Yes, I did read it. You misunderstood "my claim". I was not trying to imply that the study in question supports the idea that men make less than women, rather using it to demonstrate that not controlling all the other factors that effect income shows wildly varying results depending on which factors you do try to control and which you let effect it.
>women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.
Right, when you don't control for anything, you see a gap. The gap dissappears when you actually control for those factors. How does that contradict what I said?
>the "8% advantage", and all the differences quoted in this article, clearly do not control for the type of work performed.
Right, I was not suggesting that the pay gap is reversed, I am suggesting it is entirely accounted for by factors other than sexism. That you aren't complaining about men making less than women shows that you already accept that fact, you just only accept it when it is men making less, and discard it when it is women making less. Despite those two scenarios being just a case of controlling for different factors.
Right, when you don't control for anything, you see a gap. The gap dissappears when you actually control for those factors. How does that contradict what I said?
According to the evidence cited in the Wikipedia link, the consensus of MOST researchers is that, even after accounting for every factor that we can account for, there remains a persistent male/female gap.
See, if you just say "the evidence says I am right", while the evidence says the opposite, it is hard to have a reasonable conversation. Rather than cite anecdotes and your perception of how many "researchers" are on your side, how about cite an actual study that controlled for all the factors that can effect income? I posted one, it was even commissioned by the department of labour specifically for policy guidance so they knew how to address the problem that they assumed existed. And yet, it showed there being no gap.
Gah, I had a big reply ready, and I lost it. This will be shorter.
Here is the long and short of it. If you're honest, you can follow the references at the bottom of Wikipedia and read them to come to wind up at studies like http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-279 that found a 7% persistent unexplained gap in the federal workforce. There are a bunch of those you could wind up at.
But I'm not interested in doing that. I'm not an expert. I don't claim to be an expert. I don't want to become one. And if I did become one, I'm not sure anyone on this site wants to watch the resulting debate.
You made a claim. I sanity checked against Wikipedia (which tends to be relatively neutral), found that your view appears to be a minority position, and pointed that out. I also dug up a relevant memory of a factor not related to work history, qualifications, performance or deliberate sexism in the workplace which systemically disadvantages women, and mentioned THAT. I later dug up relevant links.
I don't think that there is much of a point in further conversation. You have shown no openness to considering any possible theories that do not agree with your preconceptions of there not being a difference. (Even when those possibilities are supported both by research and anecdotal experience.) Your past selective quoting of links makes me distrust anything you have to say. You are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of research that you disagree with, even though it obviously exists.
In short the only "conversation" that you seem to want uses only facts that you select, starts with only theories that you agree with, and generally denies the legitimacy of any viewpoint other than your own. There is no point in that sort of "discussion".
Let me summarize where we stand.
1. There are very large wage differences on the whole between men and women.
2. A large part of that can be explained by obvious factors like work history and choice of profession.
3. The fact that women generally do better academically has even caused, in some places and among some populations, there to be a reversal where women make more!
4. If we control for all relevant factors that we know how to control for, the size of any remaining unexplained gap becomes small. In a quick search I've seen careful studies getting results of 0%, 4% and 7%.
5. There is disagreement among experts over how large that unexplained gap is, and what potential causes it might have. Your belief is that there is none. The opinion on Wikipedia indicates that the majority view is that there is a real gap.
6. I have cited specific evidence of a non-sexist cause for a potential gap. That cause is that men are culturally more likely to try to negotiate on salary. I have cited both anecdotal evidence and actual surveys indicating the existence of this difference. Given this, I would expect there to be a persistent gap.
And here I stop. Feel free to reply and malign me any way you want. I've given up on conversation with you.
>If you're honest, you can follow the references at the bottom of Wikipedia and read them to come to wind up at studies like http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-279 that found a 7% persistent unexplained gap in the federal workforce.
A study which did not control for hours worked. This is exactly what I said before, more than once. If you lump all "full time workers" together, of course it will look skewed. Because men work more hours than women.
>I sanity checked against Wikipedia (which tends to be relatively neutral), found that your view appears to be a minority position, and pointed that out.
An abundance of ignorance does not make the facts change. Lots of incorrect ideas are believed by a majority, especially when lobbying groups spend lots of time, effort and money publicizing them.
>You have shown no openness to considering any possible theories that do not agree with your preconceptions of there not being a difference
That is simply lying, how do you reconcile that with your idea that you are trying to engage in an honest conversation? I have already spent many hours studying the subject, I have considered the possibility quite extensively, and used to be one of the majority of people who mistakenly believe there is such a gap. Being open to considering does not mean "ignore facts and change your mind cause I said so". As I said, I am very interested in seeing any evidence of such a gap. But in all my research, I have never found a single study that controls for all other factors, and still find a gap of statistical significance. And in response, I consistently get dishonest rhetoric like yours, pointing me at studies which do not control for all other factors.
>women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.
Right, when you don't control for anything, you see a gap. The gap dissappears when you actually control for those factors. How does that contradict what I said?
>the "8% advantage", and all the differences quoted in this article, clearly do not control for the type of work performed.
Right, I was not suggesting that the pay gap is reversed, I am suggesting it is entirely accounted for by factors other than sexism. That you aren't complaining about men making less than women shows that you already accept that fact, you just only accept it when it is men making less, and discard it when it is women making less. Despite those two scenarios being just a case of controlling for different factors.