Log in or sign up to comment
2527 Comments
Edited by ptys

Giant Bomb really need to hire a female editor so we can have less of these pandering articles. There are far worse things happening in advertising, my local dentist has a hot model as their clinic poster girl... I mean it's a dentist, she doesn't even work there!!!

Edited by ToTheNines

Well written and interesting article as always (all though admittedly I didn't read every female reaction) Yet I find it sad that if you don't agree with the point it's making, then the consensus among the comments seems to be that you're a sexist, which I know for a fact that I'm not.

In my eyes a lot of the discussion and topics stopped being about equality long ago. Now it's become a battle of the feminists/white knights and the chauvinists. I personally refuse to take part in most of it. Unless something is truly unjust in the name of sexism. Where women aren't allowed certain rights that men are. Then I have a problem and I will voice that, but I will not take offense on the behalf of women for something as silly as the campaign above.. Yes it's beyond dumb and I can see why it could offend someone I guess, but a lot of things in society can be percieved as offensive to all kinds of groups and there will never be a truly non offensive society. Since everyones view of what is offensive differs and it always will imho.

What I'm trying to say is.. The picture above is wrong yes, but I don't think that it's deserving of the uproar either. To collate it with this huge battle of good and evil in modern society just seems a tad bit of an overreaction.

So yeah, thats what I think. It's just an opinion if nothing else. And I can't believe I even bothered to write anything other than interesting and well written article lawl.

Posted by Chrisbot84

Not about to dig through 120 pages of this thread to see if these have been posted yet, so apologies. But I thought I'd share these two videos on the subject. First is from the kind of controversial Jim Sterling http://bit.ly/WAy3uW and the second is from Adam Sessler and his crew at Rev3games http://youtu.be/7HU7tkHSmm8

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

I sincerely believe that your understanding of this document goes about as far as the introduction. That you read it, due to your poor critical thinking skills missed the words "may", "almost entirely", and the very weak "should not", due to your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics went no further, and then decided to call it a day. Even the authors of this report agree that, when adjusting for compensable factors, a wage gap remains. If a gap persists after adjusting for all compensable factors, then it must be due to some form of discrimination. They just don't think it is large enough to be concerned about ("should not"), a normative analysis. You can't even tell positive analysis from normative analysis in that introduction.

This is embarrassing for you, but at least you've been outed as the wannabe you always were.

Lol. That is not what the document says. It specifically says later that it does not seem to be from discrimination. You really project yourself into everything, don't you?

Edit: I'm editing this now to let you know that I am closing this tab now. If you can't read a simple PDF correctly I can't help you any further. I fear I've wasted too much time as it is. EnduranceFun was right. I thought I'd give a try.

Here:

"The adjusted gap is attributable, to unknown degrees, to other explanatory factors that have been omitted from the analyses or to overt discrimination against female workers."

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

I sincerely believe that your understanding of this document goes about as far as the introduction. That you read it, due to your poor critical thinking skills missed the words "may", "almost entirely", and the very weak "should not", due to your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics went no further, and then decided to call it a day. Even the authors of this report agree that, when adjusting for compensable factors, a wage gap remains. If a gap persists after adjusting for all compensable factors, then it must be due to some form of discrimination. They just don't think it is large enough to be concerned about ("should not"), a normative analysis. You can't even tell positive analysis from normative analysis in that introduction.

This is embarrassing for you, but at least you've been outed as the wannabe you always were.

Lol. That is not what the document says. It specifically says later that it does not seem to be from discrimination. You really project yourself into everything, don't you?

Edit: I'm editing this now to let you know that I am closing this tab now. If you can't read a simple PDF correctly I can't help you any further. I fear I've wasted too much time as it is. EnduranceFun was right. I thought I'd give a try.

Having read the entire document before, I can tell that it does not say anything of the sort. More importantly, the math shows it must be discrimination, for when all other factors are adjusted, a gap still persists. The confounding variable is discrimination, pal. You should do the work yourself, if you can.

Please, just be intellectually honest for your own sake.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

I sincerely believe that your understanding of this document goes about as far as the introduction. That you read it, due to your poor critical thinking skills missed the words "may", "almost entirely", and the very weak "should not", due to your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics went no further, and then decided to call it a day. Even the authors of this report agree that, when adjusting for compensable factors, a wage gap remains. If a gap persists after adjusting for all compensable factors, then it must be due to some form of discrimination. They just don't think it is large enough to be concerned about ("should not"), a normative analysis. You can't even tell positive analysis from normative analysis in that introduction.

This is embarrassing for you, but at least you've been outed as the wannabe you always were.

Lol. That is not what the document says. It specifically says later that it does not seem to be from discrimination. You really project yourself into everything, don't you?

Edit: I'm editing this now to let you know that I am closing this tab now. If you can't read a simple PDF correctly I can't help you any further. I fear I've wasted too much time as it is. EnduranceFun was right. I thought I'd give a try.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

I sincerely believe that your understanding of this document goes about as far as the introduction. That you read it, due to your poor critical thinking skills missed the words "may", "almost entirely", and the very weak "should not", due to your lack of knowledge on the subject of statistics went no further, and then decided to call it a day. Even the authors of this report agree that, when adjusting for compensable factors, a wage gap remains. If a gap persists after adjusting for all compensable factors, then it must be due to some form of discrimination. They just don't think it is large enough to be concerned about ("should not"), a normative analysis. You can't even tell positive analysis from normative analysis in that introduction.

This is embarrassing for you, but at least you've been outed as the wannabe you always were.

Posted by JoshyLee

Patrick is the Nancy Grace of Giantbomb. This sensationalist shit has to stop.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel :

You're doing it wrong.

@People who can read: Enjoy the document.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that)

Where is the reading comprehension "fail"?

I think you essentially understand that you can't do the work that is being asked of you despite your bold declarations that there is no discrimination and time (along with other compensable factors) is the reason why there is wage gap.

