Comments on: Right Behind Burundi

Right Behind Burundi

MisantropicPainforest — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:47:32 -0800

Ten Things You Didn't Know About The Gender (Wage) Gap Some good and bad news from Time.

By: Llama-Lime

Llama-Lime — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:02:29 -0800

The news is only good part-time, at best? Every single time I see these numbers I'm shocked all over again.

By: shesdeadimalive

shesdeadimalive — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:08:52 -0800

I found those graphs extremely confusing. Why are the smallest percentages the biggest lines??

By: The 10th Regiment of Foot

The 10th Regiment of Foot — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:15:30 -0800

How does Time know what I do and do not know? Judging by the usual quality of their content, I probably know more stuff than Time.

By: Now there are two. There are two _______.

Now there are two. There are two _______. — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:24:44 -0800

I found those graphs extremely confusing. Why are the smallest percentages the biggest lines?? The size of the line is meant to correspond to the "size" of the wage gap. The way they're doing the math, a small numeric percentage means "women make a lot less than men in this category" — or in other words, "there is a big wage gap in this category."

By: Now there are two. There are two _______.

Now there are two. There are two _______. — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:26:18 -0800

(Though they haven't been totally consistent about that, which adds to the confusion. I agree it could have been better designed.)

By: Carillon

Carillon — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:34:21 -0800

Wait what? So the larger lines are better then?

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:38:03 -0800

Llama-Lime: "The news is only good part-time, at best? Every single time I see these numbers I'm shocked all over again." Yes, it's not good news. It has been improving—women made less than 70 cents on the dollar compared with men when I was a kid—but too slowly.

By: alasdair

alasdair — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:43:27 -0800

10. The country with the most gender equality in the world, not just in terms of wage parity but in terms of political empowerment and participation, health and survival and educational attainment is, drumroll please, Iceland, for the fifth year in a row. The U.S. is 23rd, right behind Burundi. Well, that's a bit unfair. Of the four categories they score, the USA beats Iceland in "Economic Participation and Opportunity" and "Health and Survival", ties in "Educational Attainment" and falls behind in "Political Empowerment". [Looks up what makes up each score.] So women in the USA have better jobs and pay, better health, equally good education, but fewer female Congresspeople and Presidents, so Iceland is doing much better for women. I don't think that's a very good measure. (Source)

By: Now there are two. There are two _______.

Now there are two. There are two _______. — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:49:14 -0800

Wait what? So the larger lines are better then? In graphs #2 and #6 (the weird ones) the pattern is... BAD: severe inequality; large line; small number written next to the line. GOOD: little or no inequality; small line; big number written next to the line.

By: bonehead

bonehead — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:49:21 -0800

The graph for #2 (medians by education) should be held up as a horrible lesson for data presentation. Who does negative space bar graphs? Number 6 is the same idiocy.

By: bonehead

bonehead — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:12:14 -0800

The glass half-full take away for me is that wage parity is rising, on average at just over 0.5%/year, and that's been pretty consitent for the past 30 years (r2 = 0.925). The glass half-empty, is that, by a simple linear model*, parity isn't acheived until 2040 or so. It's taken 30 years to get from 60% to 80%; it might take another 30 years to get to parity. We have a long way to go, by any measure. *(%wage) = 0.5574(numerical year) - 1037.9, based on the BLS statistics behind graph #4.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:13 -0800

I'm always confused by wage gap data that doesn't control for education and children (although I think you should also control for length of employment). Is the wage gap due to sexism or not? I think some of it is, but I don't think we can tell how much without controlling for other factors.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:23:31 -0800

I mean, should I make as much as my husband even though I have less experience and work less hours? That has nothing to do with sexism or unfairness.

By: seyirci

seyirci — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:37:50 -0800

desjardins, there are two things to consider here: 1. What are the factors behind you, or rather, let's say women in general, having less experience and working fewer hours than men? What could be the factors behind women having a lower level of education than men in general, even if that is the case? "Sexism" doesn't always exclusively boil down to "we think women are in general less able, so we pay them less." [1] It's also got variations on the themes of "but they need to take time off to raise the children (of course it's their job) and naturally they can't advance in their careers as fast" and "who needs to teach a bunch of girls past basic reading and writing, their husbands will provide anyway" and a whole bunch more similar unsavory lines. Those effects all go into why women, in general, earn less than men, in general. 2. That said, while I haven't examined the maths underlying any such statistics carefully recently, I would give the researchers the benefit of doubt to believe they would know something as basic as controlling for other factors and looking at confounders and moderation and so forth. Perhaps a mefite who has done so can chime in. I mean, right at the top of the page there's a grouping of the wage gaps by education and family status. (Also, heavens but does whoever prepared the linked article ever need a crash course in introductory data visualization.) [1] That is quite often the melody on the deep, deep bass line, though.

