Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top

[4th law of robotics]

The fact that the average American working woman earns only about 8o% of what the average American working man earns has been something of a festering sore for at least half the population for several decades. And despite many programs and analyses and hand-wringing and badges and even some legislation, the figure hasn't budged much in the past five years.

But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html?xid=fblike


I found this bit particularly interesting:

He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do.

So in other words back when men were the predominate gender among college grads men earned more. Now that women are the predominate gender among college grads women are earning more. This of course suggests that education, not gender, is the determining factor in wage disparities.

[digonswine]

1. I don't get it--

I understand the information in the Time article but do not get the point, I suppose.

I need to know if women with similar education and positions as the men are earning more, less, or an equivalent wage.

We can't say so and so earns "more" if they are not compared as peers.

[4th law of robotics]

2. Once all relevant variables are accounted for men and women make the same

within the same fields.

The "wage gap" is a myth fueled by bad-statistics and a suspension of disbelief in order to suit an agenda.

This appears to just be looking at peer-groups (so roughly the same age people living in the same city and so on).

[digonswine]

3. How do you know this is true?

I do not know that it is not true, I am just wondering.

[4th law of robotics]

4. Extensive research on the subject

from a variety of sources.

[digonswine]

5. That's not quite good enough-but

I can drop it, as it is not this point that the original article is about.
A (very) quick perusal of a few other articles suggests a five percent disparity.

[4th law of robotics]

6. Sorry, I've just been over that topic so many times

I didn't really care to drudge it up again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

Basically it relies on some really shoddy statistics (ignoring seniority, counting all full time workers the same regardless of hours actually worked, ignoring maternity/sick/other leave, and so on).

The 75 cents on the dollar claim is an outright lie. I've seen people claim 5-2% differences based pretty much on aggressiveness (men are far more likely to demand raises than women). In general though once it drops below 5% that is within the range of mathematical error so not too much can be read in to that.

[digonswine]

7. That's fine-

where is this talked about so much-I hardly see it mentioned here?

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. The American Association of University Women says 5-7%

That could safely be considered the upper boundary of whatever actual gap may exist.

http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf

(see page 15 iirc)

They are happy to attribute this to sexism, without making any effort to quantify behavioral differences such as women's reluctance to negotiate for salary.

[Major Nikon]

18. When you account for benefits, the wage gap pretty much disappears entirely

Women are more likely to pursue jobs that pay better benefits, so if you look at total compensation vs just salary that makes up even more of the difference.

If you consider people who have never been married and never had kids, women make more than men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Yes and no.

For decades, the wage gap popular reporting has been overly simplified; male full time workers make significantly more than female full time workers, without noting that that male full time workers work more hours, have more experience, choose higher paying (and riskier) careers.

When you dig into the data, you find that the actual pay for men and women doing qualitatively and quantitatively the same work is essentially the same.

Now, it appears that in the big cities women full time workers are paid more than men. Unless the workplace behavior of the genders has changed radically, then this is a major change; they earn more despite having less experience and working fewer hours in traditionally female careers.

Cue the "well if the guys would stop being lazy slackers who only play video games 24x7" in 3...2...1

What's intriguing about that argument is how the same person making it can slip into a diatribe about the privilege that being a male member of the patriarchy confers without taking a breath.

[Major Nikon]

20. If the gender gap was as simple as rad-fems pretend it is...

A company could save up to 23% on their labor costs by simply hiring more women.

Obviously this doesn't happen for this reason, which should indicate to those who think about it much that productivity has a big part to play.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. They essentially have.

Labor is a supply and demand thing. The supply of labor has basically doubled as a result of women entering the workforce.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2011/03/04-jobs-greenstone-looney

Three shifts in the employment landscape are largely responsible for the decline in full-time employment. First, men with jobs are less likely to hold full-time jobs. In 1970, 86 percent of jobs held by prime-age male workers were full-time jobs, compared with 81 percent today. Second, between 1970 and today, the share of men without any earnings at all increased from 6 percent to 18 percent. Third, 2.2 percent of these prime-age men now live in institutions—primarily prisons—and no longer appear in most labor-market statistics.

Thus, the pool of full-time workers has shrunk at the same time that the median wages of full-time workers has stagnated. Why is this important? It means that the statistics about the stagnation of wages like those above are based on a comparison of very different groups of workers. Put plainly, the story of the stagnation of wages is based on a comparison of apples to oranges.

When you compare apples to apples by looking on the experience of all men (rather than just the changing group of men able to find full-time work), the stagnation story has a different ending.

