Do you believe the gender gap is real?

[Queen Isuelt]

Lots of chat about the gender pay gap in many workplaces in the country.

So do you believe it is real? Have you seen it or experienced it?

How would you feel if you were paid more or less based solely on gender?

[Del Tachi]

Yes, there is a gender pay gap but its much smaller than we think and is mostly the result of the motherhood penalty. 

[AGA]

Yes, but not in the way it is being framed. The majority of the gender wage gap is due to factors such as different career choices between men and women although a small fraction is due to pay discrimination. Link.

[7,052,770]

There is no "believe" or "disbelieve." Research has been done, and none of us (unless we've done our own peer-reviewed contradictory research) should be doubting the results.

This goes for all subjects, not just the "gender pay gap."

[John Dule]

Yes, but not in the way it is being framed. The majority of the gender wage gap is due to factors such as different career choices between men and womenn although a small fraction is due to pay discrimination. Link.

This ought to be the end of the thread, though since this is Atlas I know it won't be.

[dead0man]

Yes, but not in the way it is being framed. The majority of the gender wage gap is due to factors such as different career choices between men and womenn although a small fraction is due to pay discrimination. Link.

This ought to be the end of the thread, though since this is Atlas I know it won't be.

I think we've done it enough times that even if there are a few "true believers" left, they know enough to keep their heads down.  Though it's been a minute, maybe there are new people?  On the other hand, this thread is on day 4 and nobody has stepped up yet.

[HisGrace]

There's a small one, but the larger one cited by feminists is mostly due to career choices. There's real data on this controlling for a wide variety of factors and I've never seen feminists do anything to attempt to refute it other than just get mad.

[morgankingsley]

I do believe it is there, but I also believe that regardless of if we like to admit it or not we can't really do anything about it

[Grassroots]

Yes, there is a gender pay gap but its much smaller than we think and is mostly the result of the motherhood penalty. 

So basically no.

This.

[538Electoral]

Yes but not much that could be done.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

[John Dule]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

I'd argue that one pretty clearly requires more training and thereby a greater investment of time and money.

[dead0man]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

cybersecurity (generally) requires more brains than English teacher AND they have to keep learning.  You only need to learn how to teach English once.  Bad things will happen to lots of people if the cyber security person fails at his job for one moment.  An English teacher can just be a sh**t teacher and nobody would even notice the difference for years.  Bad cyber security professionals will get fired and not be able to work in cyber security anymore.  Bad teachers just keep teaching.

(oddly, I just had this almost exact same conversation with my sister like 3 weeks ago.  She teaches you see and found out how much the cyber security guy in her district makes...it was more than any principal and she thought that was wrong)

The other side needs to come up with better examples, the last time we did this someone wondered why parking lot attendants get paid more than day care workers.  

There are many reasons why different jobs get paid different wages, very little to none of it has to do with what gender tends to take those jobs no matter how much you all might want there to be.  Dangerous, gross, hard jobs are going to pay more than safe, clean, easy jobs.  My 23 yo Niece gets paid way more than 23 yo son, why?  Because working for the water department is gross, working in N.StLouis is dangerous...that's what my niece does.  My son draws stuff for people on the internet, it's easy and safe.  He makes just enough to keep living in my basement.  But those are exceptions, generally men are more willing to do the dangerous, gross and hard jobs.  Yes, sometimes the cultures that surround those jobs can be misogynistic and we should fight that every time we see it.  It sucks that that scares some women away from some of those jobs and we should do what we can to get rid of those attitudes.

[lfromnj]

The more importance gender gap to talk about with regards to success in life is the variance gap rather than the success gap.  Man generally fail a lot more but also succeed way more. The vast majority of prisoners and homeless people are male but also so are most CEO's.  There probably is a pretty strong variance gap in the population.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

I'd argue that one pretty clearly requires more training and thereby a greater investment of time and money.

That's actually demonstrably not true; I'm saying this as someone who's looked into both careers myself. You can get certified in cybersecurity in like nine months, whereas getting certified as a teacher (in Massachusetts) takes several years. A better argument is dead0man's argument that people in cybersecurity have to spend more energy keeping up with developments in the field after they start doing it.