Since I added it in an edit, here is the end of the introduction, which you clearly failed to either read or understand:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

You should read my previous post, understand it, and then show your work.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that). I'm done here. You, sir, cannot manage to accurately read the introduction of the report.

For those that don't want to read a document from a government think tank:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Indeed. I do not have a problem with this statement. I think you're not understanding me. We both agree that the "choice" to work differing amounts of hours clearly contributes to the wage gap. However, it is when we adjust for these "choices" that we see even without these "choices", women will still be paid less than men. Do not ignore "almost entirely" in that statement.

It seems to me the only person who has poor reading comprehension here is you. That, and you apparently stink at stats.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that)

Where is the reading comprehension "fail"?

I think you essentially understand that you can't do the work that is being asked of you despite your bold declarations that there is no discrimination and time (along with other compensable factors) is the reason why there is wage gap.

Since I added it in an edit, here is the end of the introduction, which you clearly failed to either read or understand:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that)

Where is the reading comprehension "fail"?

I think you essentially understand that you can't do the work that is being asked of you despite your bold declarations that there is no discrimination and time (along with other compensable factors) is the reason why there is wage gap.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel: Lol. Reading comprehension for the FAIL.

P.S. (God, I can't believe someone got me to actually say that). I'm done here. You, sir, cannot manage to accurately read the introduction of the report.

For those that don't want to read a document from a government think tank:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors which affected salary were exactly the same.

Bummer. Because they're not. Nice try, though. If you're good at statistics like you say you are just go ahead and do the work yourself and you'll see that these guys messed up. Not a good source.

I've done the work myself prior to this discussion. They did not mess up.

If you have a different result, please show us your work.

Enjoy the U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics report on the issue, you know, the one everyone is basing their work off of. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Go ahead and tell me they messed up and then we get to throw out every article you or I have posted. lol.

You seem to be rather obtuse. This is essentially the raw data being examined, without being adjusted for compensable factors such as time worked. This data might show that time worked is a factor. However, once this time is adjusted and time worked is no longer a factor, as with the link I posted and my own calculations, we find that a gap persists. You claim that no gap should persist once time is adjusted to be equal. Please show your work.

Posted by confideration

There are many comments on this article.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors which affected salary were exactly the same.

Bummer. Because they're not. Nice try, though. If you're good at statistics like you say you are just go ahead and do the work yourself and you'll see that these guys messed up. Not a good source.

I've done the work myself prior to this discussion. They did not mess up.

If you have a different result, please show us your work.

Enjoy the U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics report on the issue; you know, the one everyone is basing their work off of. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Go ahead and tell me they messed up and then we get to throw out every article you or I have posted. lol.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors which affected salary were exactly the same.

Bummer. Because they're not. Nice try, though. If you're good at statistics like you say you are just go ahead and do the work yourself and you'll see that these guys messed up. Not a good source.

I've done the work myself prior to this discussion. They did not mess up.

If you have a different result, please show us your work.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors which affected salary were exactly the same.

Bummer. Because they're not. Nice try, though. If you're good at statistics like you say you are just go ahead and do the work yourself and you'll see that these guys messed up. Not a good source.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

In other words, all factors that affected salary were exactly the same.

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel: @Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Please highlight for me in that paragraph where it says they considered hours worked per day or per week. Just highlight it real quick.

Posted by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Not. True. The articles I posted are adjusting the numbers included in your link for the problems inherent to them, which, among many, is that they are using yearly earnings per person ("median pay") for "full time work", which does not take into account, in any way, the fact that men work several more hours per week than women (8.14 hours per day for men and 7.75 hours per day for women). Just look at their methodology:

"Methodology

Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.

What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300."

There is is again: "Median Pay". Anyone that does a comparison of "Median Pay" is ignoring critical data and their work is inherently incorrect. You are operating on a mathematical fallacy. They say they're showing like for like, but are in fact not doing so, and it's plain to see if you actually look at the numbers. Their numbers also do not take into account many other factors which the 3 articles I linked all cover in detail. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they know statistics but actually don't. They're impossible to have a discussion with. Please be more careful in the future with whom you believe to be an authority. These people are clearly not.

I have a PhD in Physics from UC Berkeley. I know statistics, son. Not only was it required to obtain my degree, but it is used extensively in my research.

Let me explain something to you: Median is more useful when measuring salaries because the data is not evenly distributed by default. By utilizing the median, you avoid the results being skewed by outliers.

What their mathematical model did was adjust the time spent working to equal amounts for all individuals, adjust the salary accordingly, and then look at results side-by-side. In other words, they got rid of the differences which you utilized to argue that women do not get paid the same because they do not put in the same amount of work. In doing so they revealed that a gap persists even when one controls for these factors. They destroyed your point.

Do you understand this?

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

"To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group."

Posted by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Not. True. The articles I posted are adjusting the numbers included in your link for the problems inherent to them, which, among many, is that they are using yearly earnings per person ("median pay") for "full time work", which does not take into account, in any way, the fact that men work several more hours per week than women (8.14 hours per day for men and 7.75 hours per day for women). Just look at their methodology:

"Methodology

Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.

What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300."

There is is again: "Median Pay". Anyone that does a comparison of "Median Pay" is ignoring critical data and their work is inherently incorrect. You are operating on a mathematical fallacy. They say they're showing like for like, but are in fact not doing so, and it's plain to see if you actually look at the numbers. Their numbers also do not take into account many other factors which the 3 articles I linked all cover in detail. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they know statistics but actually don't. They're impossible to have a discussion with. Please be more careful in the future with whom you believe to be an authority. These people are clearly not.

I have a PhD in Physics from UC Berkeley. I know statistics, son. Not only was it required to obtain my degree, but it is used extensively in my research.

Let me explain something to you: Median is more useful when measuring salaries because the data is not evenly distributed by default. By utilizing the median, you avoid the results being skewed by outliers.

