Equal pay law did not close the gender gap

[Allerius]

1. You're confusing white men with all people.

2. They're also fine with shooting children and killing babies in prison. Just because bad people are fine with bad practices doesn't make them good.

Do white men not get a vote and opinion or something? That's pretty racist tbh.

white men

They're also fine with shooting children and killing babies in prison

See this is why you're an extremist. What did the big bad white man do to you, kid?

[Zython]

I already have proven my point. I didn't make the claim, so I don't have to further prove anything. Thats on you.

- - - Updated - - -



Citations have been given. You've ignored most, and replied with only "she only wants dick!" to one such example.

You know that screaming that you've provided proof isn't the same as actually providing it, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Here, e-mailing you this imaginary report with all the data. You might find it interesting, since you seem to be fond of imaginary issues.

So you admit you don't have proof? Figures.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Stay in your lane.

Do you have proof I'm wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

Do white men not get a vote and opinion or something? That's pretty racist tbh.




See this is why you're an extremist. What did the big bad white man do to you, kid?

Because I don't support murder?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You know that screaming that you've provided proof isn't the same as actually providing it, right?

I'm not sure how you think I'm screaming. I've proven my point. So can you prove yours now?

[Zython]

I'm not sure how you think I'm screaming. I've proven my point. So can you prove yours now?

No, you haven't. To prove your point, you have to provide proof. Thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

[Beazy]

Do you have proof I'm wrong?

I'm a fourth generation "programmer" as you would call it ~ LoL. The fact that you think the industry in 1980 is comparable to the 60s in scope, language and application is most laughable. You are literally comparing someone who created machine code to someone who writes business layer technology applications. The Software development industry has never been dominated by females.

I would /facepalm your ignorant assumption, but I only have two hands and it wouldn't do your ignorance justice. Again, please, stay in your lane.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

No, you haven't. To prove your point, you have to provide proof. Thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

I did already. I don't have to give extensive proof on the entire subject, as I didn't make the original claim. Erin did, and then you backed her up. So thats on you two.

If you don't understand the basic relationship between premise/conclusion in deductive reasoning, I suppose I can point you in the direction on such information.

[Allenseiei]

There is no pay gap, just higher barriers of entry:

A company doesn't care if you are a man, woman, homosexual, etc. They care about the returns they get for hiring someone. Why are there higher barriers of entry? Its because women pregnancy is calculated in the costs of hiring a woman. The way to remove these barriers of entry is to compensate the companies that incurr in loses during a woman's pregnancy. This ofcourse only applies if the woman's competition when adquiring the job was just as good as her. If the woman gives higher returns than her competition (being men), the company's returns are still higher for hiring that woman, thus she will get hired.

[Spectral]

Either the bill is worthless, or it ruins countless lives and businesses.

Since I'm a cynic, I'd suggest that this is basically working as intended. The sheer spite that I see expressed towards alleged sexists (or worse still, racists) is pretty impressive.

[Shaderas]

It's taking advantage of those gender differences. Which is literally what sexism is.

It's not that hard to develop a standardized pay scheme. Canadian government jobs are all fit into such. There's no discrepancies whatsoever.

I don't understand this... they are not taking advantage of the woman in this scenario, the woman is just not negotiating as aggressively.

What is your solution to this? That every job everywhere have standardized pay schemes and no employer or employee may ever negotiate their pay?

[Spectral]

Clearly men must be inferior. After all, that group includes you.

Try to be just a bit less petulantly tearful when tossing around insults. No one thinks this is a good zinger, it's just naked, idiotic misandry.

- - - Updated - - -

At the same time though, does stuff like that not make you wonder why typically male jobs are valued higher than typically female jobs? It's easy to fall into the trap of "look, men do all these big important whatever jobs, and women choose not to and thats why they are earning less" but are people only treating those jobs as big and important, and the other jobs as "lesser and deserving of less" because one lot are dominated by men and the other are dominated by women. Stuff like programming is a good example of this, pays better since it became dominated by men etc.

Programming is a terrible example if you're trying to demonstrate sexism. The chain of events and causality wasn't that someone decided it should get paid higher and then decided those jobs go to men. The chain of events was also not the job shifting to men and then someone deciding that it should be valuable. The chain of events was that the profession sharply rose in actual importance, difficulty, and demand; when that happened, pay and prestige in the profession rose accordingly. This attracted more competition and men have been winning that competition. Why? Well, there are a number of hypotheses that are plausible and that's worth exploring, but none of them is compatible with the idea that sexism creates a wage gap.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know who "you guys" are ... and no, its false because of simple deductive reasoning. Your conclusion doesn't have strong proof. Many other things (supply and demand, advances in technology) could have caused a shift in pay for that field.

Not only could, but obviously did in the case of computing and demand for programmers, software developers, and other skilled IT employees. Seriously, you have to do some incredible head-in-the-sand shit to think that the primary difference between software in the 1960s and software in the 1990s is that men decided to get into it.

