Yeah all the evidence I've seen is that the wage gap is completely explained by non-discriminatory reasons except for like the last 6%.

Ive never seen them here tbh. If you could post again that'd be great.

Do they compare exact same hours, same job title, same company?

That's approximately the number I've found on most reliable sources that block for a wide range of variables. It's still a big gap. The gap varies across fields, though.



Such analysis is, essentially, impossible to do. But various studies will do their best to block for one or more of those variables. By viewing a conglomeration of such results you can get a good picture for what % of the gap is comprised by what factors.

because of policies similar to Elizabeth Warren (D) and Hillary (C)linton (D) when it comes to paying female staff. Seems this practice has seeped into the accounting world as well, if we take what you say as a certainty.

No firm definition. But if it's within a few percent I'd say it's negligible.



and the last 6% is just 'unknown'. It shouldn't instantly be assumed to be because of sexism.

This post was edited by Scaly on Apr 6 2017 05:09pm

A few thousand a year adds up.

Its about 1 - 12% depending on profession. Higher income people have more at stake....6% of a six figure salary is quite a lot.

If you are in the service industry being a woman probably costs as much as smoking cigarettes lol.

I know men in my profession do better.

In accounting too, which is why I picked that profession.

I posted a pretty comprehensive chart in one of duffs shitty threads that was promptly ignored. Nobody even acknowledges stuff like that when I post it, like it would take the fun out of the argument.

What is "within a few percent"? Give me a number, or a range at the least. You're just using imprecise terms so you can back out of whatever evidence is presented.
/e
Also the last 6% is not "unaccounted". It is unattributable to the measured variables, which account for basically everything save sex across a battery of studies. Discounting it in such an offhand manner is essentially discounting the entire field of statistics.



It's a massive amount of gross income for many professions. Even as a percent, it's statistically significant.

Did your chart resemble this?

https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-occupation-2016-race-ethnicity/

This post was edited by BardOfXiix on Apr 6 2017 06:29pm

Yes, resembles it quite a bit. It wasn't bureau of labor statistics it was done for the STEM professions and collected information from many professions. The study for accounting was done by their national association and I trust their math

It's just really hard for me to care about a percent less than 10 when the trends are the way they are. Women are going to be well past men in like 20 years. Maybe I should care more, that way when our feminine overlords take over they will have pitty.

can this warmongering loser just stfu. we dont want to fight wars so you can profit. back to the woods with you.

This post was edited by excellence on Apr 6 2017 07:18pm