What percentage of crimes (punishable by jail) are committed by men?

That's the problem with purely statistical or empirical approaches to these problems.
There are more African Americans and other minorities in prison than Caucasians. Is that prima facie evidence of overt discrimination by the courts and the police? You have to take a closer look at the problem. It turns out there is discrimination but not of the degree that just looking at percentages would imply. There is more crime in those socially and economically deprived sectors and areas.

Being short did not stop Napoleon from becoming Emperor, even though people have a bias for tall people. Neither was Cleopatra stopped from reaching the top of the pyramid because she was a woman, or Queen Seon Deok of Korea, or Mishil of Silla, etc. etc.

The statistics get misused grossly. Their utility is in identifying areas where there might be a problem. Then, the next step should be to investigate that area carefully and address actual instances of discrimination. Attempting to arrive at preset statistical goals just doesn't do justice to the complexity of free choice. We should be agnostic about what the optimal statistical landscape looks like.

This applies to both the wage gap and the freedom gap.

The statistics get misused grossly. Their utility is in identifying areas where there might be a problem. Then, the next step should be to investigate that area carefully and address actual instances of discrimination. Attempting to arrive at preset statistical goals just doesn't do justice to the complexity of free choice. We should be agnostic about what the optimal statistical landscape looks like. — Roke

That's true. Also statistics can be used to deceive or they can be made up. Everyone who worked in research knows this. It's not difficult to twist statistics to get them to show what you want them to show. Much more important than that is understanding the underlying phenomenon.

My working hypothesis is that you've come to this from Jordan Peterson or a related video making an argument that the gender pay gap doesn't exist when including other variables.

To say that it doesn't exist is more than a bit of an exaggeration. It absolutely does, robustly, but to varying degrees in different countries. Even a very equal one like Norway - men make 27 pence extra per pound of woman earnings. The pay gap also exists when you break it down by occupation - though the difference between male and female wages decreases when women and men are employed in equal proportion in a given job (or occupational category). This is to say that controlling for occupation still evinces a pay gap.

If, however, you take the approach where median male earnings and female earnings on a yearly basis are linearly regressed upon a bunch of societal indicators - like occupation, work hours, age, time in current job - you'll probably see that occupation explains the most variance out of any predictor. At least this is how it breaks down in the UK. Nowhere near 100% of the variance (think, the trend of differences between women and men) is explained through the sum total of all predictors. UK analysis puts this somewhere between 30 and 50% of the variance. Which is to say, and Peterson is very fond of this formulation (when applied in other contexts) - at least 50% of the difference between men and women isn't explained by any socioeconomic factor other than gender!

Edit: The first paragraph is absolutely the right analysis for discerning whether there are pay gaps within occupation. It also applies to age and job experience with the same conclusion, go figure.

So, here is a factsheet, and I'll slip in an outright howler that Peterson's army of beta-male epigones seem to forget.
(1) Men tend to make more than women.
(2) Men tend to be in higher paying jobs than women.
(3) Men still make more than women when controlling for occupation (or other socio-economic factors).
(4) There is no personality test approaching common place enough to provide a society wide census of personality traits and earnings. Thus variation due to them cannot currently be modelled precisely in the population at large.

If you want me to provide some references for the UK I can. — fdrake

Great post fdrake! It would be great to see some references for these.

To expand slightly on your 4th 'factsheet' point, this idea that personality differences between women and men partially explain the differences in wage gap has been touted by 'Youtube intellectuals' such as Jordan Peterson (who seems like a rebranded Ayn Rand) and James Demore, the Google engineer that was fired due to the pseudo-scientific farrago of garbage he wrote.

This explanation depends upon a study written by David Schmitt, who has written in response that while there are psychological differences between men and women, the variance is minimal, and likely decreases for people in the same occupation.

Stuff on Norway, general pay gap is less than 27% - that was for a specific type of employment and I misquoted. P29 of this thing is the income comparisons.

Stuff on the US with a breakdown by occupation.

Michael's post earlier in the thread is this year's report on the topic for the UK.

Should be noted that showing the pay gap exists in the aggregate doesn't contradict:
(1) Some women are payed greater than or equal to men in mostly equivalent circumstances.
(2) There are social disadvantages for men, too.

Nor does it explain each instance of disparity.

Jordan Peterson — Maw

Jordan Peterson certainly has dominated his opponents so far. There are very few people on the left who could stand up to him at the moment I think. For example:



The problem with the left is precisely that for quite a long time the left has had what were essentially pseudo-intellectuals. Peterson is, in a way, also not really an intellectual (because as I said many other times, he has very little knowledge of philosophy up to Nietzsche). But he certainly has greater knowledge than today's "intellectuals", postmodernists, etc. And this is something that shows.

