In two of the most gender neutral countries in the world, the genders are segregated in the career CHOICES they make, 10% of the engineers in Norway and Sweden are women and the exact opposite ratio exists in nursing. Choice is not discrimination.
You are not answering the issue raised, nothing in your response actually addresses what I said, so please try again. Whether it is 22% or 5% isn't relevant, the fact remains that there is a wage gap that cannot be accounted for by ANY of the research done, even the report you cited admits this so by your own admission you have to accept that there is a discrepancy that cannot (as yet) be explained, now some would say that a small percentage difference doesn't matter, to them I ask would they accept that percentage being removed from their wages for no other reason than their gender? Occupational Segregation is also something that needs to be considered and looked into, to simple say that it cannot be proven and as such is irrelevant only reminds me of the following "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
You're making the claim that 5% is being removed from their wages for no other reason than their gender yet you have no evidence, you have no proof that this is discrimination. Women make 22% less than men, yet all but 5% of the 22% can be explained by choice, not discrimination. Choice is not discrimination. It is relevant whether it's 5% or 22%. 5% is over 4 times less than 22% and yet Feminists and Liberals/Progressives/Democrats continue to claim women make 22% less than men and this is because of gender discrimination, yet they make this claim in almost the complete abscence of proof, in almost the complete abscence of evidence. Yes there is a 5% discrepancy but there's no proof the discrepancy is the result of discrimination.
Neither is there any proof it is not due to discrimination, all you are doing is trying to assert that in the absence of evidence there is nothing to look for and for that you need reminding that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" and again I have never stated that choice is discrimination so why you feel the need to keep repeating it is beyond me. Nope, it is not relevant .. what is relevant is that there is a percentage difference that cannot be accounted for in ANY research done, even the report you cited states this, and so the question remains would you accept a percentage removed from your income for no reason or would you attempt to find the reason and of that reason was due to gender would you accept it? Neither is there any proof that it is not due to discrimination .. remember "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
....and that evidence is most likely more choices that just can't be quantified..."the best predictor of the future is the past"
Then we disagree, for in my opinion the most likely reason is purely due to gender discrimination which certainly was an issue in the past and as your quote states "the best predictor of the future is the past"
17% of the 22% wage gap feminists claim is all the result of discrimination can be explained by choice. Since 17% can be explained by choice, it's likely the remaining 5% is going to be explained by choice...the best predictor of the future is the past.
Not only are feminists promoting a lie in the complete abscence of evidence this time, they're promoting a lie in the presence of contradictory evidence............
What they're crying for is "affirmative action", not actual equality based on merit It's similar to how some radical feminists claim that "50% of all elected officials should be women", but this is absurd and doesn't take into account the fact that women demographically are less likely to be interested in running for office. The same feminists aren't claiming that "50% of all registered nurses should be male" despite the fact that only 10% are male. Even with all discrimination eliminated there would still be a gender gap in certain professions due to natural behavioral differences within the sexes - again this feminist idea is based on the outdated Marxist idea that all differences in behavior between sexes, etc is the result of social "indoctrination", when science proves this false, as men and women have completely different brain structures and differences in behavior are seen as early as infancy. The only way to accomplish what they want would be affirmative action, as in favoring less qualified females over more qualified males just to get the "results" equal.
of course it is a bare faced lie - have you ever seen a dual wage rate advertised? Never,it doesn't happen and it's funny how the far left supports this, like all of a sudden they stick up for the female CEO who supposedly earns less , like WTF, what's wrong with these people?
Basically this is the wage gap: A woman chooses to study fine arts at university and therefore makes less than a man who chooses to study chemistry at university, and it's men's fault that the women choosing to study fine arts makes less than the man who chooses to study chemistry-makes sense right??? As an egalitarian, I believe women should be equally accountable for the consequences of their choices as men. As an egalitarian, I believe this is equality...
