Gamasutra: Women Game Developers Earn 14% Less Than Male Colleagues

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

webkilla:
Right...

- It doesn't disclose the diversity of those polled
- It doesn't factor in job experience

Right, because a fresh-from-college female dev clearly has to be paid as much as a 20yrs-experience senior lead programmer

And it couldn't possibly be that that there are simply a ton of older and more experienced, and thus slightly better paid, male game devs out there?

That this survey is even taken serious makes my brain hurt

It also forgets to mention the hours the polled population works.

Zhukov:
Ooookay, I'm just going to ride right past the gender stuff because I don't want to get quoted to death in the potential shit-storm that is to follow and say that 40% satisfaction seems rather low.

I mean, that's significantly less than half. Or is that normal for most industries?

I dunno. I do know that the games industry has a ridiculously high rate of burn-out on staff - it's a pretty common practice to just hire a bunch of fresh-faces, pay them minimum wage for six or so months while making them work overtime and a half then dump them once their jobs are finished. Maximum productivity for minimum cost, that kinda thing. I don't really know if that's common to other industries (it probably is), but the whole 'seriously overworked with a low chance of keeping this job' could probably roll into the low satisfaction.

Video Game industry is surprisingly exploitative, when you stop and think about it.

In this case I don't think it actually applies, but I find it kinda funny when some people say "men and women in the same position ALWAYS earn the same everywhere" when over here it's a fact that women get paid less when in the same jobs/hours worked.

Grabehn:
In this case I don't think it actually applies, but I find it kinda funny when some people say "men and women in the same position ALWAYS earn the same everywhere" when over here it's a fact that women get paid less when in the same jobs/hours worked.

Where is it you are and can you supply specific proof to back up said statement?

Edit: You are also aware number of years in said position, former experience, and performance also applies in pay correct?

and of course everyone overlooks far more signficant thing that is

The collective average salary sits at $83,060, which is down 1.51 percent from the 2013 average of $84,337.

how the hell do you lower average salary in a growing economy without causing a shitstorm?

the only way i see this happen is if the survey takes in more countries than it took in 2013 and those countries have lower salary overall.

The survey does not disclose the diversity of those polled, outside of which country/region participants come from, nor does it expand on how experience is tied into the quoted, gender-specific salaries.

So basically "were not going to tell you how we got this data, trust us for not making shit up". yeah, sorry, wont happen. give me methodology or i wont take you seriously.

Boris Goodenough:
It would be nice to have the numbers that are corrected for hours worked and level of position.

if we at least knew the methodology of how they collected it would be nice. it would be even nicer if we had acess to depersonalized microdata so we could make our own analysis. But this looks like a study that does not want us to trust it.

JamesBr:
PORN quality assurance pays 50k a year, not video games.

Wait, porn has QA? How does that work? your paid to sit whole day and watch porn to find flaws in encoding or something? or do they get involved in the filming like movie QA?

Females being paid less because they might disappear seems weird. I know a lot of businesses pass over women candidates because of the risk of them getting preggers, claiming maternity leave and/or leaving full or part time to care for children. It's cold business sense, not taking a chance on someone who might reasonably be less reliable than a male.

It still infuriates me.

I don't see why all employees, male or female, can't just sign an employment contract that states either that they will not take time off for child-related reasons for X amount of time (financial penalties if broken?), to be renewed at their discretion every X amount of time or offer an alternative where either gender can elect to receive reduced pay for X amount of time in exchange for paid leave or somesuch when a child is born.

It just seems sensible to me and considerate of the needs of both individual and business.

jpz719:

Sleekit:
maybe they should join create union and pursue wage equality, base industry rates, collective bargaining etc, etc.

or is that too communist-y ?...

it's a new industry (relatively speaking) and i dunno how mature its structures are..whereas i do know various unions exist in other similar entertainment arenas both on the creative and technical sides.

Maybe women should work more hours if they want to be paid for more hours. If a man works more hours then a woman (which this article avoids entirely) then the man will invariably be paid more.