A better example of what I'm talking about might be the relatively lower pay for doctors in countries (like the former Eastern Bloc) where it's seen as a female profession. But that's something I read in a potentially biased book and I can't cite stats for it off the top of my head, so I don't want to fully commit to using that one.

The other side needs to come up with better examples, the last time we did this someone wondered why parking lot attendants get paid more than day care workers. 

I'm confused. Is that supposed to be a bad example? I don't think of either of those as particularly outre or "skilled" professions, although I can see an argument that being a parking attendant is somewhat riskier.

But those are exceptions, generally men are more willing to do the dangerous, gross and hard jobs.  Yes, sometimes the cultures that surround those jobs can be misogynistic and we should fight that every time we see it.  It sucks that that scares some women away from some of those jobs and we should do what we can to get rid of those attitudes.

This is the sort of thing I think most well-meaning people can agree on, so I'm glad you articulated it.

[John Dule]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

I'd argue that one pretty clearly requires more training and thereby a greater investment of time and money.

That's actually demonstrably not true; I'm saying this as someone who's looked into both careers myself. You can get certified in cybersecurity in like nine months, whereas getting certified as a teacher (in Massachusetts) takes several years. A better argument is dead0man's argument that people in cybersecurity have to spend more energy keeping up with developments in the field after they start doing it.

A better example of what I'm talking about might be the relatively lower pay for doctors in countries (like the former Eastern Bloc) where it's seen as a female profession. But that's something I read in a potentially biased book and I can't cite stats for it off the top of my head, so I don't want to fully commit to using that one.

Who cares about the hoops you need to jump through to get 'certified' by some government agency? That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how long it takes to learn the trade in the first place.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

I'd argue that one pretty clearly requires more training and thereby a greater investment of time and money.

That's actually demonstrably not true; I'm saying this as someone who's looked into both careers myself. You can get certified in cybersecurity in like nine months, whereas getting certified as a teacher (in Massachusetts) takes several years. A better argument is dead0man's argument that people in cybersecurity have to spend more energy keeping up with developments in the field after they start doing it.

A better example of what I'm talking about might be the relatively lower pay for doctors in countries (like the former Eastern Bloc) where it's seen as a female profession. But that's something I read in a potentially biased book and I can't cite stats for it off the top of my head, so I don't want to fully commit to using that one.

Who cares about the hoops you need to jump through to get 'certified' by some government agency? That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how long it takes to learn the trade in the first place.

...yes, so am I. Again, I've looked into both of these careers from a starting point of not having any qualifications for or specialized knowledge about either, which is exactly why I used them as examples. Maybe it's different in California, but in Massachusetts, going into teaching is markedly more time- and energy-intensive than going into cybersecurity or IT.

The more importance gender gap to talk about with regards to success in life is the variance gap rather than the success gap.  Man generally fail a lot more but also succeed way more. The vast majority of prisoners and homeless people are male but also so are most CEO's.  There probably is a pretty strong variance gap in the population.

This is an understudied point, and I think it has some connection to the marriage gap for men, which isn't as much of a factor for women.

[John Dule]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

I'd argue that one pretty clearly requires more training and thereby a greater investment of time and money.

That's actually demonstrably not true; I'm saying this as someone who's looked into both careers myself. You can get certified in cybersecurity in like nine months, whereas getting certified as a teacher (in Massachusetts) takes several years. A better argument is dead0man's argument that people in cybersecurity have to spend more energy keeping up with developments in the field after they start doing it.

A better example of what I'm talking about might be the relatively lower pay for doctors in countries (like the former Eastern Bloc) where it's seen as a female profession. But that's something I read in a potentially biased book and I can't cite stats for it off the top of my head, so I don't want to fully commit to using that one.

Who cares about the hoops you need to jump through to get 'certified' by some government agency? That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how long it takes to learn the trade in the first place.

...yes, so am I. Again, I've looked into both of these careers from a starting point of not having any qualifications for or specialized knowledge about either, which is exactly why I used them as examples. Maybe it's different in California, but in Massachusetts, going into teaching is markedly more time- and energy-intensive than going into cybersecurity or IT.