As usual the normal suspects ignore the very research they cite, where it states that when taking into account ALL factors there is still an ~5% wage gap, instead they focus on an argument that few make .. the argument that un-like professions should be paid the same and that is absurd. I would like to ask these people would they accept 5% taken from their wages for no reason? wait now for the numerous attempts to derail the question with pointless comments.
Please provide your data for that. As already posted on here by a anti-feminsts wage gap denier, there is an ~5% wage gap, that cannot be accounted for, when ALL factors are taken into account. - http://www.consad.com/content/report...l Report.pdf
I'm "anti" any supremacist hate movement including the KKK and feminists and there's no evidence to suggest the 5% gap is the result of discrimination,which you are implying here. Most likely the remaining 5% gap is the result of more choice like the other 17% of the 22% and not discrimination. The 5% gap just can't be quantified yet. The study for the United States department of labor does not say that "all factors are taken into account" it says it has taken all the factors that can be quantified into account. The United States Department of Labor States: "Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers." Choice is not Discrimination.
So by your logic ALL feminists are a supremacist hate movement, yet again you show your fallacy of generalization. There is also no evidence to suggest the 5% gap is not the result of discrimination, which you are implying here. Speculation with no facts. Do you know what "may be" means? The fact of the matter is that you, or this report CANNOT say why there is a 5% wage gap.
Properties of scientific inquiry Scientific knowledge is closely tied to empirical findings, and can remain subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be considered final, since new problematic evidence might be discovered. If such evidence is found, a new theory may be proposed, or (more commonly) it is found that modifications to the previous theory are sufficient to explain the new evidence. The strength of a theory can be argued to be related to how long it has persisted without major alteration to its core principles. Theories can also subject to subsumption by other theories. For example, thousands of years of scientific observations of the planets were explained almost perfectly by Newton's laws. However, these laws were then determined to be special cases of a more general theory (relativity), which explained both the (previously unexplained) exceptions to Newton's laws and predicting and explaining other observations such as the deflection of light by gravity. Thus, in certain cases independent, unconnected, scientific observations can be connected to each other, unified by principles of increasing explanatory power.[45] Since new theories might be more comprehensive than what preceded them, and thus be able to explain more than previous ones, successor theories might be able to meet a higher standard by explaining a larger body of observations than their predecessors.[45] For example, the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, how species adapt to their environments, and many other patterns observed in the natural world;[46][47] its most recent major modification was unification with genetics to form the modern evolutionary synthesis. In subsequent modifications, it has also subsumed aspects of many other fields such as biochemistry and molecular biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Scientific Papers use language like, "May," because no theory is ever final. Even a theory such as evolution,which has been proven to be true over and over again is not final. With new developments such as the emergence of Molecular Biology the theory of evolution has been modified and the, "theory," of evolution is likely to be modified again and again as other developments arise, henceforth language like, "may".
How is the strength of theory that the wage gap is not due to discrimination? Ergo by your own logic, the possibility that the ~5% wage gap is as likely to be due to gender discrimination as it is for anything else and CANNOT be simply dismissed as you are trying to do.
Here's a dumbed down synopsis of the Study for the U.S. department of labor that may be more accessible to the average person... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-on-the-wage-gap-gets-a-new-pinocchio-rating/
Don't know if this has been shared yet, but it explains the gender pay gap very well. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow
""""Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.""" Choice..."""""research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits"""" Choice, research indicates the remaining 5% that consad can't quantify is choice Choice is not discrimination
Really, bring on the research that shows the above please, your word on the matter is more than suspect, furthermore even you comments above still cannot state with any degree of certainty what causes that 5% gap, all you have done is indulge in speculation. There is nothing that states that-that 5% gap is not down to discrimination ergo I can say that it is, just as you can say it isn't, you have no more evidence that it isn't than I have that it is, you just choose to believe it isn't, I choose to believe it is.
