[decode]

I have read the words and they don't explain why the text contains the opposite information from the graph. I also followed the link to PayScale and found this page:

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap/job-di...

It shows that men make more than women in 11/12 common professions and women make more than men in 0/12. Again, this is the opposite of the text of your link (and of your assertion).

Did I miss something?

[papsosouid]

>Did I miss something?

Yes. The image doesn't show the opposite information as the text. As the text explains, the average of all men's wages increases more than the average of all women's wages. The average of all men and all women's wages is not how you show there is a wage gap. The average of all women work fewer hours than the average of all men, and have less experience.

[decode]

The graph shows that for individual positions within a single profession, men make more than women. The PayScale page I linked to also shows the same thing.

The text of your link says that "the gender wage gap disappears for most positions". How is that not the opposite of the graph and the data?

[papsosouid]

The answer is still "account for hours work and years experience" no matter how many times you ask.

[decode]

I just now realized that you didn't read the graph rayiner linked to or even the study you yourself linked to, so you're just replying with non sequiturs. It's clear that this thread is going nowhere.

For others who have made it this far down into the thread: the "study" that papsosouid linked to controls for years experience and also probably hours worked, but still concluded that there's a wage gap.

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap/women-...