Okay, I'm really going to need some sources cited on this one. Not that I don't believe you; I just find the premise completely ridiculous. I have not looked into careers in either field, but I've taken both English and CS classes and the two are quite incomparable in terms of difficulty.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

I'd argue that one pretty clearly requires more training and thereby a greater investment of time and money.

That's actually demonstrably not true; I'm saying this as someone who's looked into both careers myself. You can get certified in cybersecurity in like nine months, whereas getting certified as a teacher (in Massachusetts) takes several years. A better argument is dead0man's argument that people in cybersecurity have to spend more energy keeping up with developments in the field after they start doing it.

I was considering responding to this myself... having taken a class in my alma mater's cybersecurity department, I can't say I was particularly intimidated, and you could get a bachelor's degree in it (rather than suffering through an MS or somesuch). That said, I can't speak to the demands of the field itself. Demand, on the other hand, is a different story... Are people begging for English teachers? Cybersecurity on the other hand seems to be a demand of every major firm.

[dead0man]

The other side needs to come up with better examples, the last time we did this someone wondered why parking lot attendants get paid more than day care workers.  

I'm confused. Is that supposed to be a bad example? I don't think of either of those as particularly outre or "skilled" professions, although I can see an argument that being a parking attendant is somewhat riskier.

indeed that's most of it.  Plus you get...something out of working with babies. Sure, sometimes it's a virus but mostly it's the awesomeness of watching a little human grow.  Little kids dream of working with babies when they grow up, nobody ever wants to be parking lot attendant.  Ok, maybe some poor kid that has low goals may dream of being a valet so he can occasionally drive cool cars around a parking lot, but way more people want to work with babies.  I'm in no way discounting the labor and pain involved in working with babies, it's a pain in the ass no doubt (mostly because of the parents and the state regulatory bodies, not because of the actual work), but so is being a parking lot clerk.

But those are exceptions, generally men are more willing to do the dangerous, gross and hard jobs.  Yes, sometimes the cultures that surround those jobs can be misogynistic and we should fight that every time we see it.  It sucks that that scares some women away from some of those jobs and we should do what we can to get rid of those attitudes.

This is the sort of thing I think most well-meaning people can agree on, so I'm glad you articulated it.

it's an important aspect of the issue that often gets ignored or downplayed.

Okay, I'm really going to need some sources cited on this one. Not that I don't believe you; I just find the premise completely ridiculous. I have not looked into careers in either field, but I've taken both English and CS classes and the two are quite incomparable in terms of difficulty.

the field of "cyber security" is crazy broad.  Everything from an intern at radio station to the guy in charge of, say, a Big 10 university's network is in "cyber security".  The pay is from minimum wage to many millions of dollars/yr.  It's certainly an easier field to get into than teaching (because you don't have to pay for college for 4+ years), but the minimum pay is lower too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A better question is why it is that female-dominated careers tend to pay poorly, rather than why it is that women tend to go into less-remunerative careers. There's no ironclad culture-independent reason why, say, an English teacher should be paid less than a cybersecurity guy.

I'd argue that one pretty clearly requires more training and thereby a greater investment of time and money.

That's actually demonstrably not true; I'm saying this as someone who's looked into both careers myself. You can get certified in cybersecurity in like nine months, whereas getting certified as a teacher (in Massachusetts) takes several years. A better argument is dead0man's argument that people in cybersecurity have to spend more energy keeping up with developments in the field after they start doing it.

A better example of what I'm talking about might be the relatively lower pay for doctors in countries (like the former Eastern Bloc) where it's seen as a female profession. But that's something I read in a potentially biased book and I can't cite stats for it off the top of my head, so I don't want to fully commit to using that one.

Who cares about the hoops you need to jump through to get 'certified' by some government agency? That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how long it takes to learn the trade in the first place.

...yes, so am I. Again, I've looked into both of these careers from a starting point of not having any qualifications for or specialized knowledge about either, which is exactly why I used them as examples. Maybe it's different in California, but in Massachusetts, going into teaching is markedly more time- and energy-intensive than going into cybersecurity or IT.