The below figure plots the median earnings based on all males aged 25-64, along with the more conventional plot that is based only on those men aged 25-64 that happen to work full-time.

This analysis suggests that earnings have not stagnated but have declined sharply. The median wage of the American male has declined by almost $13,000 after accounting for inflation in the four decades since 1969. This is a reduction of 28 percent!

[4th law of robotics]

11. Actually that just reinforces what I've said

In that age-group you A) don't have men taking off large periods of time for family/health so childless unmarried women are comparable and B) you don't have any lingering effects of institutionalized sexism (no woman in her 20s today was told she couldn't go to college).

So that is the most accurate comparison to make. It doesn't make any sense to compare women who are taking time off to spend with kids to men who are not. Does it?

[4th law of robotics]

13. It concerns me because we've dedicated huge amounts of resources

towards correcting a problem that doesn't exist.

And it's entirely certain that when the situation reverses itself we won't make any changes to how those resources are being spent.

That doesn't lead to equality. That leads to a state of acceptable citizens and sub-citizens.

[4th law of robotics]

15. The problem in this case seems to be educational attaimement

Women are graduating college at a 3:2 ratio compared to men. Granted there are a few more women than men in general but not by that much.

And yet currently all gender based spending on education goes towards benefiting women.

That is the problem we are addressing that doesn't exist: we're putting money towards helping women graduate when they are already graduating at rates far outstripping men. This will lead to a pay gap that benefits women but ultimately hurts everyone because it means that large segment of our population is being ignored, and thus is not working at their maximum potential (meaning a more sluggish economy, lower tax rates, higher rates of crime and discontentment, great social welfare costs, etc).

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. Let's deconstruct this a bit.

Meanwhile, men have been told their entire lives that they'll have an easy run of things, and their career will basically be handed to them with little effort.

Told by whom? The blame for the outcomes rests largely on their shoulders, doesn't it? I suggest that those who yap most loudly about mythical male privilege would be first in line.

In fact, I don't think you have it quite right. The conventional wisdom about this topic is both false and primarily a device used by the grownups to rationalize not educating boys.

The target audience of that message isn't boys, it's teachers, politicians and parents to provide a rationale to educate girls primarily and boys incidentally.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. From a causality standpoint, I don't think the boys are the relevant audience.

The male privilege lectures affect the teachers, politicians, parents, and those who fund scholarship programs more so than the kids.

[4th law of robotics]

34. So men fail to succeed because they're lazy?

When women did not do so well did we put the blame on women for not trying hard enough?

[4th law of robotics]

57. I was never told I would have it easy without going to college

or even with for that matter.

I can't think of anyone who was told that.

There are plenty of boys who, by being pushed in to remedial classes or who face constant disciplinary issues, probably think that they're losers and don't stand a chance no matter what so why bother. But I don't think that's what you're talking about.

If you don't feel that you'll have to apply yourself very hard to achieve the outcome you desire in life, you won't be as motivated to work hard.

That's your theory. Now you must provide evidence to back it.

Your comparison to the days when women didn't do so well (in the workforce and in education) is a different scenario altogether. At that time, the basic role of women in society was to get married and to stay at home taking care of kids. Young women growing up in the roaring 20's weren't expected to go to college or obtain high powered careers at all. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

You just said men are told they don't need to go to college and they'll be just fine. So that's pretty much the same thing according to your assessment.

[Major Nikon]

19. Ah but if you believe in the patriarchy conspiracy theory, the problem does exist

Since women are being constantly held back by the privileged males via the patriarchy, there simply can't be any factors which explain the gender gap other than oppression. We know this to be true because the ONLY difference between men and women is the plumbing. So we're back to the 77% figure and all the sociologists who authored detailed studies on the subject are either males who have a vested interest in perpetuating the patriarchy or they are females who are self-objectifying themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. women were chattel until quite recently.

Property rights and other legal rights (for example voting) for women are recent reforms to an absurdly obvious patriarchal system. Pretending that there is no such thing as male privilege is as ahistorical and rightwing as pretending that racism and white privilege do not exist. Our history and our culture are racist and patriarchal. The reforms that have been taken to address those facts are incomplete.

The men's group here does itself a vast disservice by acting as a forum for right wing nonsense like this.

[4th law of robotics]

29. Believing in the patriarchy isn't a mainstream leftist view

it is the domain of a fringe and radical left that is mostly ignored by sensible people (or mocked).