Many people call themselves intellectuals because they have a lot of statistics in their heads, or they've read the latest books in some domain, etc. etc. But that's not what it takes to be an intellectual.

Jordan Peterson is a learned man by today's standards, he taught at Harvard, and he is certainly an intellectual. Comparisons with Ayn Rand make YOU look like a fool.

Jordan Peterson's competitive advantage is that he's primarily concerned with truth. He doesn't have to do mental gymnastics in service of ideology like his opponents. That's not to say he doesn't have an ideology or that he always succeeds in speaking the truth. The honesty is refreshing though, admirable guy.

Jordan Peterson's competitive advantage is that he's primarily concerned with truth. He doesn't have to do mental gymnastics in service of ideology like his opponents. That's not to say he doesn't have an ideology or that he always succeeds in speaking the truth. The honesty is refreshing though, admirable guy. — Roke

I think his main advantage is that he's a guy who is slightly more cultured and knowledgeable in a sea of idiots, which is what modern culture pretty much is.

Certainly, Augustino, you are not equating a seemingly arbitrary journalist with a "left-wing intellectual". Just as most left-wing philosophers, or philosophers in general, rarely reference or confront Ayn Rand's Objectivism, so too, I imagine, they can safely ignore Peterson's unoriginal, uninteresting, self-help "philosophy". He resembles many modern intellectual conservatives (e.g. Ben Shapiro), who pimp out sound-bite friendly, cherry-picked statistics, or makes vapid claims sound meaningful by stating it with assertiveness and conviction, making it easily digestible to young, frustrated men, who are more interested in feeling right then being right.

Certainly, Augustino, you are not equating a seemingly arbitrary journalist with a "left-wing intellectual". Just as most left-wing philosophers, or philosophers in general, rarely reference or confront Ayn Rand's Objectivism, so too, I imagine, they can safely ignore Peterson's unoriginal, uninteresting, self-help "philosophy". He resembles many modern intellectual conservatives (e.g. Ben Shapiro), who pimp out sound-bite friendly, cherry-picked statistics, or makes vapid claims sound meaningful by stating it with assertiveness and conviction, making it easily digestible to young, frustrated men, who are more interested in feeling right then being right. — Maw

Riiiight, a Harvard Professor compared with Shapiro. And Ayn Rand. Nice. >:O

If you don't see there's a huge difference of culture and learning between these cases, you need better glasses.

I guarantee there are many professors at Harvard who vehemently disagree with Peterson. And Ben Shapiro received his JD at Harvard Law, so I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Then again, you've never been one to either state or defend your point well.

And Ben Shapiro received his JD at Harvard Law, so I'm not sure what your point is exactly. — Maw

That's not the same as being a Professor there. So my point was stated very well, thank you.

I guarantee there are many professors at Harvard who vehemently disagree with Peterson. — Maw

Maybe, so what?

Peterson is more learned than even a lot of those people. He is similar to Osho, though at a lesser level. Osho was also extremely well-educated, there are very few human beings on the planet who could have claimed similar levels of education. Just in terms of breadth - I mean, there probably was no important philosopher or religious thinker or artist that Osho failed to comment on - he even commented on some of the most obscure ones! Such breadth is rare, and this is before the internet! Peterson doesn't have even 30% of Osho's breadth. Not saying that I agree with Osho (I disagree on most things), but he was extremely well-educated, there's no denying that. He could easily run circles around all your Harvard professors probably. Many professors in this age have a lot of depth, but very little breadth.

So Peterson is extremely insightful in this sea of over-specialised people, who only know one small thing well.

This thread is about the gender pay gap, not Peterson, so, I don't care to digress into that conversation here (or Osho, for whatever reason you decided to ramble on about him). If you want to discuss the merits of Peterson and his "breadth", create a new thread and I will perhaps comment on it. I've been watching some of Peterson's videos and he's a sophist who wrestles with his ghosts formed from his own delusions.

I hate to be possibly pedantic, but that's a study on the earnings gap, not the pay gap "The gender pay gap is the difference between the average earnings of men and women, expressed relative to men’s earnings. For example, ‘women earn 15% less than men per hour’.".

This doesn't actually mean that on average, considering experience, tenure, position, and performance, women are paid 15% less than men per hour on average, it just means that if you look at raw totals you find women are earning this much less per hour overall than men.

The earnings gap is real but isn't exactly a problem. The pay gap is almost non-existent, and only affects people in elite positions who already make too much money anyway, so I don't care...

