> My point is: Work longer -> slightly more productive -> slightly higher pay.
And I'm telling you this is not a foregone conclusion.
> If the conversation starts from an inconclusive or flimsy premise then it should be derailed.
No. It should include both the initial position and the specific cases that inspired it and then move to a broader case. This is not customer service, these are people's lives.
> It is far too easy to make bad decisions based on flawed studies.
Are you suggesting that the decision to pay women equally, carefully audit corporate promotions, and firmly and directly punish racist and sexist harassment are actually open for debate? Is there an outcome where we might say, "Oh no, actually it's correct to pay women less for equal work?"
> The first step is to work out if it's a real issue we could be, or should be, solving.
How many individual women need to risk their careers explaining unconscionable behavior by their managers and employers HR departments before you're satisfied anyone anywhere is allowed to have this conversation? You should put that number out there.
> But you have to actually make a case.
You may not realize you're doing this, but you're actually interfering with everyone's ability to make a case by derailing every conversation and making it all about you and your (higher than any other sociological or scientific field) standards for allowing discussion.
Look at you. You're here because marketing copy for an event triggered you. You're so angry you're willing to argue that maybe pay shouldn't be equal after all.
I was talking about the specifics of a single study on comparing the tech industry with other industries on the wage gap (and I guess more broadly at the fact that people misuse these studies).
You are broadening the conversation to look at sexism in broader society.
Let's stick to the specifics here.
> making it all about you and your (higher than any other sociological or scientific field) standards for allowing discussion.
Nonsense. Most rigorous wage gap studies control for a lot more than the GlassDoor study.
The particular data (working hours) that I'm saying should have been included is straightforward to measure and collect.
> You're so angry you're willing to argue that maybe pay shouldn't be equal after all.
A swing and a miss. It's like you aren't even trying to read what I'm writing.
> You are broadening the conversation to look at sexism in broader society.
No. No. No sheepmullet. You've been broadening the scope from unrelated articles to Japanese work culture whenever it suits you. It's too late for you to go, "HEY I WAS RIGHT IN THIS LIMITED CONTEXT."
Unbelievable.
> Nonsense. Most rigorous wage gap studies control for a lot more than the GlassDoor study.
Yes, because the include many more hourly, tipped and commission-based jobs. The Glassdoor dataset has almost none of those.
> The particular data (working hours) that I'm saying should have been included is straightforward to measure and collect.
Salaried jobs don't collect the data, and that's the majority of Glassdoor's data.
> A swing and a miss. It's like you aren't even trying to read what I'm writing.
Given your prior attestation you are not broadening scope despite mentioning Japan's dangerously broken work culture as a pole star, I'm wondering if YOU are reading what you're writing.
And given the moderation, you're not doing such a swell job convincing people here.
> Unless we're talking consulting, that's exactly what Salary lets you do.
We are clearly having communication issues and I'm not sure how you are addressing what I'm talking about.
My point is: Work longer -> slightly more productive -> slightly higher pay.
> You're effectively trying to stifle and derail the entire conversation
If the conversation starts from an inconclusive or flimsy premise then it should be derailed.
It is far too easy to make bad decisions based on flawed studies.
> and also that women are reporting under-compensation.
The first step is to work out if it's a real issue we could be, or should be, solving.
It could be a problem worth addressing if the gap was driven by sexism.
It could be a problem worth addressing if the small pay gap was a major contributor to women leaving the industry.
It could be a problem if the small pay gap was a strong contributor to women not entering the field.
It could be a problem if we we were seeing a rapidly widening gap.
Etc etc.
But you have to actually make a case.