And don't pretend laments about the Patriarchy are merely referencing past imbalances. It is presented as an ever present and all powerful conspiracy against women that among other things invented and conditioned men to enjoy porn (men normally hate seeing people have sex), convinces all men to be rapists or at the very last pre-rapists, and even ensures that qualified women are paid less for no reason, and apparently waged a war on the moon to keep women in their place.

So . . . yeah. . . you can keep that nonsense to yourself.

/and yes, every single example I mention is something radfems have claimed the patriarchy does. I didn't make those up. I wish I had but I lack the . . . we'll call it creativity to come up with that nonsense.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. It is not a belief it is an historic fact.

This is a patriarchal society going back thousands of years. Modernity has reformed some of the worst abuses, but to flat out deny reality, as you are doing, is rightwing nonsense.

Oh poor put upon you. All those radfems conspiring against you with their mythological patriarchy. Stay on target. The issue is pay inequity.

meanwhile, a progressive demcratic president passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to address the defanging of the Equal Pay Act, both of which are still required to address the pay inequality still demonstrably present in the work force, demonstrable that is, to everyone except the right and the republican party and their supporters, all of whom have their own reality, one based not in reality but in ideological perspective.

[4th law of robotics]

33. You're being disingenuous

You reference the patriarchy and imply it is being used currently to describe historical imbalances.

That is not how it is used currently. Currently it is used as an active conspiracy today by all men against all women.

That is what the term means. Do you believe in this conspiracy?

Oh poor put upon you. All those radfems conspiring against you with their mythological patriarchy. Stay on target. The issue is pay inequity.

Nonsense. You were the one who decided that the patriarchy was a real thing.

meanwhile, a progressive demcratic president passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to address the defanging of the Equal Pay Act, both of which are still required to address the pay inequality still demonstrably present in the work force, demonstrable that is, to everyone except the right and the republican party and their supporters, all of whom have their own reality, one based not in reality but in ideological perspective

Women are paid the same for the same job. The 25% pay gap is a myth or a lie depending on how you view the motives of those who push it. If women are being paid the same as men once all variables are considered what should be done to address this "discrepancy"? Insist they ought to be paid even more . . . the same amount as men? If you and I both do a dollars worth of work and we both get paid a dollar how can that be made more fair?

[Warren Stupidity]

41. "Women are paid the same for the same job."

Only in rightwing world.

[4th law of robotics]

42. No, in reality

to get the 25% less lie they had to ignore differences in hours worked (full time is full time even though men on average worked several hours more per week than women), they had to exclude differences in leave (men take fewer personal days than women) and of course they had to exclude seniority (men on average have more of it).

Do that and you can produce the 75/100 ratio.

But that only proves that people who do less work get paid less. Which is obvious.

For the same amount of work and the same quality there is no difference in pay.

[Major Nikon]

45. So why don't employers heavily favor women, if they can pay them less for the same work?

Have you thought about that?

[Major Nikon]

46. I fully supported both the Fair Pay Act and the Equal Pay Act

Both of these things simply help to level the playing field of those who are seeking redress from gender discrimination. As such it benefits working men just as much as working women. I don't think you're going to find anyone in this group that is against either one of those things. So if you're using those to try and claim anyone here is pushing a right wing agenda, you picked a pretty piss poor example.

[Major Nikon]

44. Calling something you don't agree with "right wing" is intellectual laziness

The obvious problem with your examples, and your warped comparison is that racial discrimination can and does most certainly exist for generations and current laws and societal structures still favor a dominate white society. If you are a female born to a privileged father, you are just as likely to inherit that birthright as a male son. You can't say the same thing about minorities which are quite often never born into privilege. Women also don't have to live with an education system which heavily favors men, unlike minorities. Women and men have always been privileged in different ways. You can't say the same thing about minorities. So bringing up something that most certainly does exist, like white privilege and trying to use that as leverage to give credibility to a "male privilege" argument I also find to be quite intellectually lazy.

Certainly the patriarchal system which existed 100 years ago allowed men more freedom than women, but the parts of that system which favored men have largely if not completely been abolished yet the vestiges of that system that remain mostly benefit women. So the things you mention have no detrimental effect on women today, and furthermore the "patriarchy" as it's defined by rad fems, bears no resemblance to the "patriarchy" as it existed 100 years ago. That's why I was careful to say "patriarchal conspiracy theories" as rad fems define it which leads to all sorts of nonsense like all (or most) PIV sex is rape, "male gaze", objectification, and a number of other nutty concepts. If you think those things are real, more power to you. I don't.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. "the patriarchal system which existed 100 years ago allowed men more freedom than women"

Well at least we are getting somewhere. There was a patriarchal system, that is not some rad-fem conspiracy theory.