Laws that heavily fine gender-based discrimination for people in the same job doing the same work. We don't even have that.

ultreos2:
Now this is entirely anecdotal and completely out there for this "oh god the gender wage gap is real" crowd.

But I have yet to meet a woman who could actively demonstrate to me the gender wage gap in pay per hour through pay check stubs. And to assist them I bring my own pay check stubs to help give them a point of reference. I wouldn't want to be fair after all right?

The changes in the real median earnings of men and women who worked full time, year- round between 2011 and 2012 were not statistically significant. In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398) - not statistically different from the 2011 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio has not experienced a statistically significant annual increase since 2007.

- http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

ultreos2:
Most people with any credible intellect don't believe in the gender wage gap

Ad hominem does not make you or your argument appear any better.

I'll buy it when you show me the specific numbers for people on the same positions working the same hours with the same years on their post. That average shit glosses over all the defining facts of the situation.

Because guess what, the shape of your genitals does not define your pay being equal to a project lead working 12h days for the past 20 years. But I sure would love to see a company where that is their employment model.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:
Now this is entirely anecdotal and completely out there for this "oh god the gender wage gap is real" crowd.

But I have yet to meet a woman who could actively demonstrate to me the gender wage gap in pay per hour through pay check stubs. And to assist them I bring my own pay check stubs to help give them a point of reference. I wouldn't want to be fair after all right?

The changes in the real median earnings of men and women who worked full time, year- round between 2011 and 2012 were not statistically significant. In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398) - not statistically different from the 2011 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio has not experienced a statistically significant annual increase since 2007.

- http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

ultreos2:
Most people with any credible intellect don't believe in the gender wage gap

Ad hominem does not make you or your argument appear any better.

That's not an Ad Hominem. If you believe the gender wage gap lie you do not have a credible level of intellect on the matter. And I have said that same sentence to my own mother in that regard.

Edit: Such discrimination of wage gap has been illegal since accordingly 1963. Every women in America from 1963 onward would have a legal lawsuit case against every employer for the last 51 years for illegal proveable discrimination.

What you claim is quite literally impossible outswide of extreme situations.

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:
Now this is entirely anecdotal and completely out there for this "oh god the gender wage gap is real" crowd.

But I have yet to meet a woman who could actively demonstrate to me the gender wage gap in pay per hour through pay check stubs. And to assist them I bring my own pay check stubs to help give them a point of reference. I wouldn't want to be fair after all right?

The changes in the real median earnings of men and women who worked full time, year- round between 2011 and 2012 were not statistically significant. In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398) - not statistically different from the 2011 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio has not experienced a statistically significant annual increase since 2007.

- http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

ultreos2:
Most people with any credible intellect don't believe in the gender wage gap

Ad hominem does not make you or your argument appear any better.

That's not an Ad Hominem. If you believe the gender wage gap lie you do not have a credible level of intellect on the matter. And I have said that same sentence to my own mother in that regard.

The changes in the real median earnings of men and women who worked full time, year- round between 2011 and 2012 were not statistically significant. In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398) - not statistically different from the 2011 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio has not experienced a statistically significant annual increase since 2007.

- http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

If I post it enough times, will you actually address it and respond? Because you ignored it the first time, despite it showing proof of a difference in pay for full time workers - the gap you say does not exist.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

- http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

Ad hominem does not make you or your argument appear any better.

That's not an Ad Hominem. If you believe the gender wage gap lie you do not have a credible level of intellect on the matter. And I have said that same sentence to my own mother in that regard.

The changes in the real median earnings of men and women who worked full time, year- round between 2011 and 2012 were not statistically significant. In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398) - not statistically different from the 2011 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio has not experienced a statistically significant annual increase since 2007.

- http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

If I post it enough times, will you actually address it and respond? Because you ignored it the first time, despite it showing proof of a difference in pay for full time workers - the gap you say does not exist.

You could post a link to a demonstrably false report a thousand or a million times over and it still doesn't compare hourly wage and hours worked and experience and years in said position.

Posting a demonstrably false study over and over again makes it as true as claiming you have evidence as to the truth of God.