What their mathematical model did was adjust the time spent working to equal amounts for all individuals, adjust the salary accordingly, and then look at results side-by-side. In other words, they got rid of the differences which you utilized to argue that women do not get paid the same because they do not put in the same amount of work. In doing so they revealed that a gap persists even when one controls for these factors. They destroyed your point.

Do you understand this?

They did not do what you think they did. Is that simple enough for you? They don't even say ANYWHERE that they did what you say they did. Everyone else that have done what you think these people have have produced significantly different numbers. Go ahead and run the statistics yourself. Hopefully you'll manage to get the right result, unlike these jokers.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Not. True. The articles I posted are adjusting the numbers included in your link for the problems inherent to them, which, among many, is that they are using yearly earnings per person ("median pay") for "full time work", which does not take into account, in any way, the fact that men work several more hours per week than women (8.14 hours per day for men and 7.75 hours per day for women). Just look at their methodology:

"Methodology

Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.

What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300."

There is is again: "Median Pay". Anyone that does a comparison of "Median Pay" is ignoring critical data and their work is inherently incorrect. You are operating on a mathematical fallacy. They say they're showing like for like, but are in fact not doing so, and it's plain to see if you actually look at the numbers. Their numbers also do not take into account many other factors which the 3 articles I linked all cover in detail. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they know statistics but actually don't. They're impossible to have a discussion with. Please be more careful in the future with whom you believe to be an authority. These people are clearly not.

I have a PhD in Physics from UC Berkeley. I know statistics, son. Not only was it required to obtain my degree, but it is used extensively in my research.

Let me explain something to you: Median is more useful when measuring salaries because the data is not evenly distributed by default. By utilizing the median, you avoid the results being skewed by outliers.

What their mathematical model did was adjust the time spent working to equal amounts for all individuals, adjust the salary accordingly, and then look at results side-by-side. In other words, they got rid of the differences which you utilized to argue that women do not get paid the same because they do not put in the same amount of work. In doing so they revealed that a gap persists even when one controls for these factors. They destroyed your point.

Do you understand this?

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Not. True. The articles I posted are adjusting the numbers included in your link for the problems inherent to them. One of many is that they are using yearly earnings per person ("median pay") for "full time work", which does not take into account, in any way, the fact that men work several more hours per week than women (8.14 hours per day for men and 7.75 hours per day for women - U.S. Department of Labor Statistics). They are using some of the numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics without using ALL of the numbers from their report, which clearly shows that median pay does not include any adjustment for the amount of time worked by each sex. Just look at their methodology:

"Methodology

Difference in Annual Pay: To compare male and female pay on a level playing field, we found the median pay for all men in a given job, as well as breakdowns of important compensable factors such as years of experience, location, education level, etc. Then, using PayScale's proprietary MarketMatch™ Algorithm, we determined what the female median pay would be using the exact same blend of compensable factors as our control male group.

What we created was an apples-to-apples comparison of what men and women make, all other factors held equal, according to actual market data. For example, the male software developer median, annual salary is $65,700, which is 4 percent more than the median female value of $63,300."

There is is again: "Median Pay". Anyone that does a comparison of "Median Pay" is ignoring critical data and their work is inherently incorrect. You are operating on a mathematical fallacy. They say they're showing like for like, but are in fact not doing so, and it's plain to see if you actually look at the numbers. Their numbers also do not take into account many other factors which the 3 articles I linked all cover in detail. There's nothing worse than someone who thinks they know statistics but actually don't. They're impossible to have a discussion with. Please be more careful in the future with whom you believe to be an authority. These people are clearly not.

Edited by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.

If they were equally productive I would pay them the same as in your: equal work, equal pay. As they are not, I pay them proportionally to the subjective, not easily measurable, productivity.

Calling Block names is foolish and coward as he is not here to defend himself. Calling me names is just rude and I don't appreciate it.

Then you are an unethical employer, for you cannot measure their "lesser productivity" in anything more than subjective ways, yet see it fit to nonetheless quantify this unmeasurable productivity in their paychecks. The very nature of what you're doing is so incredibly chilling, because the productivity of these employees may one day rise to meet that of the others, but since you have nothing but your own subjective opinion as to their levels of productivity, you may continue to pay them as if they are doing poor work.

Do you know, my dear entrepreneur, why most businesses try to avoid such methods? It isn't ethics, surely. Most businesses under a capitalist system are not concerned with ethics. Not, it is for the following reasons: One, it can be taxing to keep an eye on the productivity of every employee so that your own subjective, half-assed assessment can determine whether they will get a raise or not, and two, there is very little motivation for improvement were these comparatively poorly paid employees to find out that they are seen as poor workers deserving of fewer wages.

By the way, I love the fact that, as far as I can tell, you only looked at your business and decided to declare a more rational approach as only existing in theory. Someone should tell most mid-large size business owners that.

I am sorry you're such a diehard Austrian fanatic that you think it is foolish to mock Block. Believe me, Block has heard everything I've mentioned here many times over from other sources. He has not defended himself particularly well when confronted.

You assume a lot of things.

Nobody lives in a vacuum, I know a whole bunch of entrepreneurs and some of them are big and we talk about these kind of stuff a lot.

I don't determine productivity of all my employees by myself. I don't even know some of them, they work in different provinces (states for the US). Other people do that for me.

Measuring productivity is hard and you seem to ignore it. I'm both a Mechanical and an Electrical Engineer and I have studied Taylor, Fayol and others in subjects of productivity. In a factory is easy to measure the output of some people, however it's very hard to measure the productivity of a secretary, a lawyer and even an accountant.

Diehard Austrian fanatic? Unethical? Half-assed assessments?

As I said, you assume too much.

By the way, do you and your rich friends realize Walter Block also thinks the income disparity between blacks and whites is due to blacks being lazy? I wouldn't put it past what seems like a cadre of exploiting compadres, but I am just wondering.