Okay, I'm really going to need some sources cited on this one. Not that I don't believe you; I just find the premise completely ridiculous. I have not looked into careers in either field, but I've taken both English and CS classes and the two are quite incomparable in terms of difficulty.

Sorry to take a while to get back to this.

Requirements to become a K-12 teacher in Massachusetts (bachelor's degree, battery of standardized tests, additional education/training of kinds that can vary somewhat, but usually a master's degree is involved)
Cybersecurity certificate course I looked into (27 credits at a community college, takes about nine months)

Sure, you could double down on the argument (and I might even agree with you!) that this is just how you get government licensure to do these jobs rather than how you actually learn to do them...but the fact remains that, in order to teach in Massachusetts, you need to, well, be licensed to teach in Massachusetts.

[Former President tack50]

Sorry to take a while to get back to this.

Requirements to become a K-12 teacher in Massachusetts (bachelor's degree, battery of standardized tests, additional education/training of kinds that can vary somewhat, but usually a master's degree is involved)
Cybersecurity certificate course I looked into (27 credits at a community college, takes about nine months)

Sure, you could double down on the argument (and I might even agree with you!) that this is just how you get government licensure to do these jobs rather than how you actually learn to do them...but the fact remains that, in order to teach in Massachusetts, you need to, well, be licensed to teach in Massachusetts.

Well, I would argue that in order for anyone to hire you you don't just need said cybersecurity certificate, but also a degree in Computer Science to begin with.

At the end of the day, women do get into less lucrative degrees. The question to why the fields women get into are less lucrative is a whole different question. My answer is similar to lfromnj's in that, quite simply, the careers women choose tend to have a much lower ceiling.

I would argue simply that those careers generally tend to trade earnings potential in exchange for stability.

For what's worth, government employees here are split 56% women to 44% men; and government jobs are the ultimate "stability in exchange for future earnings" jobs (they tend to pay less than comparably skilled jobs in the private sector; however government employees are essencially impossible to fire)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

For what's worth, government employees here are split 56% women to 44% men; and government jobs are the ultimate "stability in exchange for future earnings" jobs (they tend to pay less than comparably skilled jobs in the private sector; however government employees are essencially impossible to fire)

This comports with the government employees I know, most of whom are women who get paid pretty poorly and probably always will but who will be able to retire with full pensions at in some cases shockingly young ages.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Yes, but not in the way it is being framed. The majority of the gender wage gap is due to factors such as different career choices between men and women although a small fraction is due to pay discrimination. Link.

This.

[brucejoel99]

Yes, it's real. However, the size is different based on how you measure it, & what you measure.

First, let's examine the raw figures. In absolute terms, the wage gap is:

1. 20% if we go by median annual income
2. 19% by weekly
3. 12% by hourly

Obviously, much of this raw difference can be explained by occupation, number of hours worked, &/or experience. Women are more likely to work part-time than men, for example. To find the real pay gap, i.e. the pay difference between men & women of similar abilities/experience working the same hours in the same jobs, we can use statistical techniques to control for these.

In fact, there has been several studies that try to do just that.

For example, a study commissioned by the Bush Administration found that, when controlling for the above factors, the pay gap is 4.8% to 7.1%. That is, they found that women are paid about 5-7% less than men who work in the same jobs, for the same hours, & have the same experience/qualifications.

Specifically, variables have been developed to represent career interruption among workers with specific gender, age, and number of children. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

At the other end of the political spectrum are studies commissioned by women's groups, such as AAUW, which found that, after controlling for the pay difference between subjects, the pay gap is 7%. That is, women earn 7% less than men with the same degrees one year after graduating from college.

That is, after we controlled for all the factors included in our analysis that we found to affect earnings, college educated women working full time earned an unexplained 7 percent less than their male peers did one year out of college.

All the evidence, therefore, points to a pay gap of about 5-7% for men & women working under equal circumstances. Whether that's a significant number is a matter of political dispute, of course, but there's simply no denying that it's certainly real.