> Why is it that Asian people are earning 2x more than white people yet article is focusing on "white men"?
Because pay discrimination is actually skill discrimination, but we're all ideologues and have to ignore information to keep our fragile narratives intact.
Edit:
It's my understanding the wage gap has been thoroughly debunked. It's core premise relies on a univariate analysis of lifetime earnings that has no real analytical value. Although, in some instances, pay discrimination may still exist. It's isolated, and completely illegal.
The problem is not white men, the problem is that our society has many (but not all) systemic biases that benefits them, at the expense of others. Many of these biases are so ingrained, they are invisible.
As a white man, I don't have to deal with many categories of bullshit that people of color and women are subjected to. I do have to deal with a few things that they don't, but there aren't many of them.
Are you seriously proposing that our society doesn't give white men more opportunities than minorities and women? Or that they don't have to deal with shit that white men don't have to?
(If so I'd recommend the podcasts Reveal, Scene on Radio, Us and Them, and so forth.)
I'm asking for evidence that "being a white man causes you to have greater opportunities". If you can't provide that but you're only going to provide additional outrage, you're not really adding to the discussion.
Of course unequal lending and housing opportunities go back in time forever, with huge consequences for, e.g., the wealth that white vs. black families have been able to accumulate over time, since houses are most folks' biggest assets.
Here's a recent Scene on Radio episode where they discuss the long history of federal programs that benefit whites and exclude blacks, etc. Of course you should really listen to the rest of the series for context:
As a man, you're more likely to be murdered, killed in a war, commit suicide, die in a workplace accident, and be sentenced to prison disproportionately longer for the same crime as compared to women.
I'm also incredibly less likely to be raped, be the victim of domestic abuse from my partner, pressured by my boss for sex, have my qualifications questioned over my gender, low-balled on offers, negatively evaluated for expressing 'masculine' traits in the workplace, be low-balled on hiring offers, have my career suffer because of fears that I'll have a child and take paternity leave, should I keep going..?
The nature of privilege is that some people have more of it in certain contexts, and other people have more of it in other contexts. That doesn't mean that the playing field is equal.
And, uh, if I were a black or native man, I'd have all the problems you listed, and a whole bunch more.
Being killed or locked in prison (where the likelihood of rape skyrockets) seems objectively worse than any of those things, does it not? Why is it that you are so eager to ignore the inequalities against men in favor of women?
It's great that we're talking about prison. If you're a black man, you are seven times more likely to be incarcerated then a white man. Five times more likely to be arrested for drug possession, despite similar rates of drug use. 30% more likely to be jailed before your trial. 150% more likely to be searched at a traffic stop.
Since you're placing so much emphasis on prison, as worse then any of the things I listed, it sounds like you you should agree that white privilege is a huge problem.
But let's take a step back. Since I'm a white man, my odds of being incarcerated are ~1/100. Small chance of that. If I were a woman, however, I'd be dealing with the problems I listed in my previous post all the time.
Read my posts. Nowhere did I ignore that inequalities in both directions exist. What I take issue with is people blowing the inequalities that disadvantage white men out of proportion. Almost all the gender-particular problems they have, men of color have, with a second and third helping.
I agree with virtually everything you have said, but I am still sensing an implicit prejudice towards men.
You claim to take issue with people blowing inequalities out of proportion:
>What I take issue with is people blowing the inequalities that disadvantage white men out of proportion.
And yet that is exactly what you just did, by cherry picking one of the "lesser" problems men face (disproportionate incarceration), ignoring the others (higher probability of getting killed), and then using hyperbole ("all the time") in favor of women:
>Since I'm a white man, my odds of being incarcerated are ~1/100. Small chance of that. If I were a woman, however, I'd be dealing with the problems I listed in my previous post all the time.
This is wrong. The article states Asian males earn 117% as much, which is just 17% more. This is one of the things that turns me off Hacker News, an overly strong bias in defense of white men.
And I believe I've been here long enough to know that is not a very good assumption to make. Allowances such as yours are usually given in defense of white men, but hardly ever given for other groups.
> This is one of the things that turns me off Hacker News, an overly strong bias in defense of white men.
Really? I feel the exact opposite. HN is full of articles like this, singling out white men, and claiming they are somehow either toxic or the beneficiaries of privilege.
I detest gender/identity politics, and don't think claims should be leveled against an entire group based on unrelated physical traits. This is the only reason I jump to defend "white men". If an article was posted making the same claims about another race/gender I would mount the same defense. However, those kinds of articles never show up here, because the are more obviously racist.
Yes, you are right. But even so - the point stands. I'm not trying to defend anything, especially white men. I'm just saying this journalism is biased to portray white men in bad light.
How is the factually correct claim that white men, in the study, earn more than Black and Hispanic men, and more than women of any racial/ethnic category, painting them in a “bad light”?
Would there equally true statement that Asian men earn more than men of any other racial/ethnic category and more than women of any ethnic category be painting Asian men in a “bad light”?
I think the issue stems from the author pointing out that white male wages as statistically disconcerting with respect to the racial pay gap without raising the issue of Asian male wages as being the same.