Edited by EnduranceFun

I appreciate the effort of you guys trying to argue the zealots, but it's pointless. You can bring up well-researched evidence, concede many points and respect their most absurd ideas as truth, they will never compromise on their loony ideology. Even here where it's clearly in question whether this statue was truly sexist or not [unless males are by birthright unable to decide what is or isn't sexist] these couple clowns come in and completely destroy any previous conversation, amiable or otherwise. Just best to ignore and move on with your lives.

However, I do think this comment section got out-of-hand. I don't know what the complaints even were, but it's boiling down to just an aggravation with these sorts of articles. All I can recommend is that Patrick tries to balance his articles better, at least attempt to find differing opinions [no, this does not mean finding sexists for the 'against,' fuck off] and if he can try to avoid making a feminist / sexist article unless it's relevant? I doubt he'd agree to that and I don't think he'll change his approach much, to be fair this article is not badly-written or overly-opinionated from the author's point of view, the fact it's quite biased and arguably needless is a far harder point to argue to Patrick than before, when it was his spelling, grammar, syntax, etcetera in question. So this most likely isn't going to get resolved.

Posted by Pomeroy

"Rock Paper Shotgun--his words--and his complete (and somewhat deliberate) misunderstanding of the concept of Feminism (being supposedly more about pursuing Women’s interests above male's, as opposed to actually being about equality for both genders)."

Magic Mike exists. Ryan Gosling is hugely popular.

On another unrelated note, Taylor Lautner rarely wears a shirt in a twilight film. They even joke about this.

This shit will matter when I can talk to a female about video games and the average response won't be condescending.

WAIT....no, it still won't matter then.

Why? Video games are just people making products.

Sometimes you have to pander to sell a product.

The question is whether I'm referring to the statue or this article.

ZING.

Posted by DrGreatJob

One of these women writes for Tomb Raider, a franchise built upon a heroine with huge tits. Get real.

Posted by ep_driver

This comment will probably never be read, but without bashing Patrick (I enjoy him overall) I'd like to side with those who didn't enjoy this article. The first article about this statue was good as it brought it to our attention, but to bring it up again and drag it through the mud with a lengthy article is unnecessary. I come to GB for the fun stuff with a side of industry news, but I definitely don't like these kinds of articles. Overly serious for GB's usual and much appreciated tone. It's like going to a rap concert and hearing country music; not what I signed up for. That being said, I could just not click articles like this moving forward and speak with my mouse clicks, or lack thereof. Finally, I would like to apologize to Patrick on everyone else's behalf as the haters simply shot anger his way as if he's a bad person for wanting to write an article like this. He's the man! Just doesn't always pick the best topics to pour words into that fit the feel of GB. Now everyone stop screaming and be nice. We're all here because we love video games. Keep it positive.

Posted by DangerKick

lol you guys sound like /r/mensrights

Posted by TheSouthernDandy

@JoshyLee said:

@Judakel said:

@JoshyLee said:

Is it innocuous though? This faux-political bullshit on a site that s supposed to be entertaining? Patrick has had this chip on his shoulder for a while and it seems he's only really saying it because it will be controversial and increase page views. He's making a simple stupid story that doesn't even have to do with the American video game industry into some sensationalist tabloid-level "journalism" so he can get attention.

The entire reason he was brought in was to bring more people to the site. I cannot believe you people hate Patrick when you really should hate the people who hired him. They quite clearly stated that he was brought in to create more original content like this and that would in-turn generate more views.

They brought him in because of his work such as the Infinity Ward thing. This stuff he's doing now has nothing to do with gaming news. It's tabloid crap that has no business on a site like this. He can put it on his fucking livejournal.

You're right, how dare we have any opinion pieces on this website. Giant Bomb has never been about opinions and personalities. If you think this article is bullshit then cool that's your right but it's incredibly easy to ignore. Yeah that's kind of a dismissive argument but if you don't wanna contribute anything to the discussion other then "this discussion is bullshit" why bother?

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

@Judakel said:

@Archaen said:

The point, though is that it's not sexism that is causing women to make less money, it's a biological desire to have children and raise them themselves. If your position is that we should as a society give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing that is an absolutely fine position to take. It just has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or sexism unless you're counting the biological makeup of men and women as sexism.

I am not really sure why you think the fact we don't "give women paychecks from the government for the time they're not working when they leave work early or take a few years off for child-rearing" is anything but sexism. Don't you understand that sexism is discrimination based on biological sex or gender?

It would be exactly that, discrimination based on gender, to do a job and have to stay overtime and get paid the same amount as a woman who went home after 7.5 hours of work just because she was born with ovaries.

The assumption here, once again, is that this woman is being unfairly "rewarded". This is wrong and the exact reason I assume you don't view raising a child as work on par or more difficult than working at an office.

The business owner is not profiting from a woman doing less work for him and instead going home and working for society, if that's how you prefer to think about it. You cannot expect the business owner to hire a woman and a man but pay them both the same amount of money each year when she is only doing 85% of the work as the man for his business. If you think we as a society should subsidize women not working through taxes and checks from the government, fine, but expecting private businesses to cover that expense is crazy.

No, there is no "how you prefer to think about it". You claimed it was sexist. I pointed out it wasn't. We weren't talking about economics in that exchange. Don't say it is fine if I expect that we as society cover such expenses, but then claim it is crazy to suggest businesses should cover it themselves. Either way, that money would be coming out of these businesses. That's the way the economy works.

That money would only come out of those businesses if you taxed them extra for it. If you instead taxed workers then business expenses would not go up unless the employers decided to pay for it. Having children is not something that business owners consider an expense or even an investment. Our government also doesn't consider it an expense or an investment but have taken pains to make it illegal to discriminate against those that do decide to raise children. Your argument is that we, as a people, should value raising children more. That's fine. There's nothing discriminatory in play, though. The pay gap is entirely due to women making their own choices about what they value in life. Men choose money over raising children, more women choose the opposite, and that's the end of the story. Recent studies of urban non-married 18-30s has shown that women actually get paid more per year in total than men, possibly due to the current education gap (more women than men are graduating with advanced degrees these days).

