Sarah Silverman Fabricates a story about the wage gap.

[RussDill]

That is exactly how they decide women are paid less than men. They also represent that as women literally being paid less for the same job and they need to create government legislation to force companies to pay men and women equally, but of course since the "gap" was never due to pay inequality but rather different choices, this would mean actually having to pay women more money for less work.

If you actually cared to, you could refer to the extensive research on the wage gap that examines the actual pay, and then also the reasons that such a large wage gap exists. They examine things like overtime, work experience, education, industry, type of job, negotiation, number of times jobs are changed, etc. After accounting for all factors, a wage gap still exists.

Did you really think that there is some massive conspiracy that's all explained by overtime hours? Seriously?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If you actually cared to, you could refer to the extensive research on the wage gap that examines the actual pay, and then also the reasons that such a large wage gap exists. They examine things like overtime, work experience, education, industry, type of job, negotiation, number of times jobs are changed, etc. After accounting for all factors, a wage gap still exists.

Did you really think that there is some massive conspiracy that's all explained by overtime hours? Seriously?

Evidence?

In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously—such as that from economists June and Dave O'Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012—nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap cited by Mr. Obama can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. The O'Neills conclude that, "labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

Also from DOL ordered review:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the

wage gap. 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.

...

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.

In principle, more of the raw wage gap could be explained by including some additional

variables within a single comprehensive analysis that considers all of the factors simultaneously;

however, such an analysis is not feasible to conduct with available data bases. Factors, such as

work experience and job tenure, require data that describe the behavior of individual workers

over extended time periods. The longitudinal data bases that contain such information include

too few workers, however, to support adequate analysis of factors like occupation and industry.

Cross-sectional data bases that include enough workers to enable analysis of factors like

occupation and industry do not collect data on individual workers over long enough periods to

support adequate analysis of factors like work experience and job tenure.

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.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf

 

[SezMe]

The "wage gap" claims have to be one of the biggest most dishonest widely repeated meme's around. It's very simple, women can earn an average 30% less than men while this still not being caused by men being paid more for the same job. We know that single childless women under 30 earn more than men, sometimes even 20% more!

Single, childless women who live in cities. I wonder why you left that out. I also wonder why you didn't cite the next sentence:

The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

Classic cherry picking of data. It is a fact that of single men who live on the north side of my street and are proctologists are less handsome than me.

And we know that there are various careers where women earn more than men do for the same job...

Ha, ha, that's funny. Those jobs include:

• models (hot female bods are worth more than men? Who knew?)
• techs who make a whopping $264 annually more than men
• doctors "... with similar experience and education, the gap narrows to 0.8 percent" (a big whoop)
• a category called "Miscellaneous Personal Appearance Worker" (where the only men who work in this occupation are PUAs)
• Human Resource Managers where the article states that women make less than men.

I'd be embarrassed if I used that link to support my argument.

The gap is not in how much women are being paid, it is in how much they are earning on average.

I'm kinda dense. Explain the difference.

 

[Upchurch]

It seems there is never anyone more discriminated against than straight white Christian men.

 

[The Don]

I'm kinda dense. Explain the difference.

I'm not supporting Edx's position or the accuracy of the link but I guess that there could be a case that men are more prepared to work overtime and/or unsociable hours and as a consequence receive overtime and/or hardship payments that women don't.

So we get "paid" the same amount - £10 an hour - but because I'm prepared to work evenings and weekends I "earn" significantly more when my extra hours, time and a half payments and whatnot are taken into account.

The woman earns £10 x 40 = £400 a week for a 40 hour week
I earn £10 x 40 + £10 x 15 + £15 x 15 = £725 for a 70 hour week

Which is not to say that this actually happens or that women have the same opportunities to work those hours.

 

[The Don]

Single, childless women who live in cities. I wonder why you left that out. I also wonder why you didn't cite the next sentence:

Not only that but it's a raw comparison which does not consider whether the work is "like for like":

He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do.

It's likely that the women on average are in a higher class of employment, Being hyperbolic we're comparing female junior executives to male convenience store clerks, no wonder the women earn more on average in this smallish demographic.

 

[theprestige]

Since many companies fire employees who talk about their salaries with co-workers, I'd think it's simply because they can.

That's an interesting practice that I'm completely unfamiliar with in all my years in the US job market. It's never happened to me or to anyone I've ever worked with. It's never been hinted at by any of my employers.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few fringe cases, but you make it sound if not typical, at least relatively common. Do you have evidence?

 

[bpesta22]

That's an interesting practice that I'm completely unfamiliar with in all my years in the US job market. It's never happened to me or to anyone I've ever worked with. It's never been hinted at by any of my employers.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few fringe cases, but you make it sound if not typical, at least relatively common. Do you have evidence?

Firing employees who talk about pay is illegal / an unfair labor practice under the NLRA.

 

[Information Analyst]

Just to get it straight then, for those of us trying to keep up: There's no wage gap?

It's statistical sleight-of-hand for political reasons. Like only banging on about how five times as many women as men are killed by partner or ex-partners, as if it is inherently worse than the fact that men are more than twice as likely to be murdered overall.

 

[Information Analyst]

Since many companies fire employees who talk about their salaries with co-workers, I'd think it's simply because they can.

Wow! Does employment legislation in the US really suck that much that that's a valid cause for dismissal?

ETA: Other posts suggest it isn't.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Wow! Does employment legislation in the US really suck that much that that's a valid cause for dismissal?

ETA: Other posts suggest it isn't.

Yah on that ETA, I've only heard of it but never happening to anyone I know.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I've found:

And yet, gag rules thrive in workplaces across the country. In a report updated this year, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that about half of American employees in all sectors are either explicitly prohibited or strongly discouraged from discussing pay with their coworkers. In the private sector, the number is higher, at 61 percent.