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

That's not an Ad Hominem. If you believe the gender wage gap lie you do not have a credible level of intellect on the matter. And I have said that same sentence to my own mother in that regard.

The changes in the real median earnings of men and women who worked full time, year- round between 2011 and 2012 were not statistically significant. In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398) - not statistically different from the 2011 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio has not experienced a statistically significant annual increase since 2007.

- http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

If I post it enough times, will you actually address it and respond? Because you ignored it the first time, despite it showing proof of a difference in pay for full time workers - the gap you say does not exist.

You could post a link to a demonstrably false report a thousand or a million times over and it still doesn't compare hourly wage and hours worked and experience and years in said position.

Posting a demonstrably false study over and over again makes it as true as claiming you have evidence as to the truth of God.

An argument takes more than statements. Provide evidence to support your claim that the U.S. government's findings are incorrect.

---
EDIT
---

Also, you are wrong to say it does not compare hours worked.

In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

Emphasis mine.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

- http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

If I post it enough times, will you actually address it and respond? Because you ignored it the first time, despite it showing proof of a difference in pay for full time workers - the gap you say does not exist.

You could post a link to a demonstrably false report a thousand or a million times over and it still doesn't compare hourly wage and hours worked and experience and years in said position.

Posting a demonstrably false study over and over again makes it as true as claiming you have evidence as to the truth of God.

An argument takes more than statements. Provide evidence to support your claim that the U.S. government's findings are incorrect.

Provide years of experience in a postion hourly wage and hours worked in a year instead of just a yearly salary otherwise your data is completely meaningless.

Discounting the fact that no sane manager would hire anything but women if you could get away right off the bat paying them less.

But tell you what. Give me a credible hourly wage study, factoring years of experience, and performance, and I will totally believe you. Until then. Keep proving your religious propogandas with fals3 documentation that would lead to millions of yearly lawsuits.

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

You could post a link to a demonstrably false report a thousand or a million times over and it still doesn't compare hourly wage and hours worked and experience and years in said position.

Posting a demonstrably false study over and over again makes it as true as claiming you have evidence as to the truth of God.

An argument takes more than statements. Provide evidence to support your claim that the U.S. government's findings are incorrect.

Provide years of experience in a postion hourly wage and hours worked in a year instead of just a yearly salary otherwise your data is completely meaningless.

Discounting the fact that no sane manager would hire anything but women if you could get away right off the bat paying them less.

But tell you what. Give me a credible hourly wage study, factoring years of experience, and performance, and I will totally believe you. Until then. Keep proving your religious propogandas with fals3 documentation that would lead to millions of yearly lawsuits.

In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

The U.S. government factored in everything you claim they did not. Read the article linked before arguing against it.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:
An argument takes more than statements. Provide evidence to support your claim that the U.S. government's findings are incorrect.

Provide years of experience in a postion hourly wage and hours worked in a year instead of just a yearly salary otherwise your data is completely meaningless.

Discounting the fact that no sane manager would hire anything but women if you could get away right off the bat paying them less.

But tell you what. Give me a credible hourly wage study, factoring years of experience, and performance, and I will totally believe you. Until then. Keep proving your religious propogandas with fals3 documentation that would lead to millions of yearly lawsuits.

In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

The U.S. government factored in everything you claim they did not. Read the article linked before arguing against it.

I read it. If you were telling the truth, and here is a hint, you aren't. The US Government could file a lawsuot against every single major US corporation ever for the last 50 years.

Quite simply put the evidence is provably and demonstrably false by the inaction in the face of such "evidence"

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Provide years of experience in a postion hourly wage and hours worked in a year instead of just a yearly salary otherwise your data is completely meaningless.

Discounting the fact that no sane manager would hire anything but women if you could get away right off the bat paying them less.

But tell you what. Give me a credible hourly wage study, factoring years of experience, and performance, and I will totally believe you. Until then. Keep proving your religious propogandas with fals3 documentation that would lead to millions of yearly lawsuits.

