Equal pay law did not close the gender gap

[NED funded]

there is no discrimination argument. less woman apply for higher paying but shitter jobs. garbage man plumbers ect. less woman go into higher paying fields by there own choice. there is no discrimination as there is no pay gap, only the choices people are willing to make for higher paying jobs.

There are various theories explaining that, but the most common one goes as the following:
- The usual discriminator is pregnacy and children. This makes women less attached to their work, which then prompts caution from their employers to assign them to higher paying positions that require more investment.

And even then as stated you can add controls to that.

[THE Bigzoman]

There are various theories explaining that, but the most common one goes as the following:
- The usual discriminator is pregnacy and children. This makes women less attached to their work, which then prompts caution from their employers to assign them to higher paying positions that require more investment.

And even then as stated you can add controls to that.

I think I see where the confusion is. You're using the word "discrimination" as it actually is.

I think people are confusing it with the negative connotation e.g just cuz you're a woman.

[Spectral]

There are various theories explaining that, but the most common one goes as the following:
- The usual discriminator is pregnacy and children. This makes women less attached to their work, which then prompts caution from their employers to assign them to higher paying positions that require more investment.

And even then as stated you can add controls to that.

Which is entirely reasonable. Hiring someone that's going to have a costly absence when an equivalent candidate that is much less likely to would be a pretty foolish thing to do. I know I'm supposed to be wildly enthusiastic about telling men that they can just pick up the slack at work, but somehow there's not a lot of bloom on that rose for me. If taking a year off from work costs someone money in the long run, I will not lose sleep over it.

[NED funded]

I don't care what you are referring to; the forum is a great representation of "in general" due to the varying age ranged, international user base, etc etc. But you know, I've also seen the same arguments used in college course, in person with friends and coworkers, in other forms of social media... sorry pal, it hasn't "always been about "discriminatory hiring practices." Thats why I'm calling it an alternative fact.

Well, then I guess I was living in an alternative reality since the only time I've been hearing the 70-something argument is when it's trotted out by pseudo intelectuals like Carlgon, Amazing Atheist, Anita Sarkeesan and the like.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

What part of identical resumes did you not understand?

what part of just because your resumes is the same doesn't mean people will preserve the same. difference names look speech patterns ect. unless theses studies are just a resume and nothing else there are a shit ton of factors that could effect the outcome and if they are resume only then they are worthless to begin with.

[Draco-Onis]

The only studies that did what you're claiming DID NOT account for NEGOTIATION of salary variables. When you remove this variable, wages were almost entirely equal.

The point is to show the gap does exist if it did not then the offering would be similar if not identical, humans are biased in nature to say it doesn't exist means you think everyone treats everyone equally which is patently false.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Well, then I guess I was living in an alternative reality since the only time I've been hearing the 70-something argument is when it's trotted out by pseudo intelectuals like Carlgon, Amazing Atheist, Anita Sarkeesan and the like.

Yup, and thats not to say no one EVER mentioned hiring discrimination, but lets stop pretending it was anything but a small minority of arguments used. Most of the time its just 77% on the dollar! bullshit.

[Draco-Onis]

what part of just because your resumes is the same doesn't mean people will preserve the same. difference names look speech patterns ect. unless theses studies are just a resume and nothing else there are a shit ton of factors that could effect the outcome and if they are resume only then they are worthless to begin with.

I hope you realize you've just described gender discrimination.

[THE Bigzoman]

Several studies have been done with men and women in the same fields, there even been test using identical resumes to see the difference in salary offerings. Of course if you don't want to believe it then that it is up to you.

You do realize that most firms don't offer salaries after seeing a good resume, and things like interviews determine how much you're offered right?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The point is to show the gap does exist if it did not then the offering would be similar if not identical, humans are biased in nature to say it doesn't exist means you think everyone treats everyone equally which is patently false.

Why bring it up though? If its just boiled down to salary negotiations, how is that really a bad thing? Women are less likely to negotiate a better salary... so what? Thats not sexism.

[xGLxAnubis]

The point is to show the gap does exist if it did not then the offering would be similar if not identical, humans are biased in nature to say it doesn't exist means you think everyone treats everyone equally which is patently false.

The initial offers ARE similar. Read the studies. Like, the entire things instead of just their 'findings'. Read the variables they controlled for and read the actual data.

When low balled, which is common in an initial offering, men and women receive effectively the same offer. Men counter higher, and therefore end up with a higher final. (Men: Initial offer 50, counter 60, end up with 55. Women: Initial offer 50, Counter 55, end up with 52.5) And many times, women do not even counter offer (Much less frequently than men... On top of lower counters).

[Rennadrel]

I have never understood the whole wage gap argument. Let's look at some hard truths, in a lot of industries, particularly STEM careers, men have dominated the landscape for a long time. In trades, men are more capable at their jobs because they are physically stronger. That isn't to say that women are incapable, just in a lot of cases and I see it with the female apprentices my company employs, it's that they don't have the physical ability that men do and often need assistance in doing their jobs. Not all are like that, but some are. How is it discrimination to be physically more capable at your job than a woman? I don't get how anyone can live with that kind of logic, it's terribly flawed. If you want to make true comparisons about wage differences, all valued have to be considered including time served, work ethic, ability to work alone without need for support.

[Spectral]

Well, then I guess I was living in an alternative reality since the only time I've been hearing the 70-something argument is when it's trotted out by pseudo intelectuals like Carlgon, Amazing Atheist, Anita Sarkeesan and the like.

How about this fuckin' guy?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

How about this fuckin' guy?

He's a pseudo-intellectual I guess?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I hope you realize you've just described gender discrimination.

i hope you realize that by that merit every fucking body is discriminated by every fucking thing. i like the name jone more then jim lets hire jone. that guys dressed better then the other guy lets hire him. shes has better hair then the only girl lets hire her. if thats the merit for gender discrimination then its a worthless.

[Endus]

Why bring it up though? If its just boiled down to salary negotiations, how is that really a bad thing? Women are less likely to negotiate a better salary... so what? Thats not sexism.

If you're using standards of negotiation that result in women being disadvantaged at such, that's pretty much the definition of sexism.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

If you're using standards of negotiation that result in women being disadvantaged at such, that's pretty much the definition of sexism.

Not even close.

[xGLxAnubis]

If you're using standards of negotiation that result in women being disadvantaged at such, that's pretty much the definition of sexism.

So because women tend to not be as aggressive in negotiations, and accept lower numbers during them, the employer is being sexist?

You don't understand what sexism is.

[NED funded]

How about this fuckin' guy?

Everytime I see a politician mention the 77% number I always assume they are playing to a particular demographic. Also I did not have much respect for Obama to begin with.

[Endus]

So because women tend to not be as aggressive in negotiations, and accept lower numbers during them, the employer is being sexist?

You don't understand what sexism is.

What you've just described is a predatory employment strategy to take advantage of women.

So yes. Sexism.