Linky.

 

[The Big Dog]

The OP is faux outrage at Silverman "fabricating" a story about wage disparity. The possibility that she was honestly mistaken is dismissed out of hand. Why? Because she is a "Celebrated champion of women's 'rights.'"

Feminists always lie... apparently.

Well, that was an amazing series of straw men....

 

[Upchurch]

I've found:



Linky.

It's always been more of a social taboo for me.

 

[tyr_13]

It's always been more of a social taboo for me.

It was explicitly forbidden when I worked for Sam's Club (Wal-Mart Stores Inc.).

If it's an unenforceable demand is another matter. Just because something is officially invalid grounds for termination doesn't mean a company won't terminate you for it, won't terminate you for it and claim it was for a different reasons, or won't intimidate employees into following the invalid rule anyway through fear of the earlier two and for making advancement impossible.

 

[Edx]

Single, childless women who live in cities. I wonder why you left that out. I also wonder why you didn't cite the next sentence:

Classic cherry picking of data. It is a fact that of single men who live on the north side of my street and are proctologists are less handsome than me.

It's also referring to those in full time employment. You have a cheek to talk about cherry picking when those that claim the wage gap is down to gender discrimination make no distinctions whatsoever. Their argument is that because there's an average gap this means it HAS to be down to sexism and women being paid less due to their gender. It's why so many people that hear them talk about this assume they MUST be talking about women literally getting paid less for the same exact work, which is absolutely not what that statistic means at all. It's like comparing part time cleaners to 60 hour a week investment bankers and then protesting about how it's a human rights abuse that they aren't paid the same.

If I can find examples where women earn more than men do by the same logic it means men are being discriminated against. If you want to claim that there are other factors involved that contribute to those gaps other than discrimination against men, then you've already admitted that the wage gap folks are lying. There is absolutely no reason for them to use the "77c on the dollar" claim whatsoever, other than to mislead people.

You're arguing I'm somehow being dishonest because I didn't say "in cities", when the people you're defending don't even take into account the number of hours worked, or even the sector, let alone the actual specific job itself. That's because 77c on a dollar sounds more emotive, it wouldn't do to have to start reducing that figure to at best a few % by trying to compare apples to apples. That just doesn't make as good propaganda. As it turns out when you do try and account for every variable you can the wage gap practically disappears and can even go in the other direction in favour of women.

Ha, ha, that's funny. Those jobs include:

• models (hot female bods are worth more than men? Who knew?)
• techs who make a whopping $264 annually more than men
• doctors "... with similar experience and education, the gap narrows to 0.8 percent" (a big whoop)
• a category called "Miscellaneous Personal Appearance Worker" (where the only men who work in this occupation are PUAs)
• Human Resource Managers where the article states that women make less than men.

I'd be embarrassed if I used that link to support my argument.

I didn't provide the links to say women make more than men in every area. I gave it as examples of areas where women earn more than men, even in male dominated sectors/careers like construction where you'd expect the pay discrimination to be most severe. Also, you rather misrepresented the articles I posted as it is, those were not the only jobs where women earn more than men.

I'm kinda dense. Explain the difference.

The wage gap folks will say women are literally being PAID less for the same work, which is why they demand government legislation to force companies to fix the gap of 23% by PAYING women as much as men are paid. But the gap of 23% isn't due to women being paid literally 23% less for every dollar a man makes. Women could be paid 10 times as much as the men in all jobs, but if they work less hours and work jobs that pay less, they can still be EARNING less than the men on average.

 

[Corsair 115]

It is a fact that the wage-gap is real.

It is not, however the "77%" or thereabouts figure commonly cited. Indeed, in some industries and professions, women earn more than men by a considerable margin.

Those jobs include:

• models (hot female bods are worth more than men? Who knew?)
• techs who make a whopping $264 annually more than men
• doctors "... with similar experience and education, the gap narrows to 0.8 percent" (a big whoop)
• a category called "Miscellaneous Personal Appearance Worker" (where the only men who work in this occupation are PUAs)
• Human Resource Managers where the article states that women make less than men.

Uh, I'm not sure why you think that invalidates the argument that there is only a small wage gap, or none at all.

It is an unfair comparison to contrast the typical wages of, say, a professional major league baseball player to that of a receptionist. These are two very different types of work and each industry has its own particular financial environment. Certain industries simply don't pay as well as others, and that's always been the case.

When specific comparisons are made regarding hours worked, experience, industry, and rate of pay, the 'wage gap' either shrinks to minimal levels, disappears entirely, or shifts in favour of women, depending on the particulars.

 

[theprestige]

I've found:



Linky.

Interesting. According to that report (and apparently the cited study as well), it is much more common than I thought. What's weird is that I've worked in the private sector for all but six months of my adult life, and I've never come across the "gag order" practice. According to the article, I should have run into it with at least half my employers.

I wonder how often people actually get fired for it, as Norseman says.

 

[wareyin]

Interesting. According to that report (and apparently the cited study as well), it is much more common than I thought. What's weird is that I've worked in the private sector for all but six months of my adult life, and I've never come across the "gag order" practice. According to the article, I should have run into it with at least half my employers.

I wonder how often people actually get fired for it, as Norseman says.

In my experience, it is commonly an unwritten rule, especially in 'right to work' states where employers don't have to give cause to fire employees. Granted, I am unaware of an instance where someone was actually fired over it, but I rather doubt I would have been made aware that was the reason.

 

[uke2se]

As I understand it, at least in Sweden, the wage gap isn't necessarily about women being payed less for the same work as men, but rather that on average over the whole population, women are payed less than men. This has to do with professions that are regarded as typically "female" (hospital nurse, day care worker etc) are normally low paying ones.