Comment by patrickg_zill
7 years ago
Combining "pay inequality" and "opportunity inequality" makes it more difficult to discuss the issue.
We know already that "pay inequality" is fictitious at this point.
So by elimination, that leaves opportunity - however as anyone who has ever worked in a large company knows, it is very difficult, except in a very regimented corporate culture like the military, to have equivalent opportunity spread around evenly. I somehow think Google has a corporate culture that is not very regimented.
How are you defining "pay inequality" while claiming it isn't real?
If I interpret "pay inequality" as "the average pay for women ages 20-60 is less than it is for men 20-60 in the US in 2018" then I've seen data suggesting it is real.
When corrected for all factors there is no pay inequality.
In some instances, such as Hooters waitresses and associate lawyers, women earn slightly more.
You can search for "pay inequality myth" and figure out which argument makes the most sense. Both sides are presented in the search engine I used.
Myself, I think that the issue that pay varies specifically because of the choices that are made is very valid.
> When corrected for all factors there is no pay inequality.
This just isn't true, but I think the problem here is a semantic one. It is true that the more finely tuned your analysis is, the less reasonable it is to conclude that sexism or so called "patriarchy" plays any kind of role.