"allowed men more freedom than women" - just a little, ya' think?

Until the civil rights era occupational discrimination against women was legal. That is not 100 years ago, it is 50. The failure of the ERA amendment means that absolute legal equality is still not guaranteed.

This is not ancient history, it is our lifetimes. The removal of occupational barriers has been a slow and ongoing process, not only for women but also for people of color, and now for the LGBT community as well. It ain't over. We remain a patriarchal, racist, sexist society.

The gender pay gap absolutely exists. The best any of you can do is argue that factors other than discrimination are causal, that is if you are being honest, even then, outside of rightwing sites, those analysis cannot account for all of the difference.

Denying the fact that gender wage discrimination exists is rightwing nonsense. I'm sorry if that fact upsets you, but it is a fact. Support for equality for all people includes recognition that equality for all people is not a reality in our society. Recognition of the need for continued action to remove discrimination from our institutions, both public and private, is a core Democratic value. The fact that the Men's group appears to be a haven for advocating positions quite opposite from that is troubling, to say the least.

[4th law of robotics]

49. No on has said that men being given more advantages 100 years ago was a rad-fem conspiracy theory

everyone has made clear that the conspiracy is in claiming a shadowy male conspiracy (yes they use those words) exists today and controls everything from hiring to television to interpersonal relationships all in order to keep women down.

That has been made clear so many times that it is impossible for your continued mislabeling to be honest ignorance.

And the wage-gap is not a fact as you like to claim. It is a myth.

What is a fact is that women graduate college at greater rates than men (beyond the 51/49 ratio one might expect). What do you say about that?

[Major Nikon]

50. Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups

This is a perfect example of why I consider your "right wing" label to be intellectually lazy as hell. I have never denied that gender wage discrimination exists, and I have never seen anyone here deny that gender wage discrimination doesn't exist. This is NOT the same thing as claiming the rad-fem patriarchy conspiracy theory exists. Rad-fems believe that because of what they call the "patriarchy" ALL of the gender wage gap is due to discrimination. Can I simply assume that's what you believe? Maybe you do and maybe you don't. Assuming you do and then arguing from that basis is what's known as strawman bullshit. Assuming that I don't believe gender wage discrimination exists is just as much bullshit. These are the pitfalls your ad hominem bullshit gets you into. When you simply assume you know the other side's argument when you obviously don't, fuckups like this one are the result I fully predicted.

Had you actually read and understood any of the competent analyses on the subject, you would know that sociologists use controls for the parts of the gender pay gap they can account. What's left is categorized as unknown causes. The reason they do this is because it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine how much, if any of the gender wage gap is actually due to discrimination. The assumption that all of the unknown causes are due to discrimination is another intellectual fuckup. The most comprehensive studies I've seen put the unknown number in the single digits. When you account for total compensation, rather than just wages, the number gets even smaller. So the very best you can say is that there MAY be a very small portion of the wage gap that is due to discrimination, yet you claim to absolutely know it exists when the most objective experts on the subject don't go that far.

I firmly believe in equal opportunity. In fact, I'm quite passionate about the subject. You evidently believe in intellectually weak and flawed arguments that dictate equal opportunity always translates to equal outcome. I'm just not that naive. I don't get upset at your arguments. In fact, I find them quite entertaining. I feel you're simply parroting out nonsense you happen to believe which is ridiculously simple to debunk and the methods you use to do so are also ridiculously simple to debunk. If your argument was as strong as you evidently think it is, why do you continuously attempt to conflate racism with sexism, even after I've already pointed out the obvious fallacy with it?

I'm sorry if this upsets you, but if you want to continue to get away with arguments that are obviously flawed, you might be happier over at HOF which appears to be your forum of choice on this subject. Just sayin'

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Wtf? It was just pointed out upthread that "the problem" most certainly does exist.

And that you omitted that part of the article from your excerpt. For a very small subset of women, wage discrimination does not exist. For everyone else it is alive and well.

What resources exactly are you talking about? How much is "being spent" and on what?

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. As a man, you are ineligible for most gender based scholarships

As a man, you are not a beneficiary of the money spent on the Women's gender equity funding provided by the Department of Education to schools.

90%+ of primary school teachers are women, so by the time the boys get to high school, they know that education isn't meant for them, so college is dominated by a 3:2 ratio by women.

