Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Equal Pay for Equal Work | Gender Bias

Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 2:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Feminist advocates often claim that according to Census Bureau data, women make 77-cents for every dollar that a man earns. [http://www.census.gov... page 11] The US Bureau of Labor Statistics puts gap at 19 cents (women make 81 cents for each dollar a man earns); the unadjusted data generally indicates a wage gap between 12 and 23 cents. [http://www.bls.gov...]

Critics point out that when you control for alternative variables such as work experience the wage gap shrinks substantially. Studies show that the adjusted wage gap between men and women is between 4 and 7 cents. [http://www.consad.com...]

Are critics correct that the larger, unadjusted wage gap is simply due to different individual choices made by men and women, or are there underlying, societal gender biases which drive women away from careers in traditionally high-paying professions in science?

A study from Yale found that, in academic science, gender biases do exist. [http://www.pnas.org...] "In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student"who was randomly assigned either a male or female name"for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant." Faculty reported lower willingness to hire the identical female applicant and to help mentor the female applicant -- both of which affect the prevalence of women in science (previous research shows that aspiring scientists are more likely to stay in the field when they receive mentoring from faculty). Also notable with regards to the pay gap, the salary offered to the female applicant was 88% of the salary offered to the male applicant. These results are further confirmation of previous findings in academic science. [http://advance.cornell.edu...]

These results suggest that controlling for variables such as occupation and experience may not provide a more accurate indication of gender based pay discrimination, and that gender discrimination may be a relevant variable in the adjusted wage gap - rather than simply individual choices.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:09:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 2:54:07 PM, Enji wrote
These results suggest that controlling for variables such as occupation and experience may not provide a more accurate indication of gender based pay discrimination, and that gender discrimination may be a relevant variable in the unadjusted wage gap - rather than simply individual choices.
Fixed.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 12:34:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Considering previous threads on the gender pay gap (and related topics), I had expected more of a response.

I'll start with a relevant if not particularly groundbreaking criticism: the study probably isn't particularly generalisable to unrelated fields and so isn't indicative of a global trend. However, due to the methodology and expert participants, the findings are reasonably applicable to other STEM fields -- which is particularly relevant since (1) women are under-represented in STEM fields including academic science and (2) STEM fields are traditionally higher-paying which contributes to the global, unadjusted wage difference.

The results of this study are more direct than traditional studies based on correlational data since it directly tests the gender bias hypothesis; all other factors such as previous educational/work experience were held constant -- gender was the only variable which was changed. The randomised, double-blind methodology eliminates bias on account of the researchers as the origin of the gap.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 4:56:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Feminists don't want equal pay for equal work, they want equal pay for less work. The main difference in male and female compensation is that on average (after accounting for other factors), women in the same job as men work fewer hours per month than men and are more likely to quit than men. This makes them less valuable to employers, and therefore less likely to be hired or paid the same as men.

In my opinion, it's nobody's business what metric an employer chooses to use to evaluate employees anyway.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 5:23:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 4:56:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Feminists don't want equal pay for equal work, they want equal pay for less work. The main difference in male and female compensation is that on average (after accounting for other factors), women in the same job as men work fewer hours per month than men and are more likely to quit than men. This makes them less valuable to employers, and therefore less likely to be hired or paid the same as men.

In my opinion, it's nobody's business what metric an employer chooses to use to evaluate employees anyway.

In the Yale study I mentioned in the OP, female applications were offered less pay for the same work. Your assertion that feminists want equal pay for less work is wrong.

The Civil Rights Act forbids discriminating based on sex, so whether or not a candidate is female cannot legally be used as a metric to evaluate potential employees. This study, however, establishes that whether or not a candidate is female has a significant impact on how likely the candidate is to be hired and on the candidate's salary offer.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 6:59:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 5:23:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/4/2014 4:56:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Feminists don't want equal pay for equal work, they want equal pay for less work. The main difference in male and female compensation is that on average (after accounting for other factors), women in the same job as men work fewer hours per month than men and are more likely to quit than men. This makes them less valuable to employers, and therefore less likely to be hired or paid the same as men.

In my opinion, it's nobody's business what metric an employer chooses to use to evaluate employees anyway.