Look, I am not sure where the thought process breaks down for you, but let me walk you through the problem once again. The fact women are the only ones that can have children, and the fact having children is a necessary part of life in order for our civilization to survive, pretty much means at some point, it will be absolutely necessary for a woman to have a child. Necessary for everyone's benefit, not just their own. They fulfill a necessary role with their biology and they are being punished for it by receiving fewer opportunities for advancement due to fulfilling this role - in most instances. This is in large part responsible for the wage gap. You agree with me on this. The part you seem confused about is the part where we treat raising children as a necessity rather than a choice. I am done being patient with you, so just get your head out of your ass and think about the consequences were it truly a choice they could walk-away from in their lives. Some do, but most could not. It would be a terrible crisis, and the fact most of them are willing to do it in no way negates the fact it is not really a choice.

I am not really sure what you're not getting here. It doesn't get more "born into a role that will end up in discrimination 9-times-out-of-10 in our current climate" than that. Now, keep in mind that men can just as easily step into this role if they so wish (at least the rearing part), but understand that many times societal pressures will ensure it is women who perform this task. There is no "choice" about it. Stop using that language. It is intellectually dishonest and naive.

One last point concerning "choice": Even if it were a choice that no outside factors ensured women would make most of the time, there is still absolutely no logic behind the idea that they should be punished for it. None. Someone has to do this job and they should not give up the prospect of an equally bright future to men in order to perform this necessary task. You are punishing people for doing something you couldn't live without. It makes no fucking sense. Make no mistake about it, it is absolutely a punishment to have your financially independent future derailed because you are performing a necessary task.

THAT is the end of the story.

The fact more women than men are graduating from college is another issue altogether, but in no way does it negate concerns for the wage gap that still negatively affects an overwhelming number of women. Don't even try to go that route.

That's just it, women aren't being passed over for promotions or failing to get raises. They're just voluntarily working less because they prefer spending time with their children and they're getting exactly the amount of money equal to the time they worked. If you just take what they make an hour and multiply it out to make it equivalent to the amount their male colleagues work all of a sudden they make exactly the same amount over their lifetimes. There is no discriminatory practice involved. There's no sexism involved.

Your argument about childbirth being a necessary thing for society doesn't mean anything to the business owner, who pays x dollars for y productivity because he gets z dollars for every xx product created. He does not get any money for the productivity that is absent when the woman decides to work less than full time, so why should the business owner be required to compensate the woman for the hours she doesn't produce anything for his business? It also doesn't account for the child-rearing itself being a thing that many women actually enjoy doing. It fulfills many women and they gladly trade a few dollars of income for more time to spend with their children.

I am going to give this one more shot. I will answer sentence for sentence. Follow along.

Yes, they are being passed over for promotions and failing to get raises. What do you think accounts for the wage gap? The fact it is voluntary does not negate the fact they are being passed over. Raising a child is work, so no, they are not getting exactly the amount of money equal to the time they worked. If work HAS to be productivity for their employer, then we don't have to demand the money come directly from their employer. I suspect this is where your brain starts to break down, since it just seems so unfair that an employer pay for something other than goods and labor that directly impacts their bottom line. Fine, let's have the government take the money from the employer and give it to the parent raising the child. As I said, either way businesses are paying for it, even if you tax the employees. I love the retard math you pulled at the end of the first paragraph. Your definition of "work" is lacking.

It should mean something to the business owner. My entire argument is that it should. Stop answering with "Well, this capitalist fuck gives no shits". That's not really a problem. We have the government take it away from him if he won't do it. One way, or the other. It is the ethical thing to do.

The fact women enjoy has no bearing on whether a wage gap should exist or not. Love doesn't provide a financially independent future. What a stupid argument that is.

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

You didn't post any facts on income and sex. You posted opinions backed by data that, when adjusted in order to even out the hours, still showed an income disparity.

Posted by Inquisitor

@Zornack said:

Huh, thought I clicked a giantbomb link. How'd I end up on Kotaku?

Not a single opinion that it's simply a stupid statue no one gives a fuck about, just eight paragraphs about how hateful, sexist and misogynistic the video game industry is.

Quality journalism.

QFT.

Posted by Judakel

@JoshyLee said:

@Judakel said:

@JoshyLee said:

Is it innocuous though? This faux-political bullshit on a site that s supposed to be entertaining? Patrick has had this chip on his shoulder for a while and it seems he's only really saying it because it will be controversial and increase page views. He's making a simple stupid story that doesn't even have to do with the American video game industry into some sensationalist tabloid-level "journalism" so he can get attention.

The entire reason he was brought in was to bring more people to the site. I cannot believe you people hate Patrick when you really should hate the people who hired him. They quite clearly stated that he was brought in to create more original content like this and that would in-turn generate more views.

They brought him in because of his work such as the Infinity Ward thing. This stuff he's doing now has nothing to do with gaming news. It's tabloid crap that has no business on a site like this. He can put it on his fucking livejournal.

It is gaming-related. I don't think you know what tabloid crap is. He is doing editorials, which is also part of the reason he was brought in. This is all explained in the first podcast he was in on.

Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.

If they were equally productive I would pay them the same as in your: equal work, equal pay. As they are not, I pay them proportionally to the subjective, not easily measurable, productivity.

Calling Block names is foolish and coward as he is not here to defend himself. Calling me names is just rude and I don't appreciate it.

Then you are an unethical employer, for you cannot measure their "lesser productivity" in anything more than subjective ways, yet see it fit to nonetheless quantify this unmeasurable productivity in their paychecks. The very nature of what you're doing is so incredibly chilling, because the productivity of these employees may one day rise to meet that of the others, but since you have nothing but your own subjective opinion as to their levels of productivity, you may continue to pay them as if they are doing poor work.

Do you know, my dear entrepreneur, why most businesses try to avoid such methods? It isn't ethics, surely. Most businesses under a capitalist system are not concerned with ethics. Not, it is for the following reasons: One, it can be taxing to keep an eye on the productivity of every employee so that your own subjective, half-assed assessment can determine whether they will get a raise or not, and two, there is very little motivation for improvement were these comparatively poorly paid employees to find out that they are seen as poor workers deserving of fewer wages.