In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

The U.S. government factored in everything you claim they did not. Read the article linked before arguing against it.

I read it. If you were telling the truth, and here is a hint, you aren't. The US Government could file a lawsuot against every single major US corporation ever for the last 50 years.

Quite simply put the evidence is provably and demonstrably false by the inaction in the face of such "evidence"

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

The U.S. government factored in everything you claim they did not. Read the article linked before arguing against it.

I read it. If you were telling the truth, and here is a hint, you aren't. The US Government could file a lawsuot against every single major US corporation ever for the last 50 years.

Quite simply put the evidence is provably and demonstrably false by the inaction in the face of such "evidence"

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

Show me a side by side of hourly wages, years in field of each side by side employee.

You see otherwise you've missed the fact that the article facotrs in EVERY SINGLE US JOB averages the income and then says, see proof, while failing to file the lawsuits they would then have a legal right to file if the evidence was true.

Just because you have fallen for a lie for the last 50 years does not make the lie any more true. It simply makes you a gullible person.

ultreos2:
Show me a side by side of hourly wages, years in field of each side by side employee.

You see otherwise you've missed the fact that the article facotrs in EVERY SINGLE US JOB averages the income and then says, see proof, while failing to file the lawsuits they would then have a legal right to file if the evidence was true.

Just because you have fallen for a lie for the last 50 years does not make the lie any more true. It simply makes you a gullible person.

Please address your lie or bad faith argument before trying to progress the argument or sway its direction. You clearly ignored my previous statements that point out a serious flaw in your debate.

I say again:

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

I will not allow you to ignore your lie or bad faith argument when brought to light. It is toxic to conversation and the entire point of this forum.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:
Show me a side by side of hourly wages, years in field of each side by side employee.

You see otherwise you've missed the fact that the article facotrs in EVERY SINGLE US JOB averages the income and then says, see proof, while failing to file the lawsuits they would then have a legal right to file if the evidence was true.

Just because you have fallen for a lie for the last 50 years does not make the lie any more true. It simply makes you a gullible person.

Please address your lie or bad faith argument before trying to progress the argument or sway its direction. You clearly ignored my previous statements that point out a serious flaw in your debate.

I say again:

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

I will not allow you to ignore your lie or bad faith argument when brought to light. It is toxic to conversation and the entire point of this forum.

Oh look you have still yet to supply me a side by side comparison for the same jobs on an hourly wage. You just keep repeating the same falsifiable data and keep calling it true. Completely typical of someone in a situation without demonstrable evidence to do over and over again.

Show me a side by side of hourly wage of men and women in the same field, their years of experience in that field, and their years in that job.

Refusal to do so at this point is an admittance of lying to me.

Oh and since you seem to be unaware, full time is anywhere from 36 hours "regularly" to an unlimited number of hours of overtime. They are not gauging all workers at the same hours in anyway shape or form.

Also an employee is able to work as few as 16 hours a week for 3 months and still be considered full time if they were full time before that situation. You would know this if you have asked about full time work in your job.

You are the one incapable of understanding the meanining of full time. That's not my fault. Its yours.

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:
Show me a side by side of hourly wages, years in field of each side by side employee.

You see otherwise you've missed the fact that the article facotrs in EVERY SINGLE US JOB averages the income and then says, see proof, while failing to file the lawsuits they would then have a legal right to file if the evidence was true.

Just because you have fallen for a lie for the last 50 years does not make the lie any more true. It simply makes you a gullible person.

Please address your lie or bad faith argument before trying to progress the argument or sway its direction. You clearly ignored my previous statements that point out a serious flaw in your debate.

I say again:

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

I will not allow you to ignore your lie or bad faith argument when brought to light. It is toxic to conversation and the entire point of this forum.

Oh look you have still yet to supply me a side by side comparison for the same jobs on an hourly wage. You just keep repeating the same falsifiable data and keep calling it true. Completely typical of someone in a situation without demonstrable evidence to do over and over again.

Show me a side by side of hourly wage of men and women in the same field, their years of experience in that field, and their years in that job.