There is no group referred to as specifically disconcerting. And both the relatively high pay of white males (in the body text) and Asian of both genders (in bold callouts on the graphics) are highlighted.
White males are the comparison baseline, but Asians couldn't be used for that because they don't have data for the first decade+.
Looking at the article again, that may be a fair interpretation. The Pew Research Center's article[0] from which one of the graphs is lifted says "white men are often used in comparisons such as this because they are the largest demographic group in the workforce". So the point of comparison seems to be on the basis of the size of the demographic rather than availability of past data.
It also notes a possible reason for the gap: among adults ages 25 and older, 53% of Asians have a bachelor’s degree or more versus only 36% of whites.
> Why is it that Asian people are earning 2x more than white people
They aren't. 2× more is 300% of the base value. Asian men make 117% of what white men make, Asian women make 87% of what white men make (or 106% of what white women make.) So, Asian people earn between 6% and 17% more, not “2× more”, than what white people of the same gender make.
As someone else pointed out - yes, you are right and I was wrong. However the point stands - Asians make more money then everyone yet article points out how white men are earning more.
Again, I'm not trying to defend any white men or whatever, however don't you see the clear agenda this journalist is pushing?
Agree, this is not controlling for the types of jobs that people are doing! Also if Lyft only spent $100K on it, they clearly didn’t find much of an issue. This is just a feel good story for marketing purposes. #trash
I'm curious how they determined that the 1% of cases were gender and race-based and not something else. With such a small number, it seems like it would be very easy for the variations to be caused by other factors. It is probably good PR for them, but the math behind the decision would be pretty interesting.
Yes, but with a small enough number you might be able to find that people with blue eyes are paid more than people with brown eyes. You'd expect some level of random variation and such a small number makes it seem that it may really not have anything to do with their gender.
Think of it this way. If you flipped a coin a large number of times and 51% of the times it came up heads would you assume the coin was biased or would you suspect that it could just be random variation?
Ah, I see this is for Lyft employees, and not Lyft drivers which I assumed. It makes sense that Lyft would have much more data regarding sexism or racism affecting their employees than they would sexism or racism affecting drivers.
I'd rather Lyft commit to closing wage gaps across workers-managers
It's a joke to think a CEO is really generating 80x the typical pay of a worker in value.
Studies haven't been able to find any conclusion on HOW value is generated in the first place. They run into so many variables from go, it becomes a complicated mess.
This is basically "divine right" masquerading as quantitative measure. They're smart, yes? So of course they know they provide that much value, say the rubes who never question it.
The central variable that creates the "gender pay gap" is not sexist employer discrimination. The gap is primarily created by the fact that women, more typically than men, are the ones who raise children full time.
Yes, we should also be advocating for better paternity leave policies, so that men can take a bigger role in child care.
However, that does not mean companies shouldn't audit pay across race and gender, controlling for job role, level and performance.
Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit performance reviews for inequity.
Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit job role and level and promotion processes for inequity.
Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit hiring processes for inequity.
Different people experience inequity in different ways. Some people experience it in more than one way. We need systemic solutions to address each of these failure modes.
Indeed consistency is important. Likewise it is important to review these things without the influence of erroneous prejudice, such as the belief that women with the same skills and experience are being systemically paid less due to rampant sexism.
No amount of “better” paternity leave will ever mean that I will be able to birth and nurse a child myself. (First time dad here of a 5 month old) Nor do I require extra time off before the birth. Fathers don’t have this issue because they don’t lose time giving birth and recovering no matter how involved they are in taking care of the kid after birth. This lost time is unavoidable for working moms.
Even in countries with generous leave policy, this lost time is unrecoverable and has a permanent affect on your career. For example, in Italy the mother is forced to take a year off whether they want to or not. That’s one year less of a promotion or pay raise.
Time is money and time not working is time not earning money. These are real obstacles women face in the workforce that drive down their earning potential. Successful women either choose to not have children, or earn enough to pay someone else to care for their children full time.
Correct. Some economists from Stanford & Uber actually did a fascinating analysis of the gender earnings gap for drivers.
tl;dr - Men earn 7% more:
> We find that the entire gender gap is caused by three factors: experience on the platform (learning-by-doing), preferences over where/when to work, and preferences for driving speed.
Edit - I originally found out about this study from a Freakonomics podcast. These economists are chomping at the bit to get newer data (which will include tips). Their hypothesis is that women's earnings will increase, since women's tips are 10-20% greater than men's. However, they also say tipping increases the supply of drivers, which will serve to decrease utilization rate and thus lower hourly pay.
46 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadNice journalism. Not biased at all.
https://i.imgur.com/rjmHYk0.png
Because pay discrimination is actually skill discrimination, but we're all ideologues and have to ignore information to keep our fragile narratives intact.
Edit:
It's my understanding the wage gap has been thoroughly debunked. It's core premise relies on a univariate analysis of lifetime earnings that has no real analytical value. Although, in some instances, pay discrimination may still exist. It's isolated, and completely illegal.