By the way, I love the fact that, as far as I can tell, you only looked at your business and decided to declare a more rational approach as only existing in theory. Someone should tell most mid-large size business owners that.

I am sorry you're such a diehard Austrian fanatic that you think it is foolish to mock Block. Believe me, Block has heard everything I've mentioned here many times over from other sources. He has not defended himself particularly well when confronted.

You assume a lot of things.

Nobody lives in a vacuum, I know a whole bunch of entrepreneurs and some of them are big and we talk about these kind of stuff a lot.

I don't determine productivity of all my employees by myself. I don't even know some of them, they work in different provinces (states for the US). Other people do that for me.

Measuring productivity is hard and you seem to ignore it. I'm both a Mechanical and an Electrical Engineer and I have studied Taylor, Fayol and others in subjects of productivity. In a factory is easy to measure the output of some people, however it's very hard to measure the productivity of a secretary, a lawyer and even an accountant.

Diehard Austrian fanatic? Unethical? Half-assed assessments?

As I said, you assume too much.

I am so sorry. Let me do some quick rearranging here. Okay, there. Carry over everything I said to this new set of conditions. Whomever is doing it on your behalf is incapable of doing it, for the exact same reason you and I seem to agree on.

I never claimed measuring productivity was easy. In fact, one could almost say that my point was precisely that it wasn't easy! For the jobs we're talking about, anyway. If it is hard (you really mean impossible) to measure the productivity of certain employees, then you are not justified in paying individuals fulfilling the same role different wages. Simple. Face it, these estimations your people are making for you are, at best, guesstimations. If they are fulfilling the same role on paper, then they should get paid the same. If it is so obvious that there is a disparity in performance, then you probably shouldn't keep them employed.

Beyond that, I think you and I have gotten completely off-topic. The idea was that you shouldn't pay women less than men for doing the same job. From that, you took issue with my observation, based on sound economic principles, that there is literally nothing in it for you to hire someone and pay them less for less productivity over the same amount of time as someone you pay more for more productivity. You'd be better off either hiring a more productive person to fill that role, or hiring a more productive person for less amount of time in order to accomplish the same amount of work the shoddy worker accomplishes full time.

Posted by Floope

Hey guys.

I don't know if anyone told you this before but you can't change peoples minds on the Internet. They will always have some magical counter point that justifies their opinion in order have a sense of importance.

Go invest in the economy. Money doesn't care about your opinion. time will decide what's right and wrong, because none of these comments really matter.

Posted by JoshyLee

@Judakel said:

@JoshyLee said:

Is it innocuous though? This faux-political bullshit on a site that s supposed to be entertaining? Patrick has had this chip on his shoulder for a while and it seems he's only really saying it because it will be controversial and increase page views. He's making a simple stupid story that doesn't even have to do with the American video game industry into some sensationalist tabloid-level "journalism" so he can get attention.

The entire reason he was brought in was to bring more people to the site. I cannot believe you people hate Patrick when you really should hate the people who hired him. They quite clearly stated that he was brought in to create more original content like this and that would in-turn generate more views.

They brought him in because of his work such as the Infinity Ward thing. This stuff he's doing now has nothing to do with gaming news. It's tabloid crap that has no business on a site like this. He can put it on his fucking livejournal.

Posted by mellotronrules

so this tire fire is still burning eh.

Posted by Judakel

@JoshyLee said:

Is it innocuous though? This faux-political bullshit on a site that s supposed to be entertaining? Patrick has had this chip on his shoulder for a while and it seems he's only really saying it because it will be controversial and increase page views. He's making a simple stupid story that doesn't even have to do with the American video game industry into some sensationalist tabloid-level "journalism" so he can get attention.

The entire reason he was brought in was to bring more people to the site. I cannot believe you people hate Patrick when you really should hate the people who hired him. They quite clearly stated that he was brought in to create more original content like this and that would in-turn generate more views.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

I am going to give this one more shot. I will answer sentence for sentence. Follow along.

Yes, they are being passed over for promotions and failing to get raises. What do you think accounts for the wage gap? The fact it is voluntary does not negate the fact they are being passed over. Raising a child is work, so no, they are not getting exactly the amount of money equal to the time they worked. If work HAS to be productivity for their employer, then we don't have to demand the money come directly from their employer. I suspect this is where your brain starts to break down, since it just seems so unfair that an employer pay for something other than goods and labor that directly impacts their bottom line. Fine, let's have the government take the money from the employer and give it to the parent raising the child. As I said, either way businesses are paying for it, even if you tax the employees. I love the retard math you pulled at the end of the first paragraph. Your definition of "work" is lacking.

It should mean something to the business owner. My entire argument is that it should. Stop answering with "Well, this capitalist fuck gives no shits". That's not really a problem. We have the government take it away from him if he won't do it. One way, or the other. It is the ethical thing to do.

The fact women enjoy has no bearing on whether a wage gap should exist or not. Love doesn't provide a financially independent future. What a stupid argument that is.

Wow. I apologize everyone for wasting my time trying to enlighten this person on the facts of income and sex. I hope someone else has found my explanations and the articles I've posted enlightening. This one is a lost cause who wants everyone else in society to pay women for the hours, weeks, months and years that they decide of their own free will not to work. Good luck, you bright, shining star.

Edited by crcruz3

@Judakel said:

Then you are an unethical employer, for you cannot measure their "lesser productivity" in anything more than subjective ways, yet see it fit to nonetheless quantify this unmeasurable productivity in their paychecks. The very nature of what you're doing is so incredibly chilling, because the productivity of these employees may one day rise to meet that of the others, but since you have nothing but your own subjective opinion as to their levels of productivity, you may continue to pay them as if they are doing poor work.

