Comments on: Equal Outcomes vs. Equal Treatment

By: Nik Drescher

Nik Drescher — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:39:38 +0000

Just because I like to start stuff:
I guess the workers at the woman’s center do NOT have half a brain.
The risk reason is very true. You do not see many female deep sea welders, smoke jumpers, Alaskan Fisher”people” and such.
Even in the MBA field the women getting the MBAs look at me like i’m crazy when I say “Ya most likely I’ll be sent south of the boarder and the company will not pay for my kidnapping insurance. Then after they treat me like dirt for a few years I will start making really good money.”
It is just because we (men vs women) think of risk differently. I might not “want” to take that risk, but I am perfectly willing to if there is a payoff.

By: Benjamin Seghers

Benjamin Seghers — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:49:22 +0000

Interesting. I've been reading about this a little more. Apparently, the 76% (more precisely, the 76.5%) figure comes 2004 data. Data from 2008, however, shows that the disparity is such that women earn about 80% of males do, not accounting for any differences in occupation and such. But I suppose the 76% looks better when you're trying to make a point... As for the real disparity (i.e. same work, effort, etc.), that one is a little confusing. If women were being paid less, classical economic theory would say employers would employ the cheaper labor (women) and an equilibrium would be reached such that no (real) gap would exist between men and women. That hasn't occurred. The NYT ran a story about a study (you can read it here) that showed that customers prefer employees who are white males over white females (and black males). So if employers realized white males are preferred by customers over white females, they may be willing to pay more for them. If that's true, it would suggest there is discrimination, but it's coming from the customers. (Of course, that would only be applicable to jobs where there are employee-customer interactions.)

By: ProfSwitzer

ProfSwitzer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:22:57 +0000

There are other theories on that 5-10%, but it’s too lengthy to address them here. Discrimination may be a part, or it may be other things that we fail to account for accurately in our data analysis or that are difficult to measure (like the quality of education, for example).

You’re correct in thinking that 100% is silly, but that’s what they do. The Women’s Center cites the 76% statistic and says it is because of discrimination. They want equality. Therefore, I’m left to assume they think that the entire 24% is due to discrimination (or they want their constituency to think that). They aren’t even responsible enough to use the National Organization for Women’s own statistics and research, which conclude by saying something to the effect of “even when education and occupation are accounted for, 1/3 of the difference remains.” That’s a “glass if half empty” way of looking at it — I would rather say 2/3 of the difference disappears. Regardless, their 76% jumps up to 92% when you account for the things any responsible researcher would account for. Yet the Women’s Center here keeps on just using 76%. As I’m sure you can tell, I think that’s very irresponsible.

By: Benjamin Seghers

Benjamin Seghers — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:27:13 +0000

Statistics can be dangerous. For example, I often hear about the statistics about women getting paid less than men. But the statistics alone aren’t enough. It’s important to know why it is as such, and that’s often left out. I think you clarify it quite well. Clearly, the 5-10% issue should be seriously addressed. But the idea of 100% regardless of circumstance is pretty silly. For example, how would we even implement that, from a practical point of view?