Refusal to do so at this point is an admittance of lying to me.

Your tactics will not work on me. I have pointed out a lie or bad faith argument and await your addressing of said issue. You may attempt to direct the argument away from that topic, but it's not going to happen. You specifically said you read the article you are arguing against, but I have proven you either did not, or are ignoring portions of it for your own gain.

You may call me anything you like, I will continue to remind you of your burden here until you address it.

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:
Please address your lie or bad faith argument before trying to progress the argument or sway its direction. You clearly ignored my previous statements that point out a serious flaw in your debate.

I say again:

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

I will not allow you to ignore your lie or bad faith argument when brought to light. It is toxic to conversation and the entire point of this forum.

Oh look you have still yet to supply me a side by side comparison for the same jobs on an hourly wage. You just keep repeating the same falsifiable data and keep calling it true. Completely typical of someone in a situation without demonstrable evidence to do over and over again.

Show me a side by side of hourly wage of men and women in the same field, their years of experience in that field, and their years in that job.

Refusal to do so at this point is an admittance of lying to me.

Your tactics will not work on me. I have pointed out a lie or bad faith argument and await your addressing of said issue. You may attempt to direct the argument away from that topic, but it's not going to happen. You specifically said you read the article you are arguing against, but I have proven you either did not, or are ignoring portions of it for your own gain.

You may call me anything you like, I will continue to remind you of your burden here until you address it.

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

Get filing those lawsuits. Tell me how it works out for you since you seem to so fully believe the lie seeing as it has been completely illegal since 1963.

Just let us know how the evidence comes out ole chap.

Get to work on that equality thing. I mean the government who has apparently "proved it" hasn't done it for you. I guess it's up to you now.

I eagerly await.

Fancy Pants:
It is toxic to conversation and the entire point of this forum.

You're right. Pointing out what statistics actually mean and what they do and don't represent is toxic to this conversation and forum because so many here are afraid of the truth.

It's actually quite astonishing how bad the gaming community is when it comes to statistics. To quote simpsons

Lyle Lanley:
You know, a gamer with a statistic is a little like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how he got it, and danged if he knows how to use it!

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Oh look you have still yet to supply me a side by side comparison for the same jobs on an hourly wage. You just keep repeating the same falsifiable data and keep calling it true. Completely typical of someone in a situation without demonstrable evidence to do over and over again.

Show me a side by side of hourly wage of men and women in the same field, their years of experience in that field, and their years in that job.

Refusal to do so at this point is an admittance of lying to me.

Your tactics will not work on me. I have pointed out a lie or bad faith argument and await your addressing of said issue. You may attempt to direct the argument away from that topic, but it's not going to happen. You specifically said you read the article you are arguing against, but I have proven you either did not, or are ignoring portions of it for your own gain.

You may call me anything you like, I will continue to remind you of your burden here until you address it.

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

Get filing those lawsuits. Tell me how it works out for you since you seem to so fully believe the lie seeing as it has been completely illegal since 1963.

Just let us know how the evidence comes out ole chap.

Get to work on that equality thing. I mean the government who has apparently "proved it" hasn't done it for you. I guess it's up to you now.

I eagerly await.

Again you've chosen not address your lie or bad faith argument.

Either you did not read the article you are arguing, or you did and are ignoring portions of it for your own gain. This failing became apparent when you made conflicting statements and will not go away by your refusal to acknowledge it. Attempting to subvert the dialog changes nothing and contributes nothing to your argument.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:
Please address your lie or bad faith argument before trying to progress the argument or sway its direction. You clearly ignored my previous statements that point out a serious flaw in your debate.

I say again:

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

I will not allow you to ignore your lie or bad faith argument when brought to light. It is toxic to conversation and the entire point of this forum.

Oh look you have still yet to supply me a side by side comparison for the same jobs on an hourly wage. You just keep repeating the same falsifiable data and keep calling it true. Completely typical of someone in a situation without demonstrable evidence to do over and over again.

Show me a side by side of hourly wage of men and women in the same field, their years of experience in that field, and their years in that job.