By: kyrademon

kyrademon — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:08:35 -0800

> "I mean, should I make as much as my husband even though I have less experience and work less hours? That has nothing to do with sexism or unfairness." If your husband had less experience and worked less hours than you, should he make as much as you? So why does the wage gap overall go in one direction rather than another? That has everything to do with sexism and unfairness. It just sometimes happens further upstream than "A woman? Let's pay her less!" Although that does happen too.

By: chapps

chapps — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:19:10 -0800

By the level of education argument women should be ahead, since women outnumber men in post secondary degree attainment, at least in Canada. The article lists it as a plus that the gender gap is less for black women and men... but isn't that because black men are paid so much less? Aren't black women substantially worse of compared to white women (and of course, men) of equal education? This is more useful info on the question of how race and gender interplay in the wage gap.

By: Now there are two. There are two _______.

Now there are two. There are two _______. — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:34:48 -0800

chapps — Yeah, I was thinking about that too. It seems awfully misleading to say "Things are more equitable if you're black" — as if that meant that the employment situation for black people was better, fairer or less problematic just because it sucks more consistently across genders. The summary I'd be happiest with would be "The ideal employee in our world is an educated white or Asian man working full-time, and any deviation from that is penalized."

By: Jonathan Livengood

Jonathan Livengood — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:11:49 -0800

I mean, should I make as much as my husband even though I have less experience and work less hours? That has nothing to do with sexism or unfairness. Sexism is not a monolithic thing. Maybe you're only thinking about explicit, conscious sexism, but there is also implicit sexism, structural/institutional sexism, and cultural sexism. For example, if the culture says that women but not men are supposed to stay home and raise children, then although employers might not explicitly discriminate against women, they will end up discriminating against women in practice, since the female candidates they see will have less experience, less continuity of employment, etc., etc. Or if the culture says that men are supposed to work in jobs x, y, and z; whereas, women are supposed to work in jobs t, u, and v, then if x, y, and z (think doctor, lawyer, and engineer) pay better than t, u, and v (think nurse, school teacher, and secretary), you will see practical discrimination on the basis of sex. Put this together with implicit biases of counselors and academic advisors and you have a perfect storm for subtly pushing women into lower paying professions before they go to their first job interviews.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:40:16 -0800

"Well, that's a bit unfair. Of the four categories they score, the USA beats Iceland in "Economic Participation and Opportunity" and "Health and Survival", ties in "Educational Attainment" and falls behind in "Political Empowerment". [Looks up what makes up each score.] So women in the USA have better jobs and pay, better health, equally good education, but fewer female Congresspeople and Presidents, so Iceland is doing much better for women. I don't think that's a very good measure. (Source)" Wow, that's pretty much exactly wrong, given the source you cite. In the subcategory of economic opportunity and participation, Iceland ranks 6; the U.S. ranks 23. And that's just on the economics, nothing else. And if you drill down into that, it's not "better jobs and pay," it's "higher median salary in $US." In terms of labor force participation, wage equality for similar work, Iceland does better. They actually take the biggest hit for the top range of the scale, with professionals, legislators and managers, where the U.S. has a 74 percent parity, to Iceland's 50. And the U.S. does not beat Iceland in Health and Survival — I wonder if you're reading the charts correctly. Iceland ranks 33; the U.S. 97. Their average lifespan is higher too. So while this might not be a great measure, you're dismissing it because you read it wrong and that flatters your biases.

By: nihlton

nihlton — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:04:51 -0800

desjardins - did a bit of searching. evidently ~60% of the wage gap can be explained by work experience, career paths etc. the remaining 40% appears to be plain ol' sexism. (see point 9. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/04/16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/) my personal opinion - i kind of think that including that 60% muddies this issue. I mean, thats not a wage gap problem at its root, thats a problem with society expecting women to stay at home and care for children, or not receiving the the education/encouragement to seek higher paying jobs. Problems that no doubt need attention - but aren't really germane to the issue of employers paying women less than equally qualified men.

By: Jonathan Livengood

Jonathan Livengood — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:03:53 -0800

klangklangston, Are you sure about those numbers? It looks to me (from Table 3b on page 12 of the linked document) like the numbers you're reporting for Economic Opportunity and Participation and for Health and Survival are reversed. According to the table, Iceland ranks 22nd on EO&P and 97th on H&S; whereas, the U.S. ranks 6th and 33rd, respectively. Are you looking at a different part of the report?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:21:11 -0800

Yep, I'm the asshole. Unqualified apologies to alasdair. Sorry about that.