Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fsaneq2 3327 days ago
I find it hard to take a 2.4% difference observed through what seems to be a self reported, necessarily imperfect survey[0] seriously.

[0] http://www.payscale.com/about/methodology

2 comments

The meta argument I am trying to make is that recent arguments about this have shifted to including accounting for jobs (and usually experience levels), since jecjec was claiming that it's still the antiquated version that does not account for any of those things. If you want to have a discussion about the quality of any of those articles or the studies they're based on, well, that's a different discussion entirely, I present these as evidence that the discussion has moved, not that any of them are correct.
> arguments about this have shifted

Only in a Motte-Bailey sense [1][2].

PM: "77 cents to the dollar, it's a crime!!"

DO: "That's complete BS".

PM: "Well, you're right, here is more reasonable data"

DO: "But that doesn't actually show a gap"

PM: "Oh my god, 77 cents to the dollar!!"

[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...

[2] https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

The point is that 2.4% is within the error of such a survey. So effectively the result of the survey is that there is no pay gap.
the point is, you're arguing with the article, not my point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14335076

This comment links to a rigorous English dataset.

Band 5 staff earn between £21k and £28k. Band 8d staff earn between £65k and £81k.

When we restrict ourselves to a single healthcare profession (in this example I used widwives) that has many more women than men at the entry level jobs we still see men being promoted above women.

Keep on moving the goalposts.

It doesnt change the fact there is no general wage gap when experience and accurate jobs comparison are taken into account.

In 2017, equal work DOES have equal pay.