This thread is about the gender pay gap, not Peterson, so, I don't care to digress into that conversation here — Maw

Right, I'm glad you finally remembered the subject of this thread after you brought up Peterson, and after you thought that having a JD from Harvard is the same as being a Professor there. However, it's time for me to go to sleep, not open threads atm.

Yes, Agustino, I mentioned Peterson (he was brought up before I mentioned him, however), and now I am ending the conversation lest we further digress off subject.

I never said that graduating Harvard is equivalent with being a Professor there. I see you haven't lost your knack for putting words in my mouth. What I don't understand is you bringing up the fact that Peterson used to teach at Harvard. Does that make him smarter than Shapiro? Does it make him better than him, because he had an occupation at an elite institution whereas Shapiro "merely" graduated there? Feel free to make a thread whenever the hell you want. Or, perhaps, better yet. Don't. I always seem to forget how unbearable it can be to converse with you.

I believe that's explained in section 6 ("A breakdown of the gender pay gap"). Only 36.1% of the difference can be explained by such things as occupation, whether it's full-time work or not, etc. 63.9% is left unaccounted for. Of course that's not to say that it's due to discrimination; only that the model used doesn't look at everything.

Do you know of a better study that shows that discrimination is negligible, as you suggested?

Edit: I've found this study that provides figures for both unadjusted and adjusted pay gaps:

Outside of the U.S., the report reveals the unadjusted and adjusted pay gaps in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and France. Findings in each of these markets are similar: a larger unadjusted pay gap that shrinks, but does not disappear, when additional factors such as worker experience, age, location and job title are included.

So for a man earning £30,000, a woman in the same position and having the same experience is earning £28,500.

This kind of analysis at least begins to address the issue of how much of the gender pay gap is due to outright employer discrimination on the basis of sex, again most of it is due to other factors and choices.

The Gender Wage Gap and Wage Discrimination:
Illusion or Reality?
Howard Wall:
Despite laws to prevent wage discrimination in the workplace, the median weekly earnings for full-time female workers in 1999 was only 76.5 percent that of their male counterparts. A close analysis, however, reveals that much of this gap is due to non-discriminatory factors:
Weekly vs. hourly wages. Women typically work fewer hours a week than men. When you compare hourly wages, almost one-third of the gap disappears.
Education, experience, occupation, union status. A 1997 study shows that men's educational and experience levels are currently greater than women's and that men gravitate toward industries and occupations that are higher-paying than women, including union jobs. These factors reduce the remaining wage gap by 62 percent.
The remaining 6.2 cents of the gap, which is unexplained, is the maximum that can be attributed to wage discrimination. Some of this unexplained portion might be due to the difficulties involved in accounting for the effects of childbearing on women's wages. For example, women aged 27 to 33 who have never had children earn a median hourly wage that is 98 percent of men's.

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/public-policy/hr-public-policy-issues/Documents/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent

If we take my previous example of a man earning £30,000, that means an equivalent woman earns between £27,870 and £28,560. I don't think £2,130 a year for someone earning £27,870 is something that can just be brushed aside.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf
This recent study on the gender pay gap from Cornell University. Overt discrimination accounts for very little of the statistical gender pay gap.

ABSTRACT

The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations*

Using PSID microdata over the 1980-2010, we provide new empirical evidence on the extent of and trends in the gender wage gap, which declined considerably over this period. By 2010, conventional human capital variables taken together explained little of the gender wage gap, while gender differences in occupation and industry continued to be important. Moreover, the gender pay gap declined much more slowly at the top of the wage distribution that at the middle or the bottom and by 2010 was noticeably higher at the top. We then survey the literature to identify what has been learned about the explanations for the gap. We conclude that many of the traditional explanations continue to have salience. Although human capital factors are now relatively unimportant in the aggregate, women’s work force interruptions and shorter hours remain significant in high skilled occupations, possibly due to compensating differentials. Gender differences in occupations and industries, as well as differences in gender roles and the gender division of labor remain important, and research based on experimental evidence strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted. Psychological attributes or noncognitive skills comprise one of the newer explanations for gender differences in outcomes. Our effort to assess the quantitative evidence on the importance of these factors suggests that they account for a small to moderate portion of the gender pay gap, considerably smaller than say occupation and industry effects, though they appear to modestly contribute to these differences. — blau & kahn

That one seems to show an even bigger gap. Page 68 shows that when adjusted to the full spectrum (i.e. taking into account occupation, experience, etc.) women earn 91.6% what men earn. Or am I reading it wrong?

Are you trying to say that it doesn't matter what value a person brings to the company? Does just the occupation title matter? — Coldlight

Well, not the title, but the work contract, yes. That's the Law!

