tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post964827515983322327..comments2024-03-18T06:41:03.841-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Strong and Weak Forms of Gender Pay Gap Skepticism - and why both have problemsEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-16724698621879800892014-04-15T10:08:43.725-04:002014-04-15T10:08:43.725-04:00No, that is not correct. Societal pressures, grou...No, that is not correct. Societal pressures, groupthink, etc. would be captured by the fudge term 'v' in the equation. If this is the main driver of choice (and it could very well be), then why even bother talking about expected wage differential w1-w0 conditional on skills / characteristics, 'X'. The only way societal pressures, groupthink, etc. would affect the wage differential would have to come from a1 and b1. Something like: women expect to be less agressive and less likely to ask for raises in high paying jobs vs low paying jobs. <br /><br />The construction vs mgmt at fortune 500 is exactly what I am talking about. It's a bad example in that you are comparing a tiny fraction of workers (driven by idiosyncratic characteristics) to a rather large one. Comparison to other high paying jobs would be more appropriate. Do women expect to be discriminated more in construction vs law, management, medicine, engineering, consulting, etc. jobs?Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-73881471453139330412014-04-14T17:30:04.811-04:002014-04-14T17:30:04.811-04:00First off, no, that's not actually the idea. Y...First off, no, that's not actually the idea. You're imputing a conscious decision-making process to something that the author never implied involved such a thing. The idea is that women are pressured by societal 'groupthink', most of which is unconscious and inculcated at a very young age, to go into 'women's work', and men into 'men's work'. This explains most of the preference that he's talking about. You're making the same mistake that a lot of people make when talking about racism and hiring: assuming that everything that is going on is a conscious decision, and if people stop being consciously racist (or sexist or whatever) then racism just vanishes.<br /><br />But actually, if you think about it a bit, you'll see that even in your terms, it does make sense. How many CEOs are women? How many women who are in the higher ranks of large corporations (a thin field!) complain that the people around them tend to be promoted past them? Indeed, I read a statistic last year (I can't find it at the moment) that says that there are more women construction workers by percentage than there are in upper management of Fortune 500 companies, even though construction work is supposed to be one of the least woman-friendly occupations. It seems that in construction work, you are judged more often by what you can do, and in upper management you are judged by who you know, and how much you are a part of the 'old boys' club'. If women were making rational decisions based on expectations of sexism, then the upper ranks of the Fortune 500 would indeed be some place to avoid at all costs.Fred Fnordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-27646775538448426832014-04-13T17:31:44.011-04:002014-04-13T17:31:44.011-04:00The idea is that if women expect to be discriminat...The idea is that if women expect to be discriminated in a certain occupation, then they won't enter it. This leads to a bias. Is that right? <br /><br />If so: since there is wage gap, women expect to be discriminated at high paying occupations (otherwise the wage gap would go the other way). Think about the likelihood of discrimination at high paying vs low paying jobs. Does this expectation make sense?<br />Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-48473552700754303812014-04-12T19:08:49.390-04:002014-04-12T19:08:49.390-04:00I don't think it makes the empirical estimatio...I don't think it makes the empirical estimation useless either, as I'm sure you know from reading my post.<br /><br />re: "You can evaluate how reasonable this argument is by looking at how likely discrimination is at high paying jobs vs low paying jobs. It's easy to see that this won't pass the smell test."<br /><br />I'm not sure why you're proposing this or even what you're proposing here. Could you be more specific?Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-27705793908912287822014-04-12T16:05:10.181-04:002014-04-12T16:05:10.181-04:00So, discrimination would be underestimated because...So, discrimination would be underestimated because some women expect to be discriminated in occupation X and therefore do not enter X? I don't think this makes the empirical estimation useless. You can evaluate how reasonable this argument is by looking at how likely discrimination is at high paying jobs vs low paying jobs. It's easy to see that this won't pass the smell test.<br />Dannoreply@blogger.com