For "everyone else" the pay gap is at most 5-7%, and even that ignores the effect that unemployment, incarceration, lack of education and willingness to negotiate for salary has on the result.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2011/03/04-jobs-greenstone-looney

I am 50 and equal pay has been the law of the land for my entire life.

[Major Nikon]

54. Another factor is total compensation vs wages

As any employer will tell you, total compensation is what matters, not just wages. I have never seen a wage gap study that takes total compensation into account. Since women are more likely to favor jobs that pay beter benefits over higher pay, once this difference is taken into account, the gender pay gap gets even smaller.

[4th law of robotics]

27. No, no it doesn't

the 75 cents on the dollar claim is a blatant lie. They were only able to find discrepencies in this article that favored men by looking at peer groups. Not by breaking it down any further (are you a 38 year old surgeon? Ok we're lumping you in with a 32 year old temp housewife).

But women *are* graduating at rates of 3:2 compared to men from college.

And as is obvious the resources I am talking about are academic programs geared towards getting women to graduate and go on to college.

[MadrasT]

22. Wait, what? Do you think it exists, or not?

First you wrote that it doesn't exist:

It concerns me because we've dedicated huge amounts of resources towards correcting a problem that doesn't exist.

Then you wrote:

And it's entirely certain that when the situation reverses itself we won't make any changes to how those resources are being spent.

How can a non-existent problem "reverse itself"? If it doesn't exist, how would you know that it reverses? What is reversing? You seem to be saying that "when the situation reverses" some change should be made, and you don't expect that change to be made.

But if there is no problem, what is there to "reverse"?

I can't follow your train of thought here.

[4th law of robotics]

28. I thought it was obvious

the "situation" here being differences in educational attainment.

If hypothetically there were 50% more male college grads than female one would expect men on average to make more. Not so? And of course this wouldn't be proof that those mean ol' employers are discriminating based on gender. But rather that more qualified people for higher level jobs happen to be men. Leading to an imbalance in pay between the genders. That is the US as it was 30+ years ago.

Today that situation *has* reversed itself so there are 50% more female college grads than male. And within the demographic where that trend has hit hardest women are making more (as is to be expected).

And yet we still dedicate the lionshare of gender-based academic assistance towards women.

Can you explain the logic in using national resources to help what is apparently an over-privileged majority when it comes to education while letting the under-privileged minority languish and fail?

[MadrasT]

30. If "we" are providing women with gender based academic assistance, it should stop.

It isn't fair.

(I don't know what "we" are or are not doing, which is why I wrote "if".)

[4th law of robotics]

31. If?

For starters the fact that more boys drop out of highschool than girls (and this has been both significant and consistent for some time) would suggest we aren't treating boys right in primary education. That is unless you believe males are naturally less intelligent and less able to learn.

Of course all gender based scholarships are set aside for women (or nearly all, you may be able to find one or two that were specified for men as a protest).

And then the NSF funds women only initiatives:

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5383
http://www.stemequitypipeline.org/AboutUs/NSFGrant.aspx
http://www07.grants.gov/search/search.do?oppId=50662&mode=VIEW

And the education department:
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/equity/index.html


I ask you to consider what would happen if the situation were reversed (not just your opinion which I appreciate, but theorize what the rest of society would do).

Men are more likely to graduate from high school and college leading to competitive advantages in the real world. To address this congress sets aside money to cover programs to ensure more men get in to particularly high earning fields (STEM) and set aside grants for programs geared towards getting men to graduate and then scholarships to help them go to college. Additionally 80-90% of teachers are male and the bulk of students who drop out, are deemed special needs, or require disciplinary actions are females.

Would this lead to a public outcry or passive acceptance?

[MadrasT]

35. I said "if" because I don't really know what is out there, assistance-wise, for girls vs. boys.

Mostly because:

1) I didn't have to seek scholarship or grant money for college myself
2) I don't have children so I am not worried about how to pay for college for them

It just isn't something I have ever paid attention to.

And I think the education system is failing boys terribly, the statistics I have seen regarding boys vs girls attending and graduating from college make that clear.

I don't like any system that perpetuates favoritism based on gender.

If girls are getting extra help, maybe we need to knock that shit off now.

Boys matter too.

[4th law of robotics]

36. Thank you.

I agree entirely.

And for those who don't care or who want boys to fail, somehow believing it to be a just punishment for what men in the past have done, they should realize this is counterproductive.