Keep in mind that the factors they've isolated can account for all but the remaining percentage of wage disparity. Of that remaining percent, there are other factors they chose not to analyze due to inadequate data:

"Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

Additional portions of the raw gender wage gap are attributable to other explanatory factors that have been identified in the existing economic literature, but cannot be analyzed satisfactorily using only data from the 2007 CPS. Those factors include, for example, health insurance, other fringe benefits, and detailed features of overtime work, which are sources of wage adjustments that compensate specific groups of workers for benefits or duties that disproportionately affect them. Analysis of such compensating wage adjustments generally requires data from several independent and, often, specialized sources".

We should not always leap to the conclusion that disparities are all caused by discrimination. At best it's presumptuous and potentially misleading, at worst it's a political tool to intellectually defraud individuals using deeply flawed statistical analysis. It's a favored tool for any political speaker focusing on identity to make an argument because statistical misinterpretation of raw data pertaining to arbitrary demographics is so easy to do while correctly processing it is complicated, tedious, and boring.

As far as I understand it though, wage disparity tends to be higher in elite positions rather than jobs of average (and largely standardized) incomes, which is why I'm not shedding too many tears over it. Granted, point out the discrimination and I'll happily help you stamp it out.

There is unquestionably a significant difference between average pay of the sexes. It is only whether there is a 'gap' that seems controversial, which leads to long arguments about what a gap is. I suggest that that question can be sidestepped by instead focusing on outcomes, ie what, if anything, do we want to do about the average pay differential.

I would break down the reasons for pay differences into the following three categories:

1. policy differences. For instance, until the seventies it was common for employers to have official full-time rates of pay for a certain job (eg clerk level 4) differentiated by sex

2. non-policy, employer-instigated differences. This is when there is no explicit policy, but decision-makers at the employer tend to give promotions and pay rises to men more readily than to women, given the same performance profile. I would also include in this cases where employers treat women badly with the aim of discouraging them from applying for or retaining higher-paying roles. For instance 'boys-club' cultures in senior management and on boards may make women feel too uncomfortable in those environments to be prepared to put up with it.

3. non-policy, non-employer-instigated differences. This is where the employee voluntarily, without coercion, makes choices that lead to lower pay - eg not applying for promotions because they don't want the stress or longer hours, or choosing occupations that have lower pay, because those occupations appeal to them more.

Type 1 is easiest to address, because it is out in the open for all to see. That is why it has disappeared from most developed countries.

I think most would agree that type 2 is regrettable and we should try to remove it from workplaces. The trouble is that, being non-policy, it is undocumented and thus hard to detect. Most developed countries have anti-discrimination laws that forbid such behaviour, but there is a standard of proof that must be met in any individual case before any redress can be obtained.

We could reduce the amount of type-2 behaviour by toughening anti-discrimination laws, in particular by lowering the burden of proof. the balancing act here is that the more proof standards are lowered, the greater will be the frequency of non-discriminatory employers being unfairly convicted of being discriminatory. I think discussions about this need to be taken jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and take account of the details of each jurisdiction's laws.

Law is not the only available measure though. Consciousness-raising campaigns are another, eg advertising against discrimination, similar to what is done for domestic violence or racism. Again there is a balancing act though, as it is taxpayers' money that funds such campaigns, and there is debate about their effectiveness.

Finally, there is type 3. My impression is that most people are not motivated to try to do anything about type 3, but I think some are.

I would be particularly interested in hearing what people would like done about type 2, and from anybody that would like to change type 3 and how they think that should be done.

I think discussing what should be done about observed average pay differentials is likely to be more productive than arguing over whether there is a gap.

Yes, Agustino, I mentioned Peterson (he was brought up before I mentioned him, however), and now I am ending the conversation lest we further digress off subject. — Maw

Congratulations.

I see you haven't lost your knack for putting words in my mouth. — Maw

Oh really? Then why is it that you told me:

And Ben Shapiro received his JD at Harvard Law, so I'm not sure what your point is exactly. — Maw

You told me that for no reason? :s You brought up the fact that Ben Shapiro has a JD at Harvard when I told you that Peterson was a Professor there. And previously you compared Peterson with both Shapiro and Ayn Rand. Seems like you're not aware of what you're saying.

What I don't understand is you bringing up the fact that Peterson used to teach at Harvard. — Maw

To show you that Peterson is not comparable with Ayn Rand or Shapiro, and Peterson is actually an intellectual in today's age.

Does that make him smarter than Shapiro? Does it make him better than him, because he had an occupation at an elite institution whereas Shapiro "merely" graduated there? — Maw

No.