[Allerius]

Programming is a terrible example if you're trying to demonstrate sexism. The chain of events and causality wasn't that someone decided it should get paid higher and then decided those jobs go to men. The chain of events was also not the job shifting to men and then someone deciding that it should be valuable. The chain of events was that the profession sharply rose in actual importance, difficulty, and demand; when that happened, pay and prestige in the profession rose accordingly. This attracted more competition and men have been winning that competition. Why? Well, there are a number of hypotheses that are plausible and that's worth exploring, but none of them is compatible with the idea that sexism creates a wage gap.

I think it's pretty obvious to people who are being honest that women are a lot more interested in social relationships then men are (in aggregate). Competitive professions such as medicine and law where there is significant interactions with patients/clients attract women just as much these days. Lower paying caregiver professions are popular for a similar reason. On the other hand, rewarding professions like engineering that have much less social interaction do not attract women nearly as much. This one factor could likely account for a lot of the variation we see and is likely intrinsic as evolutionary forming social relationships was likely more important for women.

[Narwal]

You won't see an improvement in the "wage gap" when you inaccurately attribute the gap to sexism and try to fix "sexism". The reality is that if there is a wage gap, it's going to be attributed to real differences of one worker to the next (regardless of gender) that affect amount of time worked, productivity, reliability, and other metrics that provide the value with which a company finds in you and thus pays you for. There are biological differences between men and women which allow men the advantage of being more reliable in the work place. Does it mean all women will miss more days to doctors visits, or child rearing needs? No, but averaged over the entire working population, yes, you will see a difference. If you believe a woman should not be penalized in pay for missing more days to doctors appointments or child emergency baby-sitting, then you should probably believe that all people in a role should be paid the same regardless of their productivity or attendance, regardless of gender... now that sounds a bit absurd doesn't it?

[Saverem]

Makes to much sense right? Why pay a man $10 an hour when you can pay a women $7.70 an hour.

Or pay a robot $0 an hour.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Or pay a robot $0 an hour.

That would clearly be sexist against women. Or misogyny. Or speciesist... but only against women. Not men though.

[xChurch]

Is talking about how much you get paid stigmatised in Sweden like it is in a lot of other places? If so it can be hard to tell if you're getting underpaid if no one ever talks about what they make or started at.

[Allerius]

Or pay a robot $0 an hour.

You wish. Electricity, maintenance, and up-front costs are coming for you.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Is talking about how much you get paid stigmatised in Sweden like it is in a lot of other places? If so it can be hard to tell if you're getting underpaid if no one ever talks about what they make or started at.

I know at my company they tell you not to talk about it... for reasons of resentment, fights and things of that nature... secretly its obviously so they can underpay some people, specifically people who don't ask for raises more aggressively.

But websites exist that tell relative starting/average salaries.. so there is that. Don't know about specifically Sweden.

[xChurch]

I know at my company they tell you not to talk about it... for reasons of resentment, fights and things of that nature... secretly its obviously so they can underpay some people, specifically people who don't ask for raises more aggressively.

But websites exist that tell relative starting/average salaries.. so there is that. Don't know about specifically Sweden.

I think the bolded part is really the core problem. Employers will pay most people what they'll accept, and men are probably more likely to fight for more than women are. At least that's how it's been in my personal experience. At least if you aim high, you'll know you got the most they're willing to give rather than just settling at the first $ amount. Trying to make laws to solve this kind of problem seems more like trying to make things seem better rather than actually looking at the problem clearly.

[Katchii]

His cas didnt even touch on the fields in which they worked. Which one has more schooling or work skill as a requirement? Is one job more inherently dangerous or less desireable? Does it require you to travel away from your home for prolonged periods?

If he is an engineer on an oil rig and she teaches public school...

This goes along with what what I was trying to say. The case is using non-normalized data, meaning it's using a total average for each gender and comparing..so it's taking the highest of the highs and lowest of the lows in both and comparing them along with the median level jobs, this will skew the data.

You have to make apples to apples comparisons for it to be meaningful, measure them with the same stick so to speak.You can't compare a female first year teacher to a male tenured physician and expect it to show anything other than doctors get paid more than teachers. You need to measure first year teachers against each other and tenured doctors to each other; the same level job in the same field with the same level of experience. Once you have this information you can then look at the differences if there are any, and break it down to understand WHY there are differences. But none of the studies I've ever seen do this analysis to that level. Therefore, IMO, it's completely useless data because it can't actually be used for anything or to come to any meaningful conclusions.

[Scathbais]

This is kinda stupid, since the gender wage gap is referred to the average of how much men are payed compared to women. Not you paying less to women, for the same thing men do.

There is no wage gap. There is, however, an earnings gap that results from the differing choices men and women make (types of jobs, college majors, hours worked, work/life balance, pregnancy, etc). There is no systemic sexism that results in woman earning less than men.