Letters to the Editor
-
Pay gaps have been measured by scientists within science
Scientists have done scientific studies of their own workplaces and found gaps in pay, perks, office space and lab space between male and female scientists.
I know Caltech did a study like this. When the study was done, it was taken as a credible study and the problem was accepted as a real one and steps were taken to address the problems brought out by the study.
If scientists can detect these gaps scientifically in their own workplaces, then they must exist outside of the scientific workplace as well.
I don't know why it's so hard to believe that human beings can make subjective decisions based on pure prejudice. We've been fighting this kind of general behavior as humans for thousands of years now. I don't think we're a perfect species yet.
-
"Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said."
Oh, where is Robert Frankling now?
-
I believe you, so?
Few I think actually dispute this. But, at what point do you start sounding like the people who blame everything on slavery?
-
What the study says: Wage Gap is 5% due to Gender. What you reported: Wage Gap is 20%
Apparently, reading your own post, Carrie Lukas is correct, and you are not.
Carrie Lukas: In a fiery Washington Post Op-Ed, Carrie Lukas argues that the oft-cited statistic regarding the gender gap in wages -- "women make just 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes" -- is total feminist hogwash.
Your article: All that being said, it isn't that the pay gap is entirely attributable to gender. "The evidence shows that even when the 'explanations' for the pay gap are included in a regression, they cannot fully explain the pay disparity," the report concludes. "The regressions for earnings one year after college indicate that when all variables are included, about one quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender. That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn."
How you report it: What better time to release a new study that debunks pay gap denials than the day before Equal Pay Day? Today, the American Association of University Women released a study finding that just a year after graduating from college, women earn just 80 percent of what men make. Ten years down the line, women make 69 percent of what men earn. This flies in the face of the popular argument that women earn less simply because of their lifestyle choices -- here's hoping Carrie Lukas and Kate O'Beirne are taking note.
Who is the denier?
I can't wait till Pandagon links to Feministe links to Feministing links to you links to Pandagon links to Feministe links to Feministing links to you.
-
Still...it's hard not to blame the women themselves...
At some point each of these women were offered a job, that paid x amount of dollars. Similarly a group of men were offered a job that paid y amount of dollars.
If y > x then a wise company will employ as many people willing to work for x as possible and leave those willing to work for y only when the x group has been exhausted. This is of course assuming that group x and y have equal skills which this study does in fact assume.
Now without a doubt there are women in each group who accept an offer of y and men in each group that accept an offer x, but by and large the numbers suggest that women are more willing to settle for x and men are more likely to demand y.
The answer to this problem is actually very easy to solve, women must simply demand more money. So long as women only demand x they will only be paid x. When women demand y in equal amounts to men you will see this wage gap disappear. Then however you may also see the number of women employed in a given industry drop as well, but that's an entirely different debate.
It is unlikely that any corporation has either an informal or formal bidding procedure for new hires based on gender. It is far more likely based on the sense the HR director has about what is the appropriate wage for the work and what they feel the potential employee will accept.
Any single number (such as the wage gap) tells only a very small part of the employment story. Gross gender numbers in the industry, as well as total applicant pools for the industry are needed to truly determine if the wages offered are or are not influenced unduly by gender, race, or any other category.
-
When the Feminist blogs say the Gender Gap is 20%...
We will be able to expect Broadsheet to correct them and say it is really only 5% due to gender, right?
-
All Variables Considered...
I just love these studies that purport to include all variables, without noting clearly that many unknown variables may exist (and help to explain why the statistics show this or that). After considering all "explanations" (including more variables to get a better overall model and results), the difference is 5%. This value may very well be less than the error of the statistics used in the study, or not. If the value is within a "margin of error," then the disparity doesn't exist, according to the study's parameters/model.
If the value is larger than the "margin of error" of the statistical analysis, then the model is lacking, as it cannot account for the remaining difference. Or, perhaps, some of the original assumptions used to create the analysis model are flawed. People often make mistakes and fit results (improperly) to the models, in turn "tweaking" the models to get "better results." Is the study referenced by the article valid, from an independent point-of-view (not evaluated by someone in the AAUW itself)?
One variable that may have been overlooked (unknown to the researchers) is the comparative assertiveness of women and men in pay negotiation sessions. Are men, in general, more likely to ask for higher wages than women? Are there other gender factors not accounted for? This is a double-edged sword, in a way, as identifying distinct differences between sexes, or genders, can be used to increase our collective knowledge and understanding of such issues, or it can be used by those who would distort the information for personal gain (or to further a given agenda).
The biggest problem with these types of studies is that they are seldom "certified" by independent groups as being scientifically valid (rigorous, objective, etc.). Nor are all of the parameters and methods clearly identified. Add to this the politics of group power struggles and you get a nasty mix of politics and science. Or, even worse, insufficiently knowledgeable journalists over-simplify the results for self-serving or sensationalistic reasons. Over the top word choices, such as the use of "wage gap deniers" only serves to create a highly polarized environment that isn't conducive to further discussion (the term "deniers" most likely makes one think of Holocaust deniers, which isn't really a fair comparison, for many reasons).