Unrelated question: Is there a way to see if/when someone has replied to a comment you made? Thanks
From your source:
This analysis looks at the hourly earnings of all full- and part-time workers. It does not make adjustments for job title, status, and etc. but looks at the issue in the aggregate.
Without taking into those things into consideration particular study is useless.
The imbalance is so huge and institutionalized that "race card" and "gender card" is a meaningless attack on an individual.
But it's not a meaningless attack. There are many instances where calling someone out on their attempt to use their race or gender to gain the upper hand is not an attack but a reality. Even in your example the "straight white men" (very specific choice of people) they are trying to use those same cards!
Finally, I mentioned my status as WoC not to get showered with agreements, rather to indicate one of the reasons why I care so much about these issues and notice it in ways maybe not everyone else would. It was important for me to mention that, but I surely wouldn't want it to obscure peoples' responses.
This analysis looks at the hourly earnings of all full- and part-time workers. It does not make adjustments for job title, status, and etc. but looks at the issue in the aggregate.
Without taking into those things into consideration particular study is useless.
A point I've seen brought up in similar discussions previously regarding the wage gap, is that can't it partially be explained by structural biases present in society? If a group of people are either less likely to be chosen for promotion or encouraged to seek jobs which pay less, wouldn't this contribute to creating a wage gap even if wages might be similar if we strictly look at cases where experience, education and title match?
Maybe I'm being too particular, but my problem with this sort of argument is that while it does provide an explanation for a wage gap existing, it still doesn't provide evidence that there is a wage gap. This can have some negative consequences when trying to understand the issue in general and when trying to formulate policy to solve it.
Let's say hypothetically that there was a study that compared earnings while making adjustments for job title, status, etc. and finds there to be no gap in the earnings that men and women make (This study that I linked below essentially says this, but I'm still unsure of this claim until I find more support for it ). However, there exists a large amount of evidence for structural biases that negatively affect women in the workplace. Is there a pay gap in a strict sense? No. Does this mean that gender in the workplace is an issue that should be ignored? Absolutely not. However, instead of saying that women make 77 cents on the dollar and arguing for equal pay, advocates really should focus on structural issues similar to those you mentioned.
I don't know any definite numbers (iirc its closer than 77 cents to the dollar) but in any event, a lot of the wage gap doesn't come from systematic sexism in the workplace from an employer's perspective- meaning the employer intentionally is sexist and pays women less despite having equal or better qualifications than men and/or equal/better work put in. Stigmas affecting women also come in the form of the encouragement to take lower paying jobs- not because they're lower paying, but because they're "traditional female" roles (schoolteacher, nurse, etc.) as opposed to high paying jobs that men are encouraged to take- STEM is probably the most prominent role. Women are more likely to major in humanities due to encouragement, or lower paying business majors- like Marketing as opposed to Finance. That's one reason, among others, for a wage gap.
I don't see where women or others are encouraged to take lower paying jobs/roles. Quite the opposite in fact. However, such a bias is impossible to detect. Does it happen? Probably so. But looking at the facts it shows no disparity between the genders. If a business knew that it could get away with paying women less than an equal male counterpart, wouldn't they exclusively hire women to save money and raise profits?
I don't see where women or others are encouraged to take lower paying jobs/roles. Quite the opposite in fact.
I do agree that active public initiatives are trying to get women into higher paying jobs & roles, but doesn't this also bring up the consideration why such initiatives are necessary? If they're created because women are underrepresented in such roles, what has caused this difference?
If a business knew that it could get away with paying women less than an equal male counterpart, wouldn't they exclusively hire women to save money and raise profits?
I don't think they'd get away with it overtly, no. But if there are differences in perceived performance due to biases, that may affect how careers progress for different individuals and over time create a gap. This, of course is insidious because it's subtle and hard to prove. I personally don't have experience with dealing with these matters, so I sadly can't even provide personal anecdotes (which I recognise aren't hard proof, but may provide indication at times).