Do you know, my dear entrepreneur, why most businesses try to avoid such methods? It isn't ethics, surely. Most businesses under a capitalist system are not concerned with ethics. Not, it is for the following reasons: One, it can be taxing to keep an eye on the productivity of every employee so that your own subjective, half-assed assessment can determine whether they will get a raise or not, and two, there is very little motivation for improvement were these comparatively poorly paid employees to find out that they are seen as poor workers deserving of fewer wages.

By the way, I love the fact that, as far as I can tell, you only looked at your business and decided to declare a more rational approach as only existing in theory. Someone should tell most mid-large size business owners that.

I am sorry you're such a diehard Austrian fanatic that you think it is foolish to mock Block. Believe me, Block has heard everything I've mentioned here many times over from other sources. He has not defended himself particularly well when confronted.

You assume a lot of things.

Nobody lives in a vacuum, I know a whole bunch of entrepreneurs and some of them are big and we talk about these kind of stuff a lot.

I don't determine productivity of all my employees by myself. I don't even know some of them, they work in different provinces (states for the US). Other people do that for me.

Measuring productivity is hard and you seem to ignore it. I'm both a Mechanical and an Electrical Engineer and I have studied Taylor, Fayol and others in subjects of productivity. In a factory is easy to measure the output of some people, however it's very hard to measure the productivity of a secretary, a lawyer and even an accountant.

Diehard Austrian fanatic? Unethical? Half-assed assessments?

As I said, you assume too much.

Posted by JoshyLee

Is it innocuous though? This faux-political bullshit on a site that s supposed to be entertaining? Patrick has had this chip on his shoulder for a while and it seems he's only really saying it because it will be controversial and increase page views. He's making a simple stupid story that doesn't even have to do with the American video game industry into some sensationalist tabloid-level "journalism" so he can get attention.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

I have indeed read the entirety of your data and it DOES NOT say what you think it does. It compared "median income" for "full time work". "Full time work" for a woman is an average of six hours less per week than "Full time work" for a man. Median income does not take into account that women work less for "full time work" and is therefore inaccurate. If women's "median income" were the same as men's in your graphs then men would actually be making less per hour of work than women. The articles from Forbes and CBS are based on the analysis you linked and clearly explain why they do not accurately depict reality. You are operating on outdated, flawed data.

Here is another article for you to read entitled "Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Please try harder than the Huffington Post.

No, you did not read the article I linked to, because in the article I linked to it clearly explains that they compensated for differing hours in their mathematical model and still found a discrepancy. IF you're going to insult my intelligence, just be upfront about it. I am game for all that business. I am not game for someone being willfully obtuse and making me point out obvious things.

Edited by Judakel

@Archaen said:

That's just it, women aren't being passed over for promotions or failing to get raises. They're just voluntarily working less because they prefer spending time with their children and they're getting exactly the amount of money equal to the time they worked. If you just take what they make an hour and multiply it out to make it equivalent to the amount their male colleagues work all of a sudden they make exactly the same amount over their lifetimes. There is no discriminatory practice involved. There's no sexism involved.

Your argument about childbirth being a necessary thing for society doesn't mean anything to the business owner, who pays x dollars for y productivity because he gets z dollars for every xx product created. He does not get any money for the productivity that is absent when the woman decides to work less than full time, so why should the business owner be required to compensate the woman for the hours she doesn't produce anything for his business? It also doesn't account for the child-rearing itself being a thing that many women actually enjoy doing. It fulfills many women and they gladly trade a few dollars of income for more time to spend with their children.

I am going to give this one more shot. I will answer sentence for sentence. Follow along.

Yes, they are being passed over for promotions and failing to get raises. What do you think accounts for the wage gap? The fact it is voluntary does not negate the fact they are being passed over. Raising a child is work, so no, they are not getting exactly the amount of money equal to the time they worked. If work HAS to be productivity for their employer, then we don't have to demand the money come directly from their employer. I suspect this is where your brain starts to break down, since it just seems so unfair that an employer pay for something other than goods and labor that directly impacts their bottom line. Fine, let's have the government take the money from the employer and give it to the parent raising the child. As I said, either way businesses are paying for it, even if you tax the employees. I love the retard math you pulled at the end of the first paragraph. Your definition of "work" is lacking.

It should mean something to the business owner. My entire argument is that it should. Stop answering with "Well, this capitalist fuck gives no shits". That's not really a problem. We have the government take it away from him if he won't do it. One way, or the other. It is the ethical thing to do.

The fact women enjoy has no bearing on whether a wage gap should exist or not. Love doesn't provide a financially independent future. What a stupid argument that is.

Posted by falling_fast

I did not anticipate 2300+ comments to this relatively innocuous story. jesus christ, giantbomb

Posted by Judakel

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

@Judakel said:

@crcruz3 said:

You said: "While on the job, women either do as much work as men or are simply too unproductive to be viable employees." and you are ignoring the 3rd option, they are less productive than men and receiving less money for it. That's Block's whole argument.

Are you an economist yourself? In that case, which school of economics is your preferred one?

I did not ignore his argument. I explained why he was simply wrong. You even quoted the section where I explained why he was wrong. There is literally no incentive for an employer to continue paying someone (even if it is less money) for lesser work. His third option is a fiction and you've taken my dismissal of it as simply "ignoring it". When an employer hires someone, they factor in the most they are willing to pay someone for the desired work into their budget. They don't reign it in if the work is shoddy since they get nothing out of it. It would be better in the long run to simply hire someone else who won't do shoddy work. They would save more money that way. Not a single employer will look at an under-performing employee and say "we will keep him on, but pay him less". Nor do they hire someone on the expectation that they will "work less, but at least we can pay them less". The gap comes about well after someone has been hired, and it can simply not come about due to poor performance. Poor performers get fired. Block didn't even bother to prove his point. He just threw together a blatantly illogical explanation that fits with his Darwinian, free-market bullshit. I can see how, if you believe in the free market, you might be tempted to apply it to microeconomics in the way he has. Unfortunately, that nonsense is only passable in macroeconomics, and even there people have caught on.