In the Yale study I mentioned in the OP, female applications were offered less pay for the same work. Your assertion that feminists want equal pay for less work is wrong.

The applicants were offered the same job, yes, but that does not mean that females work as productively as males. The Yale study found that both male and female faculty were equally likely to exhibit a bias against female applicants, so this isn't an issue of sexism/misogyny. The fact is that even though they may be capable of performing the same exact jobs as men, women work less on average and are more likely to quit. It seems the faculty in the study was aware of this fact.

The Civil Rights Act forbids discriminating based on sex, so whether or not a candidate is female cannot legally be used as a metric to evaluate potential employees. This study, however, establishes that whether or not a candidate is female has a significant impact on how likely the candidate is to be hired and on the candidate's salary offer.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:20:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 5:23:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/4/2014 4:56:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Feminists don't want equal pay for equal work, they want equal pay for less work. The main difference in male and female compensation is that on average (after accounting for other factors), women in the same job as men work fewer hours per month than men and are more likely to quit than men. This makes them less valuable to employers, and therefore less likely to be hired or paid the same as men.

In my opinion, it's nobody's business what metric an employer chooses to use to evaluate employees anyway.

In the Yale study I mentioned in the OP, female applications were offered less pay for the same work. Your assertion that feminists want equal pay for less work is wrong.
You are also assuming that these women are expected to do the same work.
Same title =/= same work

The Civil Rights Act forbids discriminating based on sex, so whether or not a candidate is female cannot legally be used as a metric to evaluate potential employees.
This isn't wholly true or accurate.
The argument can be made that one isn't discriminating in employment if the job is being offered for less pay. And, if they aren't employed yet, how is it discriminating its employees?

This study, however, establishes that whether or not a candidate is female has a significant impact on how likely the candidate is to be hired and on the candidate's salary offer.
However, is using an actuary table for pay illegal or wrong?
Consider that women are more likely to use FMLA than men, and that use is a loss of productivity. Is that relevant to hiring/pay practices?
http://blog.datamaticsinc.com...

Let me ask you this:
If you needed a pizza delivery driver, and there was a man in a wheelchair applying for the job, would you expect him to be as valuable to the company (in terms of productivity) as another driver without said handicap?
If so, is it wrong to pay him less for it?
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:52:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 5:23:56 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/4/2014 4:56:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Feminists don't want equal pay for equal work, they want equal pay for less work. The main difference in male and female compensation is that on average (after accounting for other factors), women in the same job as men work fewer hours per month than men and are more likely to quit than men. This makes them less valuable to employers, and therefore less likely to be hired or paid the same as men.

In my opinion, it's nobody's business what metric an employer chooses to use to evaluate employees anyway.

In the Yale study I mentioned in the OP, female applications were offered less pay for the same work. Your assertion that feminists want equal pay for less work is wrong.

The Civil Rights Act forbids discriminating based on sex, so whether or not a candidate is female cannot legally be used as a metric to evaluate potential employees. This study, however, establishes that whether or not a candidate is female has a significant impact on how likely the candidate is to be hired and on the candidate's salary offer.

Is it the employers problem that women accept less pay for the same work? Seems like a problem for male employees losing their jobs to cheaper women however.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 9:18:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 6:59:34 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 9/4/2014 5:23:56 PM, Enji wrote:
In the Yale study I mentioned in the OP, female applications were offered less pay for the same work. Your assertion that feminists want equal pay for less work is wrong.

The applicants were offered the same job, yes, but that does not mean that females work as productively as males. The Yale study found that both male and female faculty were equally likely to exhibit a bias against female applicants, so this isn't an issue of sexism/misogyny. The fact is that even though they may be capable of performing the same exact jobs as men, women work less on average and are more likely to quit. It seems the faculty in the study was aware of this fact.
The fact that the gender of the respondent generally did not affect responses does not imply that the results are not indicative of gender bias. Rather, as the researchers claim, preexisting biases would affect the judgement of both male and female faculty.

The position sought was a two-year contract lab manager position; this means that employee turnover (i.e. the female applicant being allegedly more likely to quit) was not part of the consideration of the respondents because the duration of the applicant's position was fixed.

