41–50 of 107 posts
As an aside, isn't that question inherently just flat out wrong? Q: 'What's your current salary?' A: 'Why does it matter? What am I worth to you?'
Q: 'What's your current salary?' A: 'I can't disclose my current salary, but I'd be looking for something around $1.5x to come on board.' where x is your preferred salary.
As an aside, isn't that question inherently just flat out wrong? Q: 'What's your current salary?' A: 'Why does it matter? What am I worth to you?'
Anyone have any idea what would happen if I just refused to answer it and use the 'I'm looking to be paid what I'm worth to the company' line?
> Cornell professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found that women were paid 79 cents for each dollar a man was paid. Even after adjusting for type of job, industry, experience, location and education, the gap remained 92 cents for each dollar. This is not supported by the evidence. See, for example, this article by Christina Hoff Sommers ( http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/ ): "No matter…
If you are going to account for position, how do you account for the fact that women are often in a lower ranked position, because they are less likely to be promoted? You can't claim there's no pay gap just because it's being obfuscated by bias in job titles.
> Cornell professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found that women were paid 79 cents for each dollar a man was paid. Even after adjusting for type of job, industry, experience, location and education, the gap remained 92 cents for each dollar. This is not supported by the evidence. See, for example, this article by Christina Hoff Sommers ( http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/ ): "No matter…
Resumes with male names are ranked higher than identical resumes with female names.
Inflate your current salary by $20,000 if this question is asked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Resumes with male names are ranked higher than identical resumes with female names.
Citation please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pay gap of 77c/$ still matters. Not only does the gap persist to a lower extent when you control for everything, "controlling for everything" is not actually a clarifying approach when discussing the gender gap issue. see: "The problem with controlling for 'all other factors' when looking at pay discrimination" ( https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/49k23i/the_pr... )
I'm sympathetic to the notion that discrimination can include subtler factors of pushing women into lower pay positions. However, the problem with the 77 cent figure is that it's frequently stated like this: "women get paid only 77% of what men do for the same jobs." Which is entirely false. Yet, if you asked most people about the 77 cents figure they'd think it actually meant women got paid much less to do the same…
For example, I've seen people cite the White House page as "fallen to the delusion", when in fact it is quite explicit:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/equal-pay
> In 2014, the typical woman working full-time all year in the United States earned only 79 percent of what the typical man earned working full-time all year. Phrased differently, she earned 79 cents for every dollar that he earned. The pay gap is even greater for African-American and Latina women, with African-American women earning 64 cents and Latina women earning 56 cents for every dollar earned by a white non-Hispanic man. Decades of research shows that no matter how you evaluate the data, there remains a pay gap — even after factoring in the kind of work people do, or qualifications such as education and experience — and there is good evidence that discrimination contributes to the persistent pay disparity between men and women. In other words, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families.
There is absolutely no lie or imprecision there. It is a common rhetorical trick to tar your entire opposition as idiots. The people claiming that the pay gap is a "myth" are just as just as zealot-like as the people misinterpreting the 77c figure.
> Cornell professors Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn found that women were paid 79 cents for each dollar a man was paid. Even after adjusting for type of job, industry, experience, location and education, the gap remained 92 cents for each dollar. What do they mean "even" after controlling for those factors? Why wouldn't you control for those factors -- the comparison is meaningless otherwise.
Suppose, hypothetically, that 10% of all managers are outright sexists and won't promote women. (This is a thought experiment, I'm not making any claim about the real world.) Then, if equally-qualified men and women apply for the same jobs, you'd expect that the "type of job" class is going to include some higher-paying jobs for men about 10% more frequently than for women. If you "control for" those factors, you are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation please.
There are lots of them: https://www.google.com/search?q=Resumes+with+male+names+are+...