News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google staff walk out over women's treatment by astura on Thursday November 01, 2018 @02:50PM (#18357144)
>there is no data to support the wage gap

This is false.

https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap-a...

>it's very unpopular to question it.

Also false, it's very popular (and almost cliché) to dismiss it.

>Christina Hoff Summers... has paid a huge price by actually investigating these issues.

And what price would that be? She seems extremely successful.

http://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/

Re:Google staff walk out over women's treatment by malvosenior on Thursday November 01, 2018 @03:07PM (#18357328)
From your link:

"$3.27 less per hour than men. The median hourly wage is $15.67 for women and $18.94 for men.

The gender wage gap is a measure of what women are paid relative to men. It is commonly calculated by dividing women’s wages by men’s wages, and this ratio is often expressed as a percent, or in dollar terms. This tells us how much a woman is paid for each dollar paid to a man. This gender pay ratio is often measured for year-round, full-time workers and compares the annual wages (of hourly wage and salaried workers) of the median (“typical”) man with that of the median (“typical”) woman; measured this way, the current gender pay ratio is 0.796, or, expressed as a percent, it is 79.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2016). In other words, for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes about 80 cents."

It's meaningless to compare different positions pay to each other. "Typical" men vs "typical" women doesn't tell us anything about potential discrimination.

Re:Google staff walk out over women's treatment by astura on Thursday November 01, 2018 @03:17PM (#18357430)
Oh, FFS, c'mon.

There's over 12,800 words in the article and 67 citations. It includes sections such as "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the gender wage gap?", "How do education and job and occupational characteristics affect the gender wage gap?", "Does a woman’s race, age, or pay level affect the gender gap she experiences?", and "What role do 'unobservables' like discrimination and productivity play in the wage gap?" yet you choose to ignore all of it and argue against something from the introduction that's expanded upon further down.

You're arguing on bad faith here.

Re:Google staff walk out over women's treatment by malvosenior on Thursday November 01, 2018 @03:21PM (#18357462)
It's an argument against adjusted wage gap calculations or comparing salaries in the same roles. I fundamentally object to the very premise.

> You're arguing on bad faith here.

No, I just disagree with you.

[dead]
Re:Google staff walk out over women's treatment by malvosenior on Thursday November 01, 2018 @04:36PM (#18358171)
How am I arguing in bad faith? He responded to my comment with link to a far left think tank that uses an alternate definition of wage gap than what were talking about.

> "Women earn less than men at every wage level"

It's utterly useless to compare wage levels across different roles. I read the article, I strongly disagree with it.

Do you really think comparing the pay of people in different roles is useful? It's apples and oranges. I don't expect a nurse and an engineer to make the same amount of money. This is my argument and it's not in bad faith.

Re:Google staff walk out over women's treatment by orf on Thursday November 01, 2018 @05:09PM (#18358466)
No, he responded with a 12,000 word article with over 60 references. Your reply was nitpicking a single thing that you feel is something important. Its not, the discussion is wider and deeper than that. By the way your point is dealt with in the article itself. The one you definitely read
Re:Google staff walk out over women's treatment by _Tev on Thursday November 01, 2018 @08:28PM (#18359769)
What about citing some arguments from the article, so not everyone has to read 12000 words and wade throuh 60 references. It would be easier for everyone to check the validity of the argument then.

There has not been any counterpoint to original disputing of the citation.