You get notified when someone replies to your comment! Your notification icon changes from gray to white, that's how you know if you have new notifications.
Even in your example the "straight white men" (very specific choice of people) they are trying to use those same cards!
It's very important that I communicate this effectively: that was very specific because that very specific group is in possession of power (political and structural) and so they don't have to use any cards: in a macro sense, they win by default (in the context of U.S. and similar societies).
Unrelated question: Is there a way to see if/when someone has replied to a comment you made? Thanks
From your source:
Without taking into those things into consideration particular study is useless.
But it's not a meaningless attack. There are many instances where calling someone out on their attempt to use their race or gender to gain the upper hand is not an attack but a reality. Even in your example the "straight white men" (very specific choice of people) they are trying to use those same cards!
I see what you mean.
A point I've seen brought up in similar discussions previously regarding the wage gap, is that can't it partially be explained by structural biases present in society? If a group of people are either less likely to be chosen for promotion or encouraged to seek jobs which pay less, wouldn't this contribute to creating a wage gap even if wages might be similar if we strictly look at cases where experience, education and title match?
Maybe I'm being too particular, but my problem with this sort of argument is that while it does provide an explanation for a wage gap existing, it still doesn't provide evidence that there is a wage gap. This can have some negative consequences when trying to understand the issue in general and when trying to formulate policy to solve it.
Let's say hypothetically that there was a study that compared earnings while making adjustments for job title, status, etc. and finds there to be no gap in the earnings that men and women make (This study that I linked below essentially says this, but I'm still unsure of this claim until I find more support for it ). However, there exists a large amount of evidence for structural biases that negatively affect women in the workplace. Is there a pay gap in a strict sense? No. Does this mean that gender in the workplace is an issue that should be ignored? Absolutely not. However, instead of saying that women make 77 cents on the dollar and arguing for equal pay, advocates really should focus on structural issues similar to those you mentioned.
I don't know any definite numbers (iirc its closer than 77 cents to the dollar) but in any event, a lot of the wage gap doesn't come from systematic sexism in the workplace from an employer's perspective- meaning the employer intentionally is sexist and pays women less despite having equal or better qualifications than men and/or equal/better work put in. Stigmas affecting women also come in the form of the encouragement to take lower paying jobs- not because they're lower paying, but because they're "traditional female" roles (schoolteacher, nurse, etc.) as opposed to high paying jobs that men are encouraged to take- STEM is probably the most prominent role. Women are more likely to major in humanities due to encouragement, or lower paying business majors- like Marketing as opposed to Finance. That's one reason, among others, for a wage gap.
I don't see where women or others are encouraged to take lower paying jobs/roles. Quite the opposite in fact. However, such a bias is impossible to detect. Does it happen? Probably so. But looking at the facts it shows no disparity between the genders. If a business knew that it could get away with paying women less than an equal male counterpart, wouldn't they exclusively hire women to save money and raise profits?
I do agree that active public initiatives are trying to get women into higher paying jobs & roles, but doesn't this also bring up the consideration why such initiatives are necessary? If they're created because women are underrepresented in such roles, what has caused this difference?
I don't think they'd get away with it overtly, no. But if there are differences in perceived performance due to biases, that may affect how careers progress for different individuals and over time create a gap. This, of course is insidious because it's subtle and hard to prove. I personally don't have experience with dealing with these matters, so I sadly can't even provide personal anecdotes (which I recognise aren't hard proof, but may provide indication at times).
You get notified when someone replies to your comment! Your notification icon changes from gray to white, that's how you know if you have new notifications.
It's very important that I communicate this effectively: that was very specific because that very specific group is in possession of power (political and structural) and so they don't have to use any cards: in a macro sense, they win by default (in the context of U.S. and similar societies).
Thanks for the help! I really appreciate it.
Even if this is so, it doesn't mean that race or gender cards don't exist.