When you claim that female scientists are less productive than male scientists and present this as justification for the study's finding of bias, you are simply asserting what the study claims to show - that gender bias exists.

At 9/4/2014 7:20:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 5:23:56 PM, Enji wrote:
In the Yale study I mentioned in the OP, female applications were offered less pay for the same work. Your assertion that feminists want equal pay for less work is wrong.
You are also assuming that these women are expected to do the same work.
Same title =/= same work
Firstly, due to the randomised, double-blind methodology and the sample size it's extremely unlikely that the discovered correlation between gender and willingness to hire, willingness to mentor, perceived competence, and offered salary were the result of chance; the results are statistically significant so the null hypothesis was appropriately rejected.

Secondly, applications were presented as an actual student application applying for a lab manager position at universities across the country, and participants were asked to provide feedback as if the student were applying to work as the lab manger in the participant's own lab; the applications were randomly assigned the male or female name. Lab manger is a specific position with specific responsibilities. Consequently, the applicants would have been expected to do the same work regardless of whether they are male or female.
The Civil Rights Act forbids discriminating based on sex, so whether or not a candidate is female cannot legally be used as a metric to evaluate potential employees.
This isn't wholly true or accurate.
The argument can be made that one isn't discriminating in employment if the job is being offered for less pay. And, if they aren't employed yet, how is it discriminating its employees?
You're correct that this isn't entirely accurate, but the CRA does prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex with some exceptions, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits discrimination in wages on the basis of sex.
This study, however, establishes that whether or not a candidate is female has a significant impact on how likely the candidate is to be hired and on the candidate's salary offer.
However, is using an actuary table for pay illegal or wrong?
Consider that women are more likely to use FMLA than men, and that use is a loss of productivity. Is that relevant to hiring/pay practices?
The application was of a 22 year old undergraduate student interested in pursuing doctoral work after work experience as a lab manager, so I'm not sure if FMLA would reasonably be expected to apply -- but regardless I'm not sure why this would affect perceived competence as measured by "(i) Did the applicant strike you as competent? (ii) How likely is it that the applicant has the necessary skills for this job? (iii) How qualifed do you think the applicant is?" (as ranked on a scale from 1 to 7).

At 9/4/2014 8:52:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/4/2014 5:23:56 PM, Enji wrote:
In the Yale study I mentioned in the OP, female applications were offered less pay for the same work. Your assertion that feminists want equal pay for less work is wrong.
Is it the employers problem that women accept less pay for the same work? Seems like a problem for male employees losing their jobs to cheaper women however.
The data of the study isn't what salary female applicants accepted, but rather what starting salary would you offer. Analysis of the data shows that female applicants were offered lower salaries primarily because they were perceived as being less qualified despite having the same qualifications as the male applicant.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 11:19:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:18:47 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/4/2014 6:59:34 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Is it the employers problem that women accept less pay for the same work? Seems like a problem for male employees losing their jobs to cheaper women however.
The data of the study isn't what salary female applicants accepted, but rather what starting salary would you offer. Analysis of the data shows that female applicants were offered lower salaries primarily because they were perceived as being less qualified despite having the same qualifications as the male applicant.

Salaries are set by productivity not qualifications.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 12:31:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 11:19:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:18:47 PM, Enji wrote:
The data of the study isn't what salary female applicants accepted, but rather what starting salary would you offer. Analysis of the data shows that female applicants were offered lower salaries primarily because they were perceived as being less qualified despite having the same qualifications as the male applicant.

Salaries are set by productivity not qualifications.

And both the male and female application had the same faculty recommendation letter which had the same statements on the student's capabilities and productivity. Amusingly, my claim is that the male-female pay gap can be attributed in part to the existence of gender biases, and you're criticising this claim by asserting the truth of gender biases which contribute to the existence of the pay gap.

If you want to argue that gender bias in pay is justified, then you should find a study which demonstrates that female scientists are less productive or less capable than male scientists, and I'll discuss the merits of the claim and its implications.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 1:00:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 12:31:48 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 11:19:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:18:47 PM, Enji wrote:
The data of the study isn't what salary female applicants accepted, but rather what starting salary would you offer. Analysis of the data shows that female applicants were offered lower salaries primarily because they were perceived as being less qualified despite having the same qualifications as the male applicant.