It should be fairly obvious where I land as far as schools of economics are concerned.

I am an employer myself and the only thing that is obvious to me is that you are talking about a theoretical employer that doesn't exist. And again you are calling Block darwinian and bullshitter, ad hominem all over.

All human beings are different, equal work is nonsense. I have 250 employees and they are not equally productive. Even those performing the same tasks.

I'm going to play some games now, it's 9:46 pm here in Argentina. 'Night.

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person instead of the argument. I can attack the person as much as I like, as long as I attack the argument too. This employer does exist, because he is a rational actor in the field of economics. Something most employers are. If your employees are not roughly equal in their productivity while working the same number of hours and having the same duties, then I am not sure why you have kept them on. You do realize that no one expects exactly the same amount of productivity, but as far as it is measurable, all individuals performing the same function should be equally productive in your Darwinian wonderland.

If they were equally productive I would pay them the same as in your: equal work, equal pay. As they are not, I pay them proportionally to the subjective, not easily measurable, productivity.

Calling Block names is foolish and coward as he is not here to defend himself. Calling me names is just rude and I don't appreciate it.

Then you are an unethical employer, for you cannot measure their "lesser productivity" in anything more than subjective ways, yet see it fit to nonetheless quantify this unmeasurable productivity in their paychecks. The very nature of what you're doing is so incredibly chilling, because the productivity of these employees may one day rise to meet that of the others, but since you have nothing but your own subjective opinion as to their levels of productivity, you may continue to pay them as if they are doing poor work.

Do you know, my dear entrepreneur, why most businesses try to avoid such methods? It isn't ethics, surely. Most businesses under a capitalist system are not concerned with ethics. Not, it is for the following reasons: One, it can be taxing to keep an eye on the productivity of every employee so that your own subjective, half-assed assessment can determine whether they will get a raise or not, and two, there is very little motivation for improvement were these comparatively poorly paid employees to find out that they are seen as poor workers deserving of fewer wages.

By the way, I love the fact that, as far as I can tell, you only looked at your business and decided to declare a more rational approach as only existing in theory. Someone should tell most mid-large size business owners that.

I am sorry you're such a diehard Austrian fanatic that you think it is foolish to mock Block. Believe me, Block has heard everything I've mentioned here many times over from other sources. He has not defended himself particularly well when confronted.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

It doesn't illustrate that because it is anecdotal evidence. It is completely worthless in even supporting the already existence data. The data does not point to the same conclusion anyway. The data I linked to, which I suspect you still have not fucking copied on to your URL bar, shows a wage gap for women who work the same job for the same amount of time. This discussion has been settled, and unlike you I provided actual graphs with a methodology description. Not some editorial.

I have indeed read the entirety of your data and it DOES NOT say what you think it does. It compared "median income" for "full time work". "Full time work" for a woman is an average of six hours less per week than "Full time work" for a man. Median income does not take into account that women work less for "full time work" and is therefore inaccurate. If women's "median income" were the same as men's in your graphs then men would actually be making less per hour of work than women. The articles from Forbes and CBS are based on the analysis you linked and clearly explain why they do not accurately depict reality. You are operating on outdated, flawed data.

Here is another article for you to read entitled "Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Posted by ffdthree

I guess since I'm a man, I'm just ignorant and will never understand.

Edited by Archaen

@Judakel said:

Look, I am not sure where the thought process breaks down for you, but let me walk you through the problem once again. The fact women are the only ones that can have children, and the fact having children is a necessary part of life in order for our civilization to survive, pretty much means at some point, it will be absolutely necessary for a woman to have a child. Necessary for everyone's benefit, not just their own. They fulfill a necessary role with their biology and they are being punished for it by receiving fewer opportunities for advancement due to fulfilling this role - in most instances. This is in large part responsible for the wage gap. You agree with me on this. The part you seem confused about is the part where we treat raising children as a necessity rather than a choice. I am done being patient with you, so just get your head out of your ass and think about the consequences were it truly a choice they could walk-away from in their lives. Some do, but most could not. It would be a terrible crisis, and the fact most of them are willing to do it in no way negates the fact it is not really a choice.

I am not really sure what you're not getting here. It doesn't get more "born into a role that will end up in discrimination 9-times-out-of-10 in our current climate" than that. Now, keep in mind that men can just as easily step into this role if they so wish (at least the rearing part), but understand that many times societal pressures will ensure it is women who perform this task. There is no "choice" about it. Stop using that language. It is intellectually dishonest and naive.

One last point concerning "choice": Even if it were a choice that no outside factors ensured women would make most of the time, there is still absolutely no logic behind the idea that they should be punished for it. None. Someone has to do this job and they should not give up the prospect of an equally bright future to men in order to perform this necessary task. You are punishing people for doing something you couldn't live without. It makes no fucking sense. Make no mistake about it, it is absolutely a punishment to have your financially independent future derailed because you are performing a necessary task.

THAT is the end of the story.

The fact more women than men are graduating from college is another issue altogether, but in no way does it negate concerns for the wage gap that still negatively affects an overwhelming number of women. Don't even try to go that route.

That's just it, women aren't being passed over for promotions or failing to get raises. They're just voluntarily working less because they prefer spending time with their children and they're getting exactly the amount of money equal to the time they worked. If you just take what they make an hour and multiply it out to make it equivalent to the amount their male colleagues work all of a sudden they make exactly the same amount over their lifetimes. There is no discriminatory practice involved. There's no sexism involved.

Your argument about childbirth being a necessary thing for society doesn't mean anything to the business owner, who pays x dollars for y productivity because he gets z dollars for every xx product created. He does not get any money for the productivity that is absent when the woman decides to work less than full time, so why should the business owner be required to compensate the woman for the hours she doesn't produce anything for his business? It also doesn't account for the child-rearing itself being a thing that many women actually enjoy doing. It fulfills many women and they gladly trade a few dollars of income for more time to spend with their children.