121–130 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a homemaker is married, they are compensated by their partner (including alimony and child support after divorce). If a homemaker is single, they receive charity from government.
Some, but not enough. Men and women should be absolutely equal in terms of economic power, they currently are not.
This experiment has been tried and it failed miserably, read up on the Soviet Union.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is true, it implies we need help programs for the young men who are being systematically discrminated against or otherwise oppressed by society. That includes new assistance programs to boost the rate of college graduation, since young men are so badly falling behind there (with projections for it to get much worse yet). Victim blaming would be a common response, to proclaim that it's the fault of these young m…
Peg Tyre wrote the classic book on this 10 years ago: https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Boys-Surprising-Problems-Educ... It hasn't gotten a huge amount of follow-up traction in schools though. Also The New Jim Crow for a racial perspective that hits black men's employment prospects pretty hard. https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblind... BTW for folks who are concerned that feminist or women don't ca…
>It depends on the job. What you say applies mainly to Twitter-empowered employees at consumer-facing tech companies.
It may depend on the job, one of them falls into the consumer facing tech company bucket (marketing).
However my other job was an analyst role at a Financial Services company which you typically expect to be male dominated and where you might expect this sex discrimination to occur.
It could have been the specific company I worked for (small sample size), but I found it to be a fair and equal opportunity hiring/promoting process at least for those early on in their career.
Real life stubbornly resists all attempts to make it more fair . An 8% difference in either direction is acceptable to me. It's good enough to tolerate until it's worth revisiting for further improvements. So now that we have the gender pay gap (almost) sorted out, perhaps we should tackle a problem more likely to cause societal problems: the increasing measures of wealth inequality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot dismiss rigorous statistical analysis by arguing it can never encompass the full dimensions of the data. Of course it can't. The map is not the territory; it is a useful way to find our way around it. Ignoring the map is perilous, if not arrogant, even though it is merely a flawed representation of the real truth. You might argue that a specific study or meta-analysis contains a bias or misinterpretation,…
> You cannot dismiss rigorous statistical analysis by arguing it can never encompass the full dimensions of the data. This simply means it's not rigorous. See Omitted-variable bias - from [1]: The bias results in the model attributing the effect of the missing variables to the estimated effects of the included variables. For example, including gender but not education or hours worked will result in attributing pay di…
This doesn't mean statistics is useless.
This is the meaning of the phrase "the map is not the territory". All models are flawed, but some are useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You cannot dismiss rigorous statistical analysis by arguing it can never encompass the full dimensions of the data. This simply means it's not rigorous. See Omitted-variable bias - from [1]: The bias results in the model attributing the effect of the missing variables to the estimated effects of the included variables. For example, including gender but not education or hours worked will result in attributing pay di…
You entirely missed the point. We can never include every single relevant variable to perfectly explain the observation. It's impossible. This doesn't mean statistics is useless. This is the meaning of the phrase "the map is not the territory". All models are flawed, but some are useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be an interesting experiment. Has it been done before? That could lead to some unpleasant things: * A lot of unavoidable angst as people of less worth to the business are proven to be paid less in no uncertain terms. * More internal strife as people jockey for identifiable rank within the organization based upon their salaries. "Why is Sue paid $10k more than I am? Sue wasn't at her desk all week last week w…
In certain Nordic countries (Sweden at least, I believe), all tax data is public. By extension, everybody's income is public as well. It doesn't seem to be an issue.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9907147
Looking further, it appears that Sweden has decreased the amount of transparency by requiring that people make specific requests that notify the taxpayer of the request.
http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-salaries-freely-availa...
Apparently, there were issues. I'd like to see this experiment run for a longer period of time in more culturally diverse environments, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly "equal pay" means whatever you want it to mean. At some point the nurses union in Denmark argued that their education was roughly the same length as that of an engineer, so they should be paid the same on that basic. Completely ignoring that engineers spend five years at the university vs. the 3.5 years for nursing school and that engineers are pay wildly different salaries bases on their field of work. In my m…
> Sadly "equal pay" means whatever you want it to mean. Exactly this. At a fundamental level every individual has an infinite number of "dimensions" (in ML parlance) associated with him, and "equal pay" people or groups will try and convince you that expected pay should be the same over a certain subset of dimensions while ignoring all the others. Invariably they will pick the most beneficial to that particular perso…
And of course, this applies not just to people but to most complex entities or ideas. The problem is, when dealing with humans, even intelligent ones, good luck getting them accept this approach when it interferes with their political/emotional/fiscal beliefs or desires. For reference, see recent discussions here on topics like trade tariffs.
This would not be any better than women being payed less. The entire premise of "equal pay" is that both genders paid roughly the same for the same job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You say that women in their 20s are better at something than men in their 20s I don't know what comment you read, but the comment I read said nothing remotely close to this. If you want to paraphrase what they said, it'd be more like "the very small sample of women I was exposed to in a small amount of time at one single professional workplace were better prepared for the job than the very small sample of men I was…
Not trying to drum up any controversy and I fully admit it is a small sample size. As someone who falls in the demographic "Under 30 and Living in a Metropolitan City" I feel comfortable sharing some of my own personal and my friends experiences in their particular office as well. The dominant news story has always been the story women earn 80 percent less than men, but that was difficult to reconcile compared to wha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You entirely missed the point. We can never include every single relevant variable to perfectly explain the observation. It's impossible. This doesn't mean statistics is useless. This is the meaning of the phrase "the map is not the territory". All models are flawed, but some are useful.
I think there's some middle ground between saying that the analysis is rigorous and saying it's useless, no?