Salaries are set by productivity not qualifications.

And both the male and female application had the same faculty recommendation letter which had the same statements on the student's capabilities and productivity. Amusingly, my claim is that the male-female pay gap can be attributed in part to the existence of gender biases, and you're criticising this claim by asserting the truth of gender biases which contribute to the existence of the pay gap.

If you want to argue that gender bias in pay is justified, then you should find a study which demonstrates that female scientists are less productive or less capable than male scientists, and I'll discuss the merits of the claim and its implications.

Women bosses will tell you the same thing, wages are set by productivity, not qualifications on a sheet of paper.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 1:02:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 12:31:48 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 11:19:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/4/2014 9:18:47 PM, Enji wrote:
The data of the study isn't what salary female applicants accepted, but rather what starting salary would you offer. Analysis of the data shows that female applicants were offered lower salaries primarily because they were perceived as being less qualified despite having the same qualifications as the male applicant.

Salaries are set by productivity not qualifications.

And both the male and female application had the same faculty recommendation letter which had the same statements on the student's capabilities and productivity. Amusingly, my claim is that the male-female pay gap can be attributed in part to the existence of gender biases, and you're criticising this claim by asserting the truth of gender biases which contribute to the existence of the pay gap.

If you want to argue that gender bias in pay is justified, then you should find a study which demonstrates that female scientists are less productive or less capable than male scientists, and I'll discuss the merits of the claim and its implications.

What about what I posted earlier?
My work here is, finally, done.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 1:46:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 1:00:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/5/2014 12:31:48 PM, Enji wrote:
If you want to argue that gender bias in pay is justified, then you should find a study which demonstrates that female scientists are less productive or less capable than male scientists, and I'll discuss the merits of the claim and its implications.

Women bosses will tell you the same thing, wages are set by productivity, not qualifications on a sheet of paper.

You're welcome to provide an explanation for why the female candidate should be less qualified, less likely to have the skills necessary to be a lab manager, less competent (each of which were measures used to determine competence in the study), and less productive than the identical male candidate with the same qualifications, skills, and reported competency. You're asserting that females are less productive than males without justifying the claim; this is a premier example of gender bias.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 1:49:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 1:02:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What about what I posted earlier?

If you're referring to your handicapped worker example, it didn't appear to be related to the OP so I didn't respond. I could have provided a snappy response like "so you think female scientists are like handicapped package handlers" instead, but I didn't think that would be particularly constructive.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 2:54:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 1:46:45 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:00:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/5/2014 12:31:48 PM, Enji wrote:
If you want to argue that gender bias in pay is justified, then you should find a study which demonstrates that female scientists are less productive or less capable than male scientists, and I'll discuss the merits of the claim and its implications.

Women bosses will tell you the same thing, wages are set by productivity, not qualifications on a sheet of paper.

You're welcome to provide an explanation for why the female candidate should be less qualified, less likely to have the skills necessary to be a lab manager, less competent (each of which were measures used to determine competence in the study), and less productive than the identical male candidate with the same qualifications, skills, and reported competency. You're asserting that females are less productive than males without justifying the claim; this is a premier example of gender bias.

You still are making a false comparison between qualifications on a sheet of paper and actual business productivity. It's not the same, nor is it related to a set wage. Qualifications only get you into a job interview.

Feel free to continue with this fallacy.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 3:21:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 2:54:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:46:45 PM, Enji wrote:
You're welcome to provide an explanation for why the female candidate should be less qualified, less likely to have the skills necessary to be a lab manager, less competent (each of which were measures used to determine competence in the study), and less productive than the identical male candidate with the same qualifications, skills, and reported competency. You're asserting that females are less productive than males without justifying the claim; this is a premier example of gender bias.

You still are making a false comparison between qualifications on a sheet of paper and actual business productivity. It's not the same, nor is it related to a set wage. Qualifications only get you into a job interview.

Feel free to continue with this fallacy.