OK..here are 5 studies on fringe benefits and gender: Even, W.E. & Macpherson, D.A. (1990) The gender gap in pensions and wages. Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(2):259-265. Lowen, A. & Sicilian, P. (200 “Family-friendly” fringe benefits and the gender wage gap. Journal of Labor Research. Online publication date: March 12, 2008. The analysis of descriptive statistics indicates that women receive more “family-friendly” fringe benefits than men receive. Further, the results from the regression analysis indicate that receiving “family-friendly” fringe benefits is statistically significantly and positively associated with the size of the gender wage gap. With the exception of parental leave, the individual types of fringe benefits are also positively related to the gap. These results are contrary to the theory that compensating wage differentials shift the costs of providing fringe benefits to the workers who receive them. Rhine, S. L.W. (1987, December) The determinants of fringe benefits: Additional evidence. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 54(4):790-799. The results from the analysis of all fringe benefits (R2=0.39) indicated that the value of the benefits provided to workers was statistically significantly (p<0.10) related to the worker's educational attainment, age, female gender, marginal tax rate, full-time work status, working in a white collar occupation, and working in the services sector. Most notably, the value estimated for the coefficient of the indicator variable for gender was -0.852, which means that women receive benefits with 42.7% (=e-0.852) of the value of the benefits received by men with the same characteristics. Rhine recognizes that this estimate is unusually large in comparison to estimates from previous research, and posits that the indicator variable for gender is capturing effects on receiving benefits from important omitted variables, such as job tenure and experience. Solberg, E. & Laughlin, T. (1995, July) The gender pay gap, fringe benefits, and occupational crowding. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4):692-708. Solberg and Laughlin concluded that “any measure of earnings that excludes fringe benefits may produce misleading results as to the existence magnitude, consequence, and source of market discrimination.” They found that the average wage rate of females was only 87.4% of the average wage rate of males; whereas, when earnings were measured by their index of total compensation, the average value of the index for females was 96.4% of the average value for males. In the regression analysis, when only the logarithm of the hourly wage rate was used as the measure of earnings, the estimated value of the coefficient for gender was statistically significant for six of the seven occupational categories. In contrast, when the index of total compensation was used as the earnings measure, the estimated coefficient value was statistically significant in only one occupational category. Further, in the regression analysis relating to workers in total, the values estimated for the gender coefficient were statistically significant for both measures of earnings. They interpret these results as clear evidence that occupational segregation is the primary determinant of the gender wage gap. They found scant evidence that the gap is attributable to discrimination based on the tastes of employers. Finally, they found that the effect of education on earnings operates primarily through its influence on occupational assignment. Olson, C. (2002) Do workers accept lower wages in exchange for health benefits? Journal of Labor Economics, 20(2):91-114. Why the 5% can’t be quantified. The limitations of multivariate regression Analysis: - - - Updated - - - Why the 5% can’t be quantified. The limitations of multivariate regression Analysis: To evaluate whether reduced wages are accepted by married female workers in exchange for health insurance coverage, Olson initially analyzes the regression model: iiiiXWOWNHIW,1210lnεβββ+++= where i denotes an individual, Wi is the hourly wage, WOWNHIi is an indicator variable for having health insurance coverage, and Xi is a vector of observable characteristics. He explains, however, that Wi and WOWNHIi may be mutually affected by some unobserved variables, that the effects of those variables may more than offset the posited tradeoff between wages and health insurance coverage, and that, if the observed data involve these conditions, the value estimated for β1 will be biased upward so greatly that it is positive and hence erroneously indicates that, for individual workers, health insurance coverage and wages are positively correlated. The same characteristics (e.g., skill, dedication, experience, tenure) that increase a worker's wage also increase the probability that the worker is offered employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. In other words, dependant variables like health insurance coverage and wages correlate with each when you put them into the model therefore they can’t quantify the percent of the wage gap that can be explained by fringe benefits (more choice) because of the limitations of multivariate regression analysis. However, even with these limitations estimates indicate that women with health insurance coverage from their own employers accept wages that are about 20% lower than the wages that they would have received on a job without health insurance benefits
