Comment by astura
7 years ago
Oh, FFS, c'mon.
There's over 12,800 words in the article and 67 citations. It includes sections such as "How do work experience, schedules, and motherhood affect the gender wage gap?", "How do education and job and occupational characteristics affect the gender wage gap?", "Does a woman’s race, age, or pay level affect the gender gap she experiences?", and "What role do 'unobservables' like discrimination and productivity play in the wage gap?" yet you choose to ignore all of it and argue against something from the introduction that's expanded upon further down.
You're arguing on bad faith here.
It's an argument against adjusted wage gap calculations or comparing salaries in the same roles. I fundamentally object to the very premise.
> You're arguing on bad faith here.
No, I just disagree with you.
No, you're clearly arguing in bad faith with him and you clearly have not read the article. The sections titled "Women earn less than men at every wage level" and "How might discrimination—in the form of norms and expectations—be affecting the wage gap by constraining women’s choices?" might be enlightening to you, given your original cherry picked issue.
How am I arguing in bad faith? He responded to my comment with link to a far left think tank that uses an alternate definition of wage gap than what were talking about.
> "Women earn less than men at every wage level"
It's utterly useless to compare wage levels across different roles. I read the article, I strongly disagree with it.
Do you really think comparing the pay of people in different roles is useful? It's apples and oranges. I don't expect a nurse and an engineer to make the same amount of money. This is my argument and it's not in bad faith.
2 replies →