Refusal to do so at this point is an admittance of lying to me.

Your tactics will not work on me. I have pointed out a lie or bad faith argument and await your addressing of said issue. You may attempt to direct the argument away from that topic, but it's not going to happen. You specifically said you read the article you are arguing against, but I have proven you either did not, or are ignoring portions of it for your own gain.

You may call me anything you like, I will continue to remind you of your burden here until you address it.

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

The point is that if you compare the wages of any two people (irregardless of gender), one that works "full time" 20 hours a week and one that works "full time" 30 hours a week, there will most likely be a disparity. The above quote is not the hourly rate, but the yearly rate, of what could be completely seperate jobs in terms of work load.

What there needs to be is an actual dollar-per-hour break down that similarly takes into account previous experience and years worked at the job, which that quote doesn't indicate. I havn't read the article, but repeating that one quote above doesn't mean anything out of context.

Apologies if the actual article does address the points above, but if so I'd suggest picking a better paragraph to quote as evidence.

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:
Your tactics will not work on me. I have pointed out a lie or bad faith argument and await your addressing of said issue. You may attempt to direct the argument away from that topic, but it's not going to happen. You specifically said you read the article you are arguing against, but I have proven you either did not, or are ignoring portions of it for your own gain.

You may call me anything you like, I will continue to remind you of your burden here until you address it.

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

Get filing those lawsuits. Tell me how it works out for you since you seem to so fully believe the lie seeing as it has been completely illegal since 1963.

Just let us know how the evidence comes out ole chap.

Get to work on that equality thing. I mean the government who has apparently "proved it" hasn't done it for you. I guess it's up to you now.

I eagerly await.

Again you've chosen not address your lie or bad faith argument.

Either you did not read the article you are arguing, or you did and are ignoring portions of it for your own gain. This failing became apparent when you made conflicting statements and will not go away by your refusal to acknowledge it. Attempting to subvert the dialog changes nothing and contributes nothing to your argument.

Its hard to talk to someone who does not even understand what full time entails.

You can go on maternity leave for 9 months and still be called full time.

You can be hired 3 months before then end of the year and be full time.

You can take time off to care for a sick family member and be full time.

You can work 36 hours a week and your co worker can work 70 hours a week and be full time.

You can work 16 hours a week after being full time for three months and work 16 hours a week for three months and still be counted as full time for benefits.

And finally you seem to lack the understanding that the data which is falsifiable that you are quoting includes all of the factors I just mentioned as well as an average of every job from minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour under the name of full time. Making the data unverifiable. Because if it was proof, every coporation in America would be sued yearly.

You sir, are not grasping the data in any way shape or form.

andago:

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Oh look you have still yet to supply me a side by side comparison for the same jobs on an hourly wage. You just keep repeating the same falsifiable data and keep calling it true. Completely typical of someone in a situation without demonstrable evidence to do over and over again.

Show me a side by side of hourly wage of men and women in the same field, their years of experience in that field, and their years in that job.

Refusal to do so at this point is an admittance of lying to me.

Your tactics will not work on me. I have pointed out a lie or bad faith argument and await your addressing of said issue. You may attempt to direct the argument away from that topic, but it's not going to happen. You specifically said you read the article you are arguing against, but I have proven you either did not, or are ignoring portions of it for your own gain.

You may call me anything you like, I will continue to remind you of your burden here until you address it.

You: "I read it."
You: "It still doesn't compare hourly wage,"

The article: In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

You say you read the article, but even the tiny portion I specifically linked to you several times mentions that the study does indeed factor in hours worked. If you had read it, you would not have said it does not. So you must either be lying or are arguing in bad faith.

The point is that if you compare the wages of any two people (irregardless of gender), one that works "full time" 20 hours a week and one that works "full time" 30 hours a week, there will most likely be a disparity. The above quote is not the hourly rate, but the yearly rate, of what could be completely seperate jobs in terms of work load.

What there needs to be is an actual dollar-per-hour break down that similarly takes into account previous experience and years worked at the job, which that quote doesn't indicate. I havn't read the article, but repeating that one quote above doesn't mean anything out of context.