Don't. I always seem to forget how unbearable it can be to converse with you. — Maw

It must be difficult for you to always lose our debates :P

1. policy differences. For instance, until the seventies it was common for employers to have official full-time rates of pay for a certain job (eg clerk level 4) differentiated by sex — andrewk

Society and work may have been different at those times. I would wonder if those who wanted equal pay would still agree with it if they saw the consequences - difficult family life, divorce rates, worse relationships, no work life balance, more difficult to raise children etc.

2. non-policy, employer-instigated differences. This is when there is no explicit policy, but decision-makers at the employer tend to give promotions and pay rises to men more readily than to women, given the same performance profile. I would also include in this cases where employers treat women badly with the aim of discouraging them from applying for or retaining higher-paying roles. For instance 'boys-club' cultures in senior management and on boards may make women feel too uncomfortable in those environments to be prepared to put up with it. — andrewk

Well, what is the same performance profile? They work on different projects, work is never the same, and there are more committed and less committed employees. A male employee A may get paid less than male employee B, too. It's not that they divide the company into two camps and decide to pay women less :-}

3. non-policy, non-employer-instigated differences. This is where the employee voluntarily, without coercion, makes choices that lead to lower pay - eg not applying for promotions because they don't want the stress or longer hours, or choosing occupations that have lower pay, because those occupations appeal to them more. — andrewk

Personal choice. Nothing wrong about that. As I've said before, if someone wants to enter a competitive environment, they have to be competitive. Otherwise, they can go down less stressful and competitive rout as you describe.

I think most would agree that type 2 is regrettable and we should try to remove it from workplaces. The trouble is that, being non-policy, it is undocumented and thus hard to detect. Most developed countries have anti-discrimination laws that forbid such behaviour, but there is a standard of proof that must be met in any individual case before any redress can be obtained. — andrewk

EasyJet want to increase their percentage of female pilots to 20%. The current state is allegedly 6% of female pilots. How can you justify this? Whatever reasons for women not to be pilots as much as current pressure requires doesn't mean it's discrimination. If someone perceives they are being discriminated against, that's their problem. If you wanna be a pilot, put in the work, and try to get there. It is competitive. It is sad to me that someone manages to complain their way into having a specific job. Now, if EasyJet actually goes on to do what they said they would, it means that women would be pushed to be pilots, and the standard will be lowered.

Law is not the only available measure though. Consciousness-raising campaigns are another, eg advertising against discrimination, similar to what is done for domestic violence or racism. Again there is a balancing act though, as it is taxpayers' money that funds such campaigns, and there is debate about their effectiveness. — andrewk

The effectiveness is dubious, and rightly so. It's just that because it surrounds people at work and in media, so people are just quiet because they don't want to stand up and call BS on stuff that they find ridiculous. Just attend some Discrimination and Equality workshop if you have an opportunity, and tell me anyone really takes it seriously. They will put on any sort of mask just not to seem contradictory to the popular opinion. It is still a question of how many people would welcome real discrimination as you describe in the type 1. policy differences.

Tightening anti-discrimination laws is not efficient because you're gonna discriminate against someone anyway, no matter what laws you make.

Finally, there is type 3. My impression is that most people are not motivated to try to do anything about type 3, but I think some are. — andrewk

Why would you want to do anything about it. It is their personal choice to do so.

Forgive me for saying so, but that's pretty arrogant and spoken with authority that you haven't earned yourself, especially if you do not share knowledge about, or the particulars of, others' experience. You also make some broad projections on whether it can or can't still happen to women even if they do "compete and try to improve their situation". — Uneducated Pleb

You can never be 100% sure about any result. The fact that they will decide to be competitive, doesn't mean they would automatically achieve desired results. There are many people who don't succeed in that environment regardless of whether they are men or women. And yes, I do call complaining just by its name.

And even if it's not a myth, it's not something that we should actively seek to eliminate (I don't see why women should, on average, have equal pay with men - women don't do the same jobs, on average, as men, and even if they did, it's again a question of value added). By all means this equality shouldn't be centrally planned, if it arises naturally, no problem. — Agustino

I agree. It just seems to me that someone constantly tries to push women to earn same amount as men and have same goals :-} As if there weren't other important things in life for both men and women.

It's not that they won't pay them, it's simply that they have a lot of learning to do, and they're not willing to pay people to learn. Most students at that age go in a company and they don't even know what's what - you need someone to babysit them, they are expensive, they don't really know how things go, etc. etc. It's more of a hassle than anything else - that's why small businesses, for the most part, don't accept students. — Agustino

Yeah, and that's reasonable from the businesses to do so. It's not that we should organise a riot now about how we are discriminated >:O . It's just the way that business is.