As a white man, I don't have to deal with many categories of bullshit that people of color and women are subjected to. I do have to deal with a few things that they don't, but there aren't many of them.
Are you seriously proposing that our society doesn't give white men more opportunities than minorities and women? Or that they don't have to deal with shit that white men don't have to?
(If so I'd recommend the podcasts Reveal, Scene on Radio, Us and Them, and so forth.)
Here's a recent Reveal episode where they discuss how banks won't lend to black folks:
https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks...
Of course unequal lending and housing opportunities go back in time forever, with huge consequences for, e.g., the wealth that white vs. black families have been able to accumulate over time, since houses are most folks' biggest assets.
Here's a recent Scene on Radio episode where they discuss the long history of federal programs that benefit whites and exclude blacks, etc. Of course you should really listen to the rest of the series for context:
https://documentarystudies.duke.edu/podcasts/white-affirmati...
This is actually really interesting stuff to learn about, if you'd care to.
The nature of privilege is that some people have more of it in certain contexts, and other people have more of it in other contexts. That doesn't mean that the playing field is equal.
And, uh, if I were a black or native man, I'd have all the problems you listed, and a whole bunch more.
Since you're placing so much emphasis on prison, as worse then any of the things I listed, it sounds like you you should agree that white privilege is a huge problem.
But let's take a step back. Since I'm a white man, my odds of being incarcerated are ~1/100. Small chance of that. If I were a woman, however, I'd be dealing with the problems I listed in my previous post all the time.
Read my posts. Nowhere did I ignore that inequalities in both directions exist. What I take issue with is people blowing the inequalities that disadvantage white men out of proportion. Almost all the gender-particular problems they have, men of color have, with a second and third helping.
You claim to take issue with people blowing inequalities out of proportion:
>What I take issue with is people blowing the inequalities that disadvantage white men out of proportion.
And yet that is exactly what you just did, by cherry picking one of the "lesser" problems men face (disproportionate incarceration), ignoring the others (higher probability of getting killed), and then using hyperbole ("all the time") in favor of women:
>Since I'm a white man, my odds of being incarcerated are ~1/100. Small chance of that. If I were a woman, however, I'd be dealing with the problems I listed in my previous post all the time.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Really? I feel the exact opposite. HN is full of articles like this, singling out white men, and claiming they are somehow either toxic or the beneficiaries of privilege.
I detest gender/identity politics, and don't think claims should be leveled against an entire group based on unrelated physical traits. This is the only reason I jump to defend "white men". If an article was posted making the same claims about another race/gender I would mount the same defense. However, those kinds of articles never show up here, because the are more obviously racist.
Would there equally true statement that Asian men earn more than men of any other racial/ethnic category and more than women of any ethnic category be painting Asian men in a “bad light”?
White males are the comparison baseline, but Asians couldn't be used for that because they don't have data for the first decade+.
It also notes a possible reason for the gap: among adults ages 25 and older, 53% of Asians have a bachelor’s degree or more versus only 36% of whites.
[0]: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gende...
They aren't. 2× more is 300% of the base value. Asian men make 117% of what white men make, Asian women make 87% of what white men make (or 106% of what white women make.) So, Asian people earn between 6% and 17% more, not “2× more”, than what white people of the same gender make.
Again, I'm not trying to defend any white men or whatever, however don't you see the clear agenda this journalist is pushing?
Think of it this way. If you flipped a coin a large number of times and 51% of the times it came up heads would you assume the coin was biased or would you suspect that it could just be random variation?
It's a joke to think a CEO is really generating 80x the typical pay of a worker in value.
Studies haven't been able to find any conclusion on HOW value is generated in the first place. They run into so many variables from go, it becomes a complicated mess.
This is basically "divine right" masquerading as quantitative measure. They're smart, yes? So of course they know they provide that much value, say the rubes who never question it.
https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/04/14/statistica...
However, that does not mean companies shouldn't audit pay across race and gender, controlling for job role, level and performance.
Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit performance reviews for inequity.
Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit job role and level and promotion processes for inequity.
Nor does it mean companies shouldn't audit hiring processes for inequity.
Different people experience inequity in different ways. Some people experience it in more than one way. We need systemic solutions to address each of these failure modes.
Even in countries with generous leave policy, this lost time is unrecoverable and has a permanent affect on your career. For example, in Italy the mother is forced to take a year off whether they want to or not. That’s one year less of a promotion or pay raise.
Time is money and time not working is time not earning money. These are real obstacles women face in the workforce that drive down their earning potential. Successful women either choose to not have children, or earn enough to pay someone else to care for their children full time.
tl;dr - Men earn 7% more:
> We find that the entire gender gap is caused by three factors: experience on the platform (learning-by-doing), preferences over where/when to work, and preferences for driving speed.
https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf
Edit - I originally found out about this study from a Freakonomics podcast. These economists are chomping at the bit to get newer data (which will include tips). Their hypothesis is that women's earnings will increase, since women's tips are 10-20% greater than men's. However, they also say tipping increases the supply of drivers, which will serve to decrease utilization rate and thus lower hourly pay.