Apologies if the actual article does address the points above, but if so I'd suggest picking a better paragraph to quote as evidence.

The study was undertaken with all of that in mind; it uses the Successive Difference
Replication method to give a weight to differing values, ensuring a fair comparison.

ultreos2:

Fancy Pants:

ultreos2:

Get filing those lawsuits. Tell me how it works out for you since you seem to so fully believe the lie seeing as it has been completely illegal since 1963.

Just let us know how the evidence comes out ole chap.

Get to work on that equality thing. I mean the government who has apparently "proved it" hasn't done it for you. I guess it's up to you now.

I eagerly await.

Again you've chosen not address your lie or bad faith argument.

Either you did not read the article you are arguing, or you did and are ignoring portions of it for your own gain. This failing became apparent when you made conflicting statements and will not go away by your refusal to acknowledge it. Attempting to subvert the dialog changes nothing and contributes nothing to your argument.

Its hard to talk to someone who does not even understand what full time entails.

You can go on maternity leave for 9 months and still be called full time.

You can be hired 3 months before then end of the year and be full time.

You can take time off to care for a sick family member and be full time.

You can work 36 hours a week and your co worker can work 70 hours a week and be full time.

You can work 16 hours a week after being full time for three months and work 16 hours a week for three months and still be counted as full time for benefits.

And finally you seem to lack the understanding that the data which is falsifiable that you are quoting includes all of the factors I just mentioned as well as an average of every job from minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour under the name of full time. Making the data unverifiable. Because if it was proof, every coporation in America would be sued yearly.

You sir, are not grasping the data in any way shape or form.

Again, you are proving you've not read the article linked.

The method for calculating averages used was Successive Difference Replication. This method takes into account a variety of variables and assigns them weights so they can be fairly compared and averaged out over a broad range of data points. The government, for all its flaws, isn't stupid enough to not understand something so basic as differences in work weeks.

Read the article. Then argue.

Fancy Pants:
An argument takes more than statements. Provide evidence to support your claim that the U.S. government's findings are incorrect.

---
EDIT
---

Also, you are wrong to say it does not compare hours worked.

In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

Emphasis mine.

Okay, there's a slight hiccup in communication here. To get a better understanding, please, consider the following scenario:

Two guys take the same job at the same company. All their factors are identical - they have the same level of education, of experience, take out the same benefits, everything.

But, Guy #1 puts in 36 hours a week.

Guy #2 puts in 36 hours a week... and another 6 hours of overtime (On average)

By definition, both fall under the heading of "full-time worker." But, it wouldn't be fair to pay them the same. So, who would get paid more? Who would get promoted sooner? Guy #2, right?

That's what Ultreos is saying. Women tend to be Guy #1. Not all women, of course, but it's a trend they follow more than men do. A large portion of the wage gap is attributed to this. But, the study you link to puts everyone who works "full-time" (A definition with no upper cap) in the same boat, both those who work the bare minimum and those who bury themselves in their work. That's why it's flawed.

Saetha:

Fancy Pants:
An argument takes more than statements. Provide evidence to support your claim that the U.S. government's findings are incorrect.

---
EDIT
---

Also, you are wrong to say it does not compare hours worked.

In 2012, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($37,791) was 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($49,398)

Emphasis mine.

Okay, there's a slight hiccup in communication here. To get a better understanding, please, consider the following scenario:

Two guys take the same job at the same company. All their factors are identical - they have the same level of education, of experience, take out the same benefits, everything.

But, Guy #1 puts in 36 hours a week.

Guy #2 puts in 36 hours a week... and another 6 hours of overtime (On average)

By definition, both fall under the heading of "full-time worker." But, it wouldn't be fair to pay them the same. So, who would get paid more? Who would get promoted sooner? Guy #2, right?

That's what Ultreos is saying. Women tend to be Guy #1. Not all women, of course, but it's a trend they follow more than men do. A large portion of the wage gap is attributed to this. But, the study you link to puts everyone who works "full-time" (A definition with no upper cap) in the same boat, both those who work the bare minimum and those who bury themselves in their work. That's why it's flawed.