Here are the facts: Participants were asked to assess (i) Did the applicant strike you as competent? (ii) How likely is it that the applicant has the necessary skills for this job? (iii) How qualifed do you think the applicant is?" (as ranked on a scale from 1 to 7). These factors were used to construct a perceived competency score. The qualifications of the applicant as stated on the application are directly related to the answers to these questions. The only variable in the student's application was the name, which was randomly assigned either male or female. Statistical analysis of participants' analysis shows that gender was a highly significant factor affecting perceived competence (P < .001), but this difference perceived competence is entirely unrelated to any objective assessment of competence. This difference in perceived competence impacts perceived hireablility and salary conferral.

You're asserting that female scientists are less productive/capable than male scientists without any justification. Yet based on the available facts, there is no reason to believe that such a difference exists. You're claiming that a male scientist and a female scientist with the same qualifications and experience would do different work simply on account of their gender without evidence. As I said above, you're welcome to defend this assertion and argue that the pay gap is justifiable. But until you do so your argument is an example exactly what the study claims to prove: that underlying gender bias undermines faculty perception of the female student (but not the male student); hence gender bias drives women away from careers in science and creates a pay gap which would not be expected based on merit alone.

TL;DR: Why is the identical female candidate less productive?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 3:38:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 3:21:31 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 2:54:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:46:45 PM, Enji wrote:
You're welcome to provide an explanation for why the female candidate should be less qualified, less likely to have the skills necessary to be a lab manager, less competent (each of which were measures used to determine competence in the study), and less productive than the identical male candidate with the same qualifications, skills, and reported competency. You're asserting that females are less productive than males without justifying the claim; this is a premier example of gender bias.

You still are making a false comparison between qualifications on a sheet of paper and actual business productivity. It's not the same, nor is it related to a set wage. Qualifications only get you into a job interview.

Feel free to continue with this fallacy.

Here are the facts: Participants were asked to assess (i) Did the applicant strike you as competent? (ii) How likely is it that the applicant has the necessary skills for this job? (iii) How qualifed do you think the applicant is?" (as ranked on a scale from 1 to 7). These factors were used to construct a perceived competency score. The qualifications of the applicant as stated on the application are directly related to the answers to these questions. The only variable in the student's application was the name, which was randomly assigned either male or female. Statistical analysis of participants' analysis shows that gender was a highly significant factor affecting perceived competence (P < .001), but this difference perceived competence is entirely unrelated to any objective assessment of competence. This difference in perceived competence impacts perceived hireablility and salary conferral.

You're asserting that female scientists are less productive/capable than male scientists without any justification. Yet based on the available facts, there is no reason to believe that such a difference exists. You're claiming that a male scientist and a female scientist with the same qualifications and experience would do different work simply on account of their gender without evidence. As I said above, you're welcome to defend this assertion and argue that the pay gap is justifiable. But until you do so your argument is an example exactly what the study claims to prove: that underlying gender bias undermines faculty perception of the female student (but not the male student); hence gender bias drives women away from careers in science and creates a pay gap which would not be expected based on merit alone.

TL;DR: Why is the identical female candidate less productive?

Why would you TLDR your own post?

Now i'm genuinely confused.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:13:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 1:49:10 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:02:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What about what I posted earlier?

If you're referring to your handicapped worker example, it didn't appear to be related to the OP so I didn't respond. I could have provided a snappy response like "so you think female scientists are like handicapped package handlers" instead, but I didn't think that would be particularly constructive.

That's a shame you don't realize how analogies work.
If you can't realize the comparison is due to productivity expectations, then I don't care if you respond. I thought you were smart enough to realize this, but I must have been wrong.
My work here is, finally, done.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:13:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:49:10 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:02:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What about what I posted earlier?

If you're referring to your handicapped worker example, it didn't appear to be related to the OP so I didn't respond. I could have provided a snappy response like "so you think female scientists are like handicapped package handlers" instead, but I didn't think that would be particularly constructive.

That's a shame you don't realize how analogies work.
If you can't realize the comparison is due to productivity expectations, then I don't care if you respond. I thought you were smart enough to realize this, but I must have been wrong.

