Maybe you should get down off the pedastle you've built for yourself.
She made a fair point, Disco. What is your motivation in this discussion? Are you looking for the truth? Or something that aligns with your agenda? The latter being rife with the potential for confirmation bias.
Or did she just make an assumption that whatever study I come back with will not be reflective of reality because of my personal stance on the issues?
All studies support one line of argumentation or another. The fact that studies support an argument has no bearing whether or not those studies are reflective of reality.
You're using the term "studies" wrong. Either you meant, op-ed articles interpreting studies or you do not understanding how studies are conducted. A study starts off with a hypothesis; it's called the null hypothesis. Any study worth its salt - or is an actual STUDY - starts off with this default position. The AIM of the study is to see whether the null hypothesis is upheld, meaning no effect. Or whether the null hypothesis is disproven, meaning statistical significance (as it's quantitative data).
A study that is starting off with a bias, will be rejected, at best, or laughed and mocked at worst.
PS - when we say study, it infers research studies. Like those done on National surveys, or printed in peer-reviewed journals, etc.
The methods by which those studies are conducted determine whether the results are reflective of reality.
Correct! On both fronts, the statement itself, and your use of the word "studies".
My stance on the issues has no bearing on the quality of the methodology studies use to arrive at their conclusions.
Correct, again! Good job!
To demonstrate that the situation is not as dire as many would like to make it seem. Especially in the west.
This is your agenda - and you didn't demonstrate that at all. @Randomnity did what you were supposed to do, critically evaluate the SOURCE(S) used to reach conclusions in the op-ed pieces. And she pointed out how the op-ed pieces misinterpreted the data from the studies; therefore nullifying the validity of those articles.
Qre:us - Are you looking for the truth?
Disco - Aren't we all?
^ statement of yours, that you are looking for the truth, is negated by V
The only reason anyone would post a study is to support their points.
The authors conclude that when correcting for other explainable factors, women make 91.67% what a man makes.
They also establish that only one component of this "unexplained" 8.33% pay gap is workplace discrimination.
One of the other factors is the impact of children (as is discussed in the middle of the 4th image I posted).
When I said study, I meant study.
This is really very helpful! Thank you!
Follow along, shall we?
1. 41% of the measured effect is unexplained by the controlled variables
2. The unexplained thus, can very well include, the impact of labor market discrimination along with inability to measure (thus factor): productivity levels and other areas of the job which cannot be accounted for by wage (can you guess what some of those may be? Health Insurance, Pension package, flexible hours, risk (physical/mental), paid vacation, paid leaves (e.g., maternity leaves), etc, etc.
3. So, the unexplained factors, which account for 41% can very well be labor market discrimination - we do not know...as...it's....UNEXPLAINED. The authors actually hedge that it very well could be, along with productivity levels and non-wage factors of a job.
2. Which means, the raw (actual) wage ratio is 80%
3. When adjusted, meaning variables are controlled for, such as industry, occupation, and union status, THEN ONLY does it rise to 91%, and even the authors point out that the adjusted ratio has limitations as when controlling for those factors (industry, occupation, and union status), which, as you said, you could be controlling for workplace discrimination. (!!!)
Meaning, your 91% ratio, is derived from controlling for variables that can very well be capturing discrimination. Plus, there's 41% of the overall raw effect (80% wage ratio) which is unaccounted for, which can very well due to discrimination.
On the other point: impact of children -
Here's an article, from a Sociologist tackling the myth of women "choosing" to leave their career.
(It also tackles, in part, one of my original point
Thank you for providing us with a study that explicitly states that the actual wage ratio is 80% in favour of men, and that once controlled for confounding factors, it rises to 91%, but that those VERY confounding factors can very well be influenced by gender discrimination.
Do you think an 80% wage ratio is not something to be concerned about?
Didn't get to read the data yet, but let's try not to antagonize anyone, please.
A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '
Nobody ever said that flat-out discrimination was the only factor involved. Inequalities deriving from things like child care (influenced by biology, company maternity leaves, and social pressure) are still inequalities. You're arguing a straw man, and even there you fall flat, since even your 92% figure is still inequality.
I do think it's funny that you use a (terrible) article to argue your straw man for you instead of bothering to do it yourself. Where's the thrill of the fight? Although I guess fighting an already-lost fight (due to being factually wrong) isn't that thrilling.