A nation that fails to properly utilize one half of it's human potential is a nation that will not be innovative, will not have a growing economy, and ultimately will fail to advance.

So women here may indeed do better relative to males by continuing down this path. But the entire country will do worse relative to those that don't treat males as 2nd class citizens or a nuisance that must be dealt with. Women will end up running a country that isn't worth having. Like Afghanistan but in reverse.

[opiate69]

37. slight derail... pardon the interruption... MadrasT,

just wanted to tell you I appreciate your contribution to this group. Even when you don`t agree, it`s obvious you come here to engage in reasoned dialogue, and not to wag your finger at us. Cheers.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. The myth of the gender wage gap: great company y'all keep.

http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/policies.php
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/the-myth-of-the-gender-wage-gap
http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/john-perazzo/obama-revives-an-old-feminist-myth/

I could go on.

Seriously? This is what this group is about?

[4th law of robotics]

39. The wage gap myth is pushed by some unsavory people as well

(I haven't read your links but I think I'm justified in assuming you're going with guilt by association?).

There are radfems who push the 75cents on the dollar lie who also argue that all men are "pre-rapists" and that all porn is rape.

Are you sure you want to associate with that company?

/when your argument has failed the flail about wildly and maybe you'll get lucky. The wage gap is a myth. The patriarchy as an overarching conspiracy by men against women is a myth. The notion that all men are rapists is a myth. Give up these myths. Come back to reality.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. you keep conflating issues and dragging in 'rad-fems', porn, rape whatever.

stick to the subject. The 'wage-gap myth' meme is right wing tripe.

[4th law of robotics]

43. Weak counter argument

you throw out a bunch of nonsense then accuse others of going off topic.

You use guilt by association as if you felt it was a valid argument then get offended when it is applied to you.

You'll need better stuff if you hope to be anything more than a footnote here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Being wrong isn't a litmus test for being a liberal.

Before accounting for differences in negotiating and benefits, the gap according to the BLS and american association of university women (how's that for a terrible source?) is less than 5-7 percent.

Unmarried childless women make more than unmarried childless men, partly because of their better education.

Equal pay has been the law for 50 years.

All of these strongly indicate that equal work in this country is rewarded with nearly if not absolutely equal pay. The actual gap is so small as to defy measurement - and you can safely bet that AAUW isn't going to publish any reports on the issue ever again because they know it.

[Major Nikon]

53. How about his one...

Here's what the NBER study had to say about the subject...

There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11240.pdf

NBER ranks right up there with Brookings as one of the most well respected think tanks in the nation, if not the world. Krugman is an associate.

Is the NBER now a "right wing" organization?

If your answer is yes, then we don't have much more to talk about. If the answer is no, then the chances are pretty good that your allegation is quite full of shit, yes?

I'll patiently await your answer, which I seriously doubt you'll provide. I'm starting to think your tactics are the same as the other ideologs on this site who make childishly false accusations of misogyny and refuse to answer relevant questions once they have painted themselves into a corner.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. +1 n/t

[craichead65]

58. We had better educational parity in 1920

I found an interesting paper a while back, part of which featured a survey done of the state university systems across the US in the year 1920. Did you know that there were just as many women going to state universities as men in that year? Yup don't believe everything you hear about how we never valued women enough to educate them.

Men only started outnumbering women in college after WWII because so many young men were able to go due to the GI bill. Then we had Korea and Vietnam so the numbers for men stayed higher on through the 70's. Once we ran out of large scale wars by the mid-70's and 80's numbers for men began to fall again. Of course researchers with an agenda ignored the plain facts and attributed the lower numbers of women as discrimination.

[craichead65]

60. Citation

Here's a link to the paper for anyone interested.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/goldin/cgoldin/files/the_homecoming_of_american_college_women_the_reversal_of_the_gender_gap_in_college.pdf

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Fascinating paper. Thanks! n/t

[4th law of robotics]

62. Interesting

I hadn't known that.

Now we're approaching an educational disparity that is heavily skewed towards women and yet I hear not a peep from the usual suspects (in Utah they're trying to address it . . . by getting more women in to college).

[craichead65]

59. Actual wage gap is 5-8%

In 2009 the Dep of Labor commissioned a study to get to the bottom of the gender wage gap question and commissioned a company called Consad to do a study, taking into account all of the relevant factors.

In the end, after correcting for experience, hours worked, education, etc the came down to a gap of 5-8%.

Since 2009 virtually every politician and pundit has pretended that the study does not exist.

Here's a link:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf