Why Did Republicans Abandon Conservatism?

[UNCatTech]

I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

Women in the labor force: a databook

www.bls.gov

Do you not see this as a function of our society? Where men are traditionally the bread winners while women nurture the children?
Also, you seem to leave out a lot of other variables. Your own link gives lots of information to show why more men are employed,

From your link:
In 2021, women who worked full time in wage and salary jobs had median usual weekly earnings of $912, which represented 83.1 percent of men’s median weekly earnings ($1,097). Among women, earnings were higher for Asians ($1,141) than for Whites ($925), Blacks ($776), and Hispanics ($718). Women-to-men’s earnings ratios were higher for Blacks (94.1 percent) than for Hispanics (87.6 percent), Whites (82.2 percent), and Asians (78.5 percent). (See table 16; note that the comparisons of earnings in this report are on a broad level and do not control for many factors, like occupation, that may be important in explaining earnings differences.)

Women’s median usual weekly earnings vary by educational attainment. In 2021, among female full-time wage and salary workers age 25 and older, those with less than a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $550. Women whose highest degree was a high school diploma had earnings of $698, those with an associate’s degree had earnings of $836, and those with a bachelor’s degree and higher had earnings of $1,272. (See table 17.)

By occupation, median usual weekly earnings of female full-time wage and salary workers in 2021 were the highest for other physicians ($2,283), pharmacists ($2,087), lawyers ($1,912), computer and information systems managers ($1,908), chief executives ($1,904), and nurse practitioners ($1,903). Earnings for men were highest for chief executives ($2,721), other physicians ($2,647), and lawyers ($2,495). (See table 18.)

In 2021, 1.8 percent of women who were paid hourly rates had earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour). Among women ages 16 to 24 who were paid an hourly rate, 4.3 percent had earnings at or below the minimum wage, compared with 1.2 percent of women age 25 and over. (See table 20.)

 

[UNCatTech]

I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

Then you link an article that clearly mentions the wage gap.

 

[UNCatTech]

I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

Women in the labor force: a databook

www.bls.gov

Additionally, my point wasn't that there is or isn't a wage gap, the point is that our society has marginalized women, and they are only, in our lifetime, being treated more equally, so it's easy to believe that they would also be paid less.

 

[superrific]

I think I haven't seen any research that shows a wage gap.

If hiring women saved a company 20%, wouldn't we be seeing companies all over with almost all women?

Yet, men have a higher employment rate than women.

Women in the labor force: a databook

www.bls.gov

Read the fucking link I provided, which refers to a great deal of research. What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously? The world doesn't work according to your suppositions. Here you are, making the long-discredited Becker argument, and you don't even know what that means. You have no understanding of any labor market models that clearly demonstrate the possibility and indeed probability of persistent discrimination in employment markets. And there's data, and you could read it, but instead you prefer to mouth off like Elon Musk's kid. Except at least Elon's kid was directionally correct.

It is so sickening to read this utter tripe, deciding that the world must be just how they want it to be and dismissing all evidence to the contrary. It's not an opinion. It's just indigestion. What you feel deep down in your gut, with common sense, and duh, duh, derp let's accuse all experts of ignorance and celebrate morons whose eyes are glued to a boob tube every night, ingesting and absorbing eagerly the propaganda so easily devised to fool you.

 

[ZenMode]

You can read a full explainer here. You're welcomes.

What is the gender pay gap and is it real?: The complete guide to how women are paid less than men and why it can’t be explained away

Working women are paid less than working men. A large body of research accounts for, diagnoses, and investigates this “gender pay gap.” But this literature often becomes unwieldy for lay readers, and because pay gaps are political topics, ideological agendas often seep quickly into discussions...

www.epi.org

Look in particular (though not exclusively) for this heading:

"Would adjusting the raw gender wage gap to include factors such as education help explain the gap? Maybe it is not as big of a problem as it seems?"

The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions. It doesn't explain where the initial 80 or 83% gap come from. Like I mentioned earlier, the way the pay gap was originally calculated was by taking the total wages earned by each gender and then dividing it by the total full time employees in that gender. You're starting with flawed data from the beginning because it's true that men are more likely to work overtime and more likely to get into higher paying industries.

 

[Centerpiece]

Here's your reference to support the assertions in the article linked. If you want more of a source of reference than the Bureau of Labor statistics... you'd probably find fault in it as well...

 

[ZenMode]

Read the fucking link I provided, which refers to a great deal of research. What the fuck is wrong with you, seriously? The world doesn't work according to your suppositions. Here you are, making the long-discredited Becker argument, and you don't even know what that means. You have no understanding of any labor market models that clearly demonstrate the possibility and indeed probability of persistent discrimination in employment markets. And there's data, and you could read it, but instead you prefer to mouth off like Elon Musk's kid. Except at least Elon's kid was directionally correct.

It is so sickening to read this utter tripe, deciding that the world must be just how they want it to be and dismissing all evidence to the contrary. It's not an opinion. It's just indigestion. What you feel deep down in your gut, with common sense, and duh, duh, derp let's accuse all experts of ignorance and celebrate morons whose eyes are glued to a boob tube every night, ingesting and absorbing eagerly the propaganda so easily devised to fool you.

I read the link. It doesn't show anything, either way. It's not research. It has very sources to support its claims. It's honestly kind of crap.

 

[ZenMode]

Then you link an article that clearly mentions the wage gap.

Like I said previously, there hasn't been anything definitively showing a wage gap exists. The original basis for the gap was inherently flawed and no actual study, not just an article spouting unsupported numbers, has shown a wage gap exists. I'm more than happy to change my views, but starting with the assumption of a wage gap, based on flawed assumptions, isn't the way to do it.

 

[superrific]

The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions.

There are literally more than 60 references listed at the bottom of the page. Most are published studies. Do you ever tire of being utterly wrong?

 

[superrific]

I read the link. It doesn't show anything, either way. It's not research. It has very sources to support its claims. It's honestly kind of crap.

LOL. You didn't read it. 65 references and research papers listed, by my count.

 

[Centerpiece]

The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions. It doesn't explain where the initial 80 or 83% gap come from. Like I mentioned earlier, the way the pay gap was originally calculated was by taking the total wages earned by each gender and then dividing it by the total full time employees in that gender. You're starting with flawed data from the beginning because it's true that men are more likely to work overtime and more likely to get into higher paying industries.

"... almost no reference to support its assertions."
B.S. Of course it does. The article goes to great lengths to do just that. The entire piece examines the evidence surrounding the gender pay gap, both in the literature and through their own data analyses.

But we know you didn't read the entire piece or you wouldn't have said something so ignorant as "The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions." What a stupid and ignorant comment. The article is literally riddled with references and supporting facts.

 

[superrific]

But we know you didn't read the entire piece or you wouldn't have said something so ignorant as "The article says a lot, but with almost no reference to support its assertions." What a stupid and ignorant comment. The article is literally riddled with references and supporting facts.

It's long. I didn't read the whole thing. But anyone with any experience with research knows exactly where to find the references. They are always at the end under the heading "REFERENCES" It's not like law review articles where the sources are put at the bottom of the page in a footnote.

Nobody who has ever read at least two research papers would be unaware of where the references are located. This assclown has never read a single study in his life.

These posters have no idea how much ignorance they project in small details such as this. It's like when Hicox gave himself away asking for drei glaser. There are so many markers these fools have no clue about.

 

[ZenMode]

Here's your reference to support the assertions in the article linked. If you want more of a source of reference than the Bureau of Labor statistics... you'd probably find fault in it as well...

Without having a link there is a 99% chance that this is just based solely on total wages earned, divided by total workers. That doesn't account for any variables which in this case a extremely important.

 

[ZenMode]

LOL. You didn't read it. 65 references and research papers listed, by my count.

They didn't show that within the article. If you reference a statistic, you should have the footnote, or whatever it's called next to the statistic.

 

[superrific]

They didn't show that within the article. If you reference a statistic, you should have the footnote, or whatever it's called next to the statistic.

So now, to save face, you're trying to tell professional policy analysts how to write policy papers and blogs? LOL. LOL. LOL. You fucked up.

BTW, the reason they don't put the statistic next to the reference is that it's a huge expenditure of time and effort to sort out just which data goes with each paper. I know this having written publications myself. But you see, as a law professor, I had tons of unpaid labor -- i.e. the law review staff. I also had unpaid research assistants, or very poorly paid ones (depending on whether they do it for $$ or credit). The EPI and other policy researchers do not have that luxury. Economic policy is not a gravy train.

Plus, in a scientific paper, it's not necessary. Readers who are capable of understanding the references -- that's not you, btw -- can easily find what they want from the paper headings.

 

[superrific]

Without having a link there is a 99% chance that this is just based solely on total wages earned, divided by total workers. That doesn't account for any variables which in this case a extremely important.

Says the guy who knows so little he doesn't even know where to look for references. Hey arrogant Dunning-Kruger poster child, the professionals in this space are way, way, way ahead of you. You apparently think you can do their jobs better than they can. Sure, you don't have a degree, and are completely math-illiterate, and have trouble with reading comprehension, and get all your information from the boob tube, but why let that stop you?

 

[Healing]

This might be the most absurd bosiding hill-to-die-upon I’ve seen in quite a while.

Effectively, the data and analysis is hard for me to read, so my unsubstantiated position is supported?

 

[ZenMode]

LOL. You didn't read it. 65 references and research papers listed, by my count.

I didn't read the whole thing. I'm guessing you didn't either because it talks about important variables. Start reading at "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the gender wage gap?" and you'll find that the biggest factor in lower wages has nothing to do with a nefarious scheme to under pay women. It has to do with choices women make related to life priorities. My wife didn't work for 10 years while she raised our kids. She's a teacher who would spend significant portions of her weekends, before kids, in her classroom getting things ready for the upcoming week. Even after she went back to work, she almost never worked on weekends because she wanted to be home with the kids.

Men, as the article references, are more likely to be available for extra hours. They are more reliable because it's often the woman who stays home with sick kids or decided to work part time due to priorities. Yes, more available and reliable employees are are more likely to a) work more overtime, b) make more money and c) be promoted.

I mean, it's all right there in your article. There's no collusion to underpay women. Men and women are generally different, have different roles and priorities.

So what? People make decisions. We have very smart MALES, who have been offered promotions and turn them down because they want to work their 8-4 job, punch out and go coach their kids flag football team without distractions.

They don't want my job which involves being up, sometimes until 4am, to roll-out, test and troubleshoot firewall changes or involves working sometimes ridiculous hours because you have to train someone in Krakow or Dublin.

 

[superrific]

There’s a reason why the intellectual dark web folks love to debate each other. They get clowned by everyone else.

I don't know why these fools try to argue with me about these issues. I almost always know the topic (or else I wouldn't be talking about it, and if I don't, I admit that), and I always bring receipts.

It's like when people who played some high school basketball think they can beat NBA players. They don't see how much time, prep and work goes into being even the worst NBA player. They just see a guy like Brian Scalabrine struggle to guard Lebron James and figure he has no game at all.



I probably read more policy in a week than these posters have read in their lives. Maybe not at the moment -- it might take me a month or so, but when I was teaching, absolutely.

 

[ZenMode]

I didn't read the whole thing. I'm guessing you didn't either because it talks about important variables. Start reading at "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the gender wage gap?" and you'll find that the biggest factor in lower wages has nothing to do with a nefarious scheme to under pay women. It has to do with choices women make related to life priorities. My wife didn't work for 10 years while she raised our kids. She's a teacher who would spend significant portions of her weekends, before kids, in her classroom getting things ready for the upcoming week. Even after she went back to work, she almost never worked on weekends because she wanted to be home with the kids.

Men, as the article references, are more likely to be available for extra hours. They are more reliable because it's often the woman who stays home with sick kids or decided to work part time due to priorities. Yes, more available and reliable employees are are more likely to a) work more overtime, b) make more money and c) be promoted.

I mean, it's all right there in your article. There's no collusion to underpay women. Men and women are generally different, have different roles and priorities.

So what? People make decisions. We have very smart MALES, who have been offered promotions and turn them down because they want to work their 8-4 job, punch out and go coach their kids flag football team without distractions.

They don't want my job which involves being up, sometimes until 4am, to roll-out, test and troubleshoot firewall changes or involves working sometimes ridiculous hours because you have to train someone in Krakow or Dublin.

@superrific

So, yes, you were right. There is a gender pay gap....and it's perfectly explainable and understandable given difference between men and women and their choices/roles.