[alexis_fr]

As you can see, the divide is becoming greater between ones who “believe” and ones who “don’t”, and the audience is massively imposing a bias here in this thread. We’ve lost our ability to listen to each other, and it’s sad that it happened on a topic which is still very easy to judge using science.

[debacle]

Most reasonable people on HN stay out of these threads. You're not going to change anyone's mind at this point.

[ergothus]

I think it is true that you wont change most people's minds. (When I discovered the psychological concept of schema, I was literally horrified)

But some of us are discovering that what we thought of as "normal" (and thus forms the basis of many of of our value judgements) is quite narrow, so we have to adjust our expectations and that changes a lot of things... getting perspectives from others is a necessary and tedious process.

Im in my early 40s and despite thinking I was pretty liberal on most social issues I've spent the last 10 years discovering I've been wrong, poorly informed, and/or ignorant on a lot of details. At this rate, I dont expect to be done with these self-updates anytime soon, and reasoned arguments and shared experiences, fears, concerns, and hopes are essential for me to re-determine where I now stand, each and every day.

Just as an example, another comment made an argument about why the market would theoretically prefer underpaid staff. (Which would then not make them underpaid). A good point, but irreconciable with pay gap data...how do I resolve that? Ah, someone replied with a decent response about the issue BEING perceived value. Armed with these positions I can now spend a few minutes of much more effective research, and have better chances of noticing details in my day-to-day life.

For people who are tired of rehashing the same old arguments with data and answers that are out there for anyone serious to find...it's actually quite hard to find if you dont really know the question, and as unfair as it is, there is a limit to how much time and effort will people will spend grasping at straws about how they themselves might be reinforcing terrible systems. Implicit bias is IMPLICIT and thus it is hard to find out what your biased thoughts are. Effective arguments dramatically reduce that time and effort, and even if most wont take them for that final step, some of us are trying, and are grateful to those that are willing to once again rehash the "obvious" with those that are unlikely to change their minds.

[malvosenior]

> A good point, but irreconciable with pay gap data

> For people who are tired of rehashing the same old arguments with data and answers that are out there for anyone serious to find...

It's funny that you say that since there is no data supporting the pay gap. In fact there are people posting data in this thread contradicting the pay gap.

If you say data is available to support your argument, you should link to it.

[ergothus]

> It's funny that you say that

I think you misunderstood my point in the "answers that are out there for anyone serious to find" - I'm saying it's worth restating your arguments even if you think people "should" know the "obvious" and "proven". Nothing in that position makes it ironic that I also stated my understanding of things (Be that understanding right or wrong).

> If you say data is available to support your argument, you should link to it.

I've chased this rabbit hole before - assuming you are sincere, I'll point to Wikipedia and let you follow their citations, but there's lots out there:

> In the US the average woman's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as 78% to 82% of that of the average man's. However, after adjusting for choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation, working hours, and parental leave, multiple studies find that pay rates between males and females varied by 5–6.6% or, females earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from gender discrimination and a difference in ability and/or willingness to negotiate salaries.

I'll be conservative and take the lowest difference and assume that college major, occupation, working hours, and parental leave are 100% by un-pressured choice: 95 cents to the dollar doesn't sound like a lot, until you ask yourself if a 5% raise is significant, particularly since the amount of money in question takes effect every single year. My anecdotal experience suggests the conservative assumptions for that are not reasonable, but YMMV.

[malvosenior]

Even the wikipedia article says there's no citation given to backup the claims (see first paragraph).

> The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to originate from gender discrimination and a difference in ability and/or willingness to negotiate salaries.

So according to wikipedia, men may have higher ability or be better negotiators? I don't see a gender pay gap here.

Here's a good article on the subject:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy...

[ergothus]

> Here's a good article on the subject:

How so? The article rants about the 78% claim, without addressing that (a) even correcting for the concerns they state a pay gap exists, and (b) those "choices" men and women make aren't always free choices (witness who takes parental leave in the US vs in more egalitarian countries.

> men may have higher ability or be better negotiators? I don't see a gender pay gap here.

I fail to see how not knowing the source of a gap disproves the gap.

And men having more frequent and successful negotiations is a pretty tested topic itself. When perceived aggression garners one gender respect and another disdain, it's an inevitable result.

[jccalhoun]

>a topic which is still very easy to judge using science

So how would you do that?

[alexis_fr]

There is no scientific study about wage gap for equivalent work. If it had been reported properly by newspapers, we wouldn’t be talking about it.

[eli]

By science do you mean like phrenology?