In related news, the sky is blue and the water is wet. I honestly doubt anyone seriously believes in the pay gap hogwash, unless they are very conveniently pushing an agenda that is set to capitalize on this.
I think it is easy to dismiss everything as "choices". But why are people taking different paths? Did they have the same opportunities? Was the environment welcoming for both?
The 2017 top 500 CEO ranking included more female chiefs than any previous list since the first Fortune 500 ran in 1955. They were 6.4% -- 32 out of 500.
Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot -- if we search fruitlessly for robust evidence of discrimination, why assume anything is wrong?
Assume for a moment that we investigate and find that people do indeed have the same opportunities and the environment is equally welcoming. Would that be it, case closed?
Maybe, yes. But we don't have to even ask ourselves that. I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence and non-anecdotal evidence to argue that men and women don't have the same opportunities.
Sometimes when you just accidentally find out a male coworker is making way more than you (for lower quality work even), then you don't have to search very far. For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted.
Sometimes when you just accidentally find out a male coworker is making way more than you (for lower quality work even), then you don't have to search very far.
This is not the smoking gun it appears to be. Men also encounter male coworkers with the same job, who do worse work and make more money than them.
For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted.
But what do we do when the research suggests that discrimination is not a major driver of macro-trends in men's and women's career outcomes?
(Any research that showed there was no discrimination would of course be suspect, because there are legitimate discrimination cases prosecuted each and every year.)
Right, but my point is that if you have actively experienced discrimation, you're less likely to judge the research as unwarranted. You can argue with my off-the-cuff example, but as you mentioned there are many documented cases of discrimination that are hard to argue with.
Right, but my point is that if you have actively experienced discrimination, you're less likely to judge the research as unwarranted.
The research is warranted, but seems not to support the idea that discrimination is a major driver in the difference in career outcomes or lifetime earnings.
And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs.
Another thing that the author (wisely) didn't mention is that most women choose to have children between the ages of 25-35, an age range that defines whether you're going to become just a good employee or an agressive career hunter.
There are just as many women as men in all social classes and income groups, so I think we can rule that one out.
There are so many documented cases of inequal pay... I don't know where to begin.
The article isn't bunk though - it does point out cases that appear to be pay inequality but are actually functions of behavior; such as men preferring "things" and women preferring "people" - where the latter does not scale.
But that doesn't make this article right, either. Women are often taken advantage of in payscale - largely because the less agreeable men can take advantage of the typically more agreeable women. We see this in the news, and I have friends who have been through it.
I think a better argument to make would be that pay inequality is not so cut & dry. Sometimes it's really just the result of side effects (like women uber drivers earning less), and other times it is discriminatory (like hollywood).
Still, I was surprised (more disappointed) to see such an accredited author making such a poor argument in an article. Needed some more time in the thinking oven if you ask me.
18 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 47.0 ms ] threadWell, only women (so half the country)
The 2017 top 500 CEO ranking included more female chiefs than any previous list since the first Fortune 500 ran in 1955. They were 6.4% -- 32 out of 500.
Assume for a moment that we investigate and find that people do indeed have the same opportunities and the environment is equally welcoming. Would that be it, case closed?
This is not the smoking gun it appears to be. Men also encounter male coworkers with the same job, who do worse work and make more money than them.
For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted.
But what do we do when the research suggests that discrimination is not a major driver of macro-trends in men's and women's career outcomes?
(Any research that showed there was no discrimination would of course be suspect, because there are legitimate discrimination cases prosecuted each and every year.)
The 2-6% difference in wages (depending on which study you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...) can still be very significant.
And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs.
The research is warranted, but seems not to support the idea that discrimination is a major driver in the difference in career outcomes or lifetime earnings.
And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs.
Why should we do that?
There are just as many women as men in all social classes and income groups, so I think we can rule that one out.
The article isn't bunk though - it does point out cases that appear to be pay inequality but are actually functions of behavior; such as men preferring "things" and women preferring "people" - where the latter does not scale.
But that doesn't make this article right, either. Women are often taken advantage of in payscale - largely because the less agreeable men can take advantage of the typically more agreeable women. We see this in the news, and I have friends who have been through it.
I think a better argument to make would be that pay inequality is not so cut & dry. Sometimes it's really just the result of side effects (like women uber drivers earning less), and other times it is discriminatory (like hollywood).
Still, I was surprised (more disappointed) to see such an accredited author making such a poor argument in an article. Needed some more time in the thinking oven if you ask me.