You can't demonstrate differing productivity expectations between male and female scientists with an analogy to differing productivity expectations between a handicapped and an unhandicapped package handler; you can establish that differences in pay are justifiable given different productivity expectations. Hence without the claim that female scientists are less productive than male scientists, your analogy is unrelated to this thread. If you want to claim that differences in pay and perceived competence are justifiable because female scientists are less productive / less capable than male scientists, then you should provide empirical evidence of such a difference.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 8:26:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:21:02 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:13:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:49:10 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 1:02:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What about what I posted earlier?

If you're referring to your handicapped worker example, it didn't appear to be related to the OP so I didn't respond. I could have provided a snappy response like "so you think female scientists are like handicapped package handlers" instead, but I didn't think that would be particularly constructive.

That's a shame you don't realize how analogies work.
If you can't realize the comparison is due to productivity expectations, then I don't care if you respond. I thought you were smart enough to realize this, but I must have been wrong.

You can't demonstrate differing productivity expectations between male and female scientists with an analogy to differing productivity expectations between a handicapped and an unhandicapped package handler; you can establish that differences in pay are justifiable given different productivity expectations. Hence without the claim that female scientists are less productive than male scientists, your analogy is unrelated to this thread. If you want to claim that differences in pay and perceived competence are justifiable because female scientists are less productive / less capable than male scientists, then you should provide empirical evidence of such a difference.

It's hard to be productive if you are not there.
Productivity can be expressed in terms of hours worked, and women miss more work than men.
My work here is, finally, done.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 9:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 8:26:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:21:02 PM, Enji wrote:
You can't demonstrate differing productivity expectations between male and female scientists with an analogy to differing productivity expectations between a handicapped and an unhandicapped package handler; you can establish that differences in pay are justifiable given different productivity expectations. Hence without the claim that female scientists are less productive than male scientists, your analogy is unrelated to this thread. If you want to claim that differences in pay and perceived competence are justifiable because female scientists are less productive / less capable than male scientists, then you should provide empirical evidence of such a difference.

It's hard to be productive if you are not there.
Productivity can be expressed in terms of hours worked, and women miss more work than men.

Does the evidence for your claim that women work less than men have the power and representativeness to reasonably be applied to academic science in general or laboratory manager positions more specifically? I've heard a similar response specifically in response to the global, full time worker gender wage gap, but the evidence for that lacks the specificity to be reasonably generalised to science in particular; you can address a portion of the overall wage gap I referenced in the OP by controlling for various factors including hours worked, but you can't address the findings of the specific study I'm discussing by doing the same. The findings of my study are ecologically valid, whereas generalising a global trend to academic science is not.

My argument is that a gender wage gap exists, and this wage gap can be attributed in part to gender bias. Further this gender bias undermines the "individual choice" criticism of the existence of the wage gap. You, Greyparrot, and 1Percenter have responded by asserting that certain gender biases are true (e.g. women in the same job work fewer hours and are more likely to quit); therefore it is justified that assessments of competence and decisions are not solely based on merit and instead take into account gender. This approach to employment has harmful consequences; the choice to take gender into account and actively pay women less because they are likely to work less and are more likely to quit in turn contributes to women choosing to work less and being more likely to quit, which in turn justifies the basis for choosing to pay women less.

It is, however, unlikely that this sort of explicit sexism actually factors into the pay gap found by the Yale study. Firstly, such an approach to employment is unlawful under the Equal Pay Act. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Secondly, previous studies based on correlational data have found little explicit sexism in academic science, which suggests that if gender bias exists in scientific fields it would be implicit and unintentional. The researchers of the Yale study agree, stating that gender bias is likely unintentional, generated from widespread cultural stereotypes rather than conscious intention. This is further supported by the mediation analysis, which shows that faculty's perceived competence based on the merits of the applicant largely accounts for the perceived hireability and conferred salary gap, and partially accounts for the difference in the faculty's reported willingness to mentor the applicant.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 10:39:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would really like to find that study where hard working, risk taking entrepreneurs (job creators) already burdened by the heavy hand of government laws, regulations, taxes, and other mandates, would willingly take a pay cut by refusing to retain productive women by not offering them a competitive wage.

You prove that, and I will agree with your Yale study.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 5:27:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This thread is like a light being switched on and all the cockroaches scuttling for cover.

