Wednesday, September 09, 2009

I Ask

Would this be empirical evidence of sexism in the US and other countries?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

the wymmenz get pregnant and then do not work?

Robert Miller said...

It's empirical evidence our women are paid more than every other country's men.

The chart doesn't say whether it's adjusted for purchasing power parity, does it?

There are many reasons why women get paid less than men on average. Reasons other than gender account for nearly all the difference. They include job security, danger, salary vs commission, unionization, travel, moving, career interuption. Women's lower wages and job security are reasons why their unemployment rate is much lower than men.

Bob Y. said...

The answer is no. If you look at what the area of study of the genders is, you will see more males in hard sciences, engineering, and math. You will see more women in the soft sciences (like sociology) and teaching. It's the job and the years worked in that job that matters.

Hydrick said...

Does this chart measure salary, or total compensation? I ask because maternity leave for women raises their cost of benefits relative to benefits packages for men that don't include paternity leave. This would probably result in lower wages for women since the compensation dollars are diverted to benefits over salary.

Dr. Bob said...

I'll bite.

No. Because there may be numerous and significant reasons other than sexism to explain the difference.

Perhaps (I say perhaps, because without studies who the heck knows) men tend to:

a) work more years than women,

b) tend to work in higher paid professions/jobs than women,

c) tend to take less time off (e.g. pregnancy leave, leave to take care of parents, etc.)

d) tend to work more hours than women.

e) tend to be more highly educated (although I think in the last five years, women have turned the tables).

But, to net - the stats can say women earn less, but it cannot conclude or even imply sexism is the cause without further study.

Is this some nonsense "The Economist" tried to claim?

Jack Golding said...

No,

There is an article in last weeks The Economist regarding women being PHYSICALLY incapable of working in banking due to their hormones being unable to cope with the risks involved or something.

I study mathematics and expect '100k + bonus' first year out if I get a job trading - how many girl mathematicians/engineers/bankers do you see? Law/Medicine are the only 'high calibre' courses that have a reasonable woman-man ratio - they all do arts here.

Anonymous said...

What you have is evidence of correlation. Evidence of correlation is not evidence of causality. Of course you'll never be able to explain that to the masses. Thus my daily encounters with the unwillingly (and willingly) misinformed.

Anonymous said...

Gubbamints needs to do mo fo teh po wummenz cause men are so sexyiest.

Robert of Ottawa said...

I want to see the graph that shows the other sexism ... that of life expectancy.