See my above post for the method used to calculate averages.

Fancy Pants:
snip

Then consider this scenario if you dare :{P}

There are only 2 jobs in the world Job A and Job B with 30 people 15 male 15 female.

Job A pays $10 a year, and has 10 Female workers and 5 Male workers

Job B pays $100 a year, and has 10 Male workers and 5 Female workers.

On Average The Female workers earn less than the Male workers however That's not because they are paid less

The problem with these "statistics" is that the obfuscate they real issue, through malice or ignorance is yet to be determined. Instead of a furor about woman being paid less than men we should be trying to find out why fewer woman are in higher paying positions.

Fancy Pants:

Saetha:

Fancy Pants:
An argument takes more than statements. Provide evidence to support your claim that the U.S. government's findings are incorrect.

---
EDIT
---

Also, you are wrong to say it does not compare hours worked.

Emphasis mine.

Okay, there's a slight hiccup in communication here. To get a better understanding, please, consider the following scenario:

Two guys take the same job at the same company. All their factors are identical - they have the same level of education, of experience, take out the same benefits, everything.

But, Guy #1 puts in 36 hours a week.

Guy #2 puts in 36 hours a week... and another 6 hours of overtime (On average)

By definition, both fall under the heading of "full-time worker." But, it wouldn't be fair to pay them the same. So, who would get paid more? Who would get promoted sooner? Guy #2, right?

That's what Ultreos is saying. Women tend to be Guy #1. Not all women, of course, but it's a trend they follow more than men do. A large portion of the wage gap is attributed to this. But, the study you link to puts everyone who works "full-time" (A definition with no upper cap) in the same boat, both those who work the bare minimum and those who bury themselves in their work. That's why it's flawed.

See my above post for the method used to calculate averages.

Averages that account for every job in the world by definition can not prove that two people working the exact same job that women are making 23 cents less an hour. You are literally spouting out verifiable nonsense. If this were true lawsuits would be being filed for the last 50 years bothing you are saying is quantifiably verifiable you are literally jumping the shark of any and all logic from all mehtodology possible.

The government is the one who outlawed this. They would be entirely within their right to sue and compensate for womans wages every single year, yet they have not. This either suggests the government is lying, or that the government is okay with every company in the US breaking their own mandated laws.

Your claims are literally incomprehensible to the reality of the world around you.

Fancy Pants:
Again, you are proving you've not read the article linked.

The method for calculating averages used was Successive Difference Replication. This method takes into account a variety of variables and assigns them weights so they can be fairly compared and averaged out over a broad range of data points. The government, for all its flaws, isn't stupid enough to not understand something so basic as differences in work weeks.

Read the article. Then argue.

They use 90% confidence level which raises an asterix for me, so it is not idiocy that is at play but rather wanting to make a point because otherwise you would use 95%.

Fancy Pants:

Saetha:
snip

See my above post for the method used to calculate averages.

I actually went through the report itself, to get clarification on many of the things it stated. While the report did use the SDR method, another pdf that detailed how it was implemented (That pdf is here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60_245sa.pdf It was buried in the first report) showed that the only pertinent factor it considered was educational attainment. There is no mention made of if they asked for individual hours worked, or benefits taken out - at least, none that I could find, The closest it ever got was asking if the interviewee is unemployed or not. Most of the questions focused on things like the size of the household, or if they received disability pay, or if they had insurance. On the same note, I couldn't find an explanation of how it detailed educational attainment, or how this was would effect the study.

But, I am no statistician. If you have such information, I'd be glad to look it over. Until then, however, I can only trust the studies and scholars who have given specific attention to this problem - most of whom put the wage gap at a much, much smaller size.

Self-reported and annual rather than normalized to hourly?

Suspicious numbers are suspicious, I'm filing that particular part of the data somewhere between "heavily spun" and "outright fabricated", I think. That's reeeeeeeeeeally dodgy, analysis-wise, even from first blush.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here