problem.

Depends if you think that's a legitimate issue or not.

So this is a logistics concern.

By "negotiators" you mean women, right?

Just for starters, you don't think that something could be incorporated into senior year of high school? Maybe included in coursework?

IDk what this is getting at.

"Negotiators" are no longer women, right? This is men we're talking about? Are you saying men wouldn't support any initiatives that would raise public awareness about the need to negotiate salaries because they'd take a salary hit?

If so, this is nothing but projection. Yes, there would be a segment of society that would struggle with this, but generalizing it to all men is LOL ridiculous.

It shouldn't have been said and it isn't politically correct, but it is a real concern of small businesses.

2+2 isn't a random sampling of the general population of the U.S., IMO.

Of course not, you are a low functioning moron who can't remember or understand your own arguments. Its literally criminal that you steal money from your clients by pretending to understand financial markets.

Oh God, what does Bahbah do for a living?

Almost afraid to ask...

The thing about social science is that data is rarely perfect. On the other hand, if you collect a lot of different data using different methodologies and all of it points in the same direction, and that direction is also reasonably intuitive given qualitative considerations, then it is much more likely that the data is meaningful than if we were just evaluating a single isolated quantitative study.

When it comes to gender inequality that is really the state of affairs, and I think it's worth pointing out that the qualitative analysis is just as important as the quantitative. The qualitative analysis takes into account the long history of cultural patriarchy and associated views of the inferiority of women, or their proper place in society.

Those considerations are especially important considering the general tenor of objections in this thread, which for the most part are not arguing that there is no gender wage gap, but that it shouldn't be interpreted as representing a moral or social problem. So for example:

The bold red speaks to the need for qualitative considerations, especially of history. Why, as a question of history, do cultures have segregated labor markets? The answer ends up providing most of the answer to the other questions quoted, including the one about why, given a wage gap, rational employers don't employ more women to gain a competitive advantage. It also explains why the "true believers" emphasize the idea of discriminatory inequality.

So we might look at sacred texts for the most important western religions, and the hierarchical structures of those religious institutions even into the present, which are still very important even if less powerful than 500 years ago. Or we might look at justifications given for the inferiority of women, from Aristotle to Oscar Wilde. Or we might reflect on the 1950s ideal of the housewife, or media representations of women. Or the Harvard Gender-Career Implicit Associations Test which demonstrates the implicit cultural attitudes associating women's roles with family over career.

We don't have to explain current inequality either as entirely benign (the result of women's own choices) or the result of a conscious and malicious misogyny, as though there were no options in between, as has been suggested in this thread at least once. All these historical attitudes still influence both our culture and our social institutions. One qualitative explanation for the origin of the wage gap in the US that I've read suggests that it begins with the cultural premise that men who are working are supporting a family, while women (in the 50s and 60s) will only work to support themselves until they get married. It's considered fair to pay the men more given those cultural assumptions, but those assumptions both reflect an existing patriarchical gender inequality and of course are less and less true in the present.

But it should be obvious in any case that an analysis of the economics of the wage gap shouldn't ignore the history and all these cultural considerations. It should be obvious why those considerations do suggest a culturally and socially rooted kind of discrimination (as opposed to one grounded in personal antipathy towards women) as an explanation for the data, especially for the kind of study JJ linked to multiple times. It would certainly seem to explain the BLS data, which is consistent across hundreds of different occupations, better than considerations about negotiation skills, even if the latter has a marginal impact. Although here already the fact that men might be better prepared to negotiate is also quite likely to represent the result of cultural and social attitudes about women's roles than some innate biological factor.

He's a financial advisor, peddling all the knowledge he learned while getting a C+ in Econ 101 at the Cracker Jack Institute to unsuspecting rubes for a piece of the skim.

Whole lotta trying to reason with people too dumb and totally unwilling to listen going on in this thread. These bigots are not worth your time, and their arguments only warrant sympathy and laughter.

I'm fighting misandry..don't know what the hell your problem is.

What's the point in occupying the social justice war room if one is not willing to engage in the war? :P

also anytime I post anything it's solely for my own amusement

The way I see it there's no positives to responding because all it does is make these clowns think their opinions have enough substance to be worthy of response. Ignoring them IS fighting the war.

I mean if it entertains you, go right ahead, but I still think that kind of passion can probably be applied in more helpful ways than fighting these windmillpeople.

The logistical concern is a problem, but it is minor when compared to the problem that negotiators are incentivized to not follow through with your plan.

How have we been talking about his for so long and you not understand what is meant by negotiators? No, it does not mean woman. It means people who negotiate their salary. Some of them are men and some are women. I am not the one generalizing negotiators as a sex. You are.

haha... What do you mean something can be incorporated into a high school class? Like what?

lol.

poster #1: we should tell negotiators to not act in their best interest
bahbah: why would they do that though
gambool: bahbah is racist for asking why workers who negotiate their salary would help others and hurt themselves
bahbah: gambool, how is that racist?
gambool: bahbah doesn't believe descrimination can exist in a free market
bahbah: i never said that
gambool: you are an idiot and you are bad at your job

This isn't the first time I've asked you to back up a claim and you instead went for a personal attacks.