(The ideas are the cockroaches not the people)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 7:12:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 9:36:46 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/5/2014 8:26:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:21:02 PM, Enji wrote:
You can't demonstrate differing productivity expectations between male and female scientists with an analogy to differing productivity expectations between a handicapped and an unhandicapped package handler; you can establish that differences in pay are justifiable given different productivity expectations. Hence without the claim that female scientists are less productive than male scientists, your analogy is unrelated to this thread. If you want to claim that differences in pay and perceived competence are justifiable because female scientists are less productive / less capable than male scientists, then you should provide empirical evidence of such a difference.

It's hard to be productive if you are not there.
Productivity can be expressed in terms of hours worked, and women miss more work than men.

Does the evidence for your claim that women work less than men have the power and representativeness to reasonably be applied to academic science in general or laboratory manager positions more specifically? I've heard a similar response specifically in response to the global, full time worker gender wage gap, but the evidence for that lacks the specificity to be reasonably generalised to science in particular; you can address a portion of the overall wage gap I referenced in the OP by controlling for various factors including hours worked, but you can't address the findings of the specific study I'm discussing by doing the same. The findings of my study are ecologically valid, whereas generalising a global trend to academic science is not.
Why wouldn't it? It's a fact that women call in more than men. Why would academia be immune to it?
Whether that fact should be used as justification does not ignore that it is a fact.

My argument is that a gender wage gap exists, and this wage gap can be attributed in part to gender bias. Further this gender bias undermines the "individual choice" criticism of the existence of the wage gap. You, Greyparrot, and 1Percenter have responded by asserting that certain gender biases are true (e.g. women in the same job work fewer hours and are more likely to quit); therefore it is justified that assessments of competence and decisions are not solely based on merit and instead take into account gender. This approach to employment has harmful consequences; the choice to take gender into account and actively pay women less because they are likely to work less and are more likely to quit in turn contributes to women choosing to work less and being more likely to quit, which in turn justifies the basis for choosing to pay women less.

Yes, it's a catch-22, but the bias cuts both ways, too.
How many employees believe in these same biases?
If women refused to call in to work to care for their sick child, that would combat this notion.

It is, however, unlikely that this sort of explicit sexism actually factors into the pay gap found by the Yale study. Firstly, such an approach to employment is unlawful under the Equal Pay Act. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Secondly, previous studies based on correlational data have found little explicit sexism in academic science, which suggests that if gender bias exists in scientific fields it would be implicit and unintentional. The researchers of the Yale study agree, stating that gender bias is likely unintentional, generated from widespread cultural stereotypes rather than conscious intention. This is further supported by the mediation analysis, which shows that faculty's perceived competence based on the merits of the applicant largely accounts for the perceived hireability and conferred salary gap, and partially accounts for the difference in the faculty's reported willingness to mentor the applicant.

First, I am not sure if it is illegal. I don't see why valid factors and considerations should be ignored when making business decisions. If an 80 yr old man applied for a job, that I am looking for a 5 yr commitment, I'm going to be hesitant. I see no difference in offering a man more money than a woman because I expect him to be more beneficial to the company, than I would expect a man with a college degree to be more beneficial than one that does not, especially in cases where the degree is not relevant to the job (like a liberal arts degree for a call center).
Second, then the bias is there under the surface.

I guess I don't understand what you are saying anymore, if I ever did.
There is bias. Yes. The question should be if it is justified, IMO.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 7:53:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 10:39:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I would really like to find that study where hard working, risk taking entrepreneurs (job creators) already burdened by the heavy hand of government laws, regulations, taxes, and other mandates, would willingly take a pay cut by refusing to retain productive women by not offering them a competitive wage.

You prove that, and I will agree with your Yale study.

I'd also like to know if your "rage" at equal gender pay extends to equal racial pay as white players in the NFL are often paid less for the same "qualifications"

Or, just perhaps, without any Government mandates, the NFL happens to hire the most productive people (Blacks) because it would cost them money not to do so?

Perhaps your anger should be directed at the system where a lot of research is funded by crony government subsidies where the most productive female scientists are not rewarded?

Just a wild idea I am throwing out there.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:20:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 7:12:25 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 9:36:46 PM, Enji wrote:
Does the evidence for your claim that women work less than men have the power and representativeness to reasonably be applied to academic science in general or laboratory manager positions more specifically? I've heard a similar response specifically in response to the global, full time worker gender wage gap, but the evidence for that lacks the specificity to be reasonably generalised to science in particular; you can address a portion of the overall wage gap I referenced in the OP by controlling for various factors including hours worked, but you can't address the findings of the specific study I'm discussing by doing the same. The findings of my study are ecologically valid, whereas generalising a global trend to academic science is not.
Why wouldn't it? It's a fact that women call in more than men. Why would academia be immune to it?
Whether that fact should be used as justification does not ignore that it is a fact.

The source I've found for this claim was a study on the gender wage gap between hourly workers, which could be explained in part due to overtime work; overtime workers were more likely to be male and overtime work pays more, so a portion of the wage gap could be contributed to this, rather than explicit discrimination. This study, however, lacks the representativeness to be applied to salary based jobs.

Maybe you have a different study in mind, in which case I would really appreciate you providing the source.

My argument is that a gender wage gap exists, and this wage gap can be attributed in part to gender bias. Further this gender bias undermines the "individual choice" criticism of the existence of the wage gap. You, Greyparrot, and 1Percenter have responded by asserting that certain gender biases are true (e.g. women in the same job work fewer hours and are more likely to quit); therefore it is justified that assessments of competence and decisions are not solely based on merit and instead take into account gender. This approach to employment has harmful consequences; the choice to take gender into account and actively pay women less because they are likely to work less and are more likely to quit in turn contributes to women choosing to work less and being more likely to quit, which in turn justifies the basis for choosing to pay women less.

Yes, it's a catch-22, but the bias cuts both ways, too.
How many employees believe in these same biases?
If women refused to call in to work to care for their sick child, that would combat this notion.

Curiously, not only do all of the participants of this study (and a previous study which I cited above) believe in this bias, but the researchers of both these studies are entirely unaware of this explicit bias. The researchers behind some of the correlational studies the Yale study cited which claimed that science is meritocratic and gender biases do not play a role in progression in science related fields are also entirely oblivious to this incredibly widespread phenomenon.

It is, however, unlikely that this sort of explicit sexism actually factors into the pay gap found by the Yale study. Firstly, such an approach to employment is unlawful under the Equal Pay Act. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Secondly, previous studies based on correlational data have found little explicit sexism in academic science, which suggests that if gender bias exists in scientific fields it would be implicit and unintentional. The researchers of the Yale study agree, stating that gender bias is likely unintentional, generated from widespread cultural stereotypes rather than conscious intention. This is further supported by the mediation analysis, which shows that faculty's perceived competence based on the merits of the applicant largely accounts for the perceived hireability and conferred salary gap, and partially accounts for the difference in the faculty's reported willingness to mentor the applicant.

First, I am not sure if it is illegal. I don't see why valid factors and considerations should be ignored when making business decisions.
The Equal Pay Act makes it unlawful to use gender as a factor for determining compensation. A pay difference based on any other factor other than sex is fine with regards to the Act, but the sort of statistical discrimination based on gender which you are advocating is not. This is important in combating the negative feedback effects which statistical discrimination creates.

Second, then the bias is there under the surface.
Yes, gender bias in science is under the surface; that's exactly what the study concludes. That's what I'm saying: gender bias exists, it's implicit and not based on purposeful intent, and it negatively impacts the progression of female scientists. This is relevant because whether gender bias is an actual phenomenon has been a point of some controversy particularly in science, with some researchers claiming that the gender disparity and wage gap in science related fields "is not caused by discrimination in these domains" and is instead caused by differing choices made by male and female scientists.

The finding that the identical female applicant is perceived as less competent is particularly relevant here: (1) the metrics used to determine competence (e.g. how likely is it that the candidate has the skills needed to perform the job) are independent of alleged statistical biases like women workers are less productive, so they should only be related to the content of the application, (2) the competence gap has a direct impact the perceived hireability gap and the salary conferral gap, which is independent of statistical biases, and (3) this in turn impacts the prevalence of women in science, which undermines the "individual choice" criticism of the gender wage gap.