[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Your "empirical evidence" is misleading and neglects many other factors.

No it isn't, and no it doesn't. Did you bother to read either report? they took into consideration many factors that can possibly contribute to a gap in earning potential. Both reports explain the factors in depth. To help eliminate the noise in data they do an industry by industry comparison and still find that women are under-paid by 20+ percent. Yes, there are reasons for that gap in some instances, but in others (40% of cases) those numbers are accurate and establish a wage gap that goes beyond explanation.

You don't seem to understand how this 77 cents woman earn to the dollar men earn stat is arrived at. Yes that number is accurate when you just look at earnings on the whole of every man compared to every woman in the workforce, but it doesn't take into account that men earn more because they work more, not because of sexual discrimination.

I understand them quite well. It isn't hard when you read the reports and review the methods and where the data came from. Again, the studies show a consistent gap across all industries. You're making an anecdotal claim of "work more" that isn't supported by data presented in industry surveys.

Women make other choices, think about bearing and raising children. They tend to work not as long of hours and take more vacations.

And those particular choices are taken into consideration. It is mentioned in the reports. Your supposed smoking gun, the interview with Ms. Goldin, mentions this and she uses it as an example as to why the gap exists in some instances, but she does not dismiss the reality that the gap is there. Again, you're thinking that because you have certain instances of a data type, a data type gathered and filtered, that it directly impacts the rest of the data that indicates the existence of the problem. That isn't how the numbers were arrived at. Ms. Goldin admits there is a wage gap, but attempts to explain the factor is not as bad as some might present it. She's telling you that the disease you have isn't terminal after all, its just going to be debilitating for you for the rest of your life.

Anecdotally, do you know more stay at home mom's or dad's?

What does this matter? Neither of these groups are part of the question nor enter into the equation of pay inequity. Anecdotally, do you know any wide receivers who have lead the NHL in save percentage?

You still haven't offered an answer as to why this flagrant discrimination in WAGES isn't being litigated? Or abused by the corporations for that matter, if they could pay woman less why would they hire a man, they are all about that bottom line after all.

Are you f'n kidding me? The Equal Pay Act of 1963 establishes the rules. There is no clear mechanism for getting those rules enforced. If you sue your employer you are very likely looking for a new employer. This is why the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was established, to act as an option to challenge this problem and still allow people to maintain their jobs. Do you understand what the EEOC does? Do you know how overwhelmed they are with complaints?

Now on to the supposed non-existent law suits that you claim that don't exist. There are currently multiple class action law suits against employers for this exact problem. These are just the cases from ONE firm and the companies they have suits against or have won settlements.

KPMG LLP (on going)
Merick & Co. (on going)
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp ($253M verdict, $175M settlement)
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. ($24M settlement)
Qualcomm ($19.5M settlement)
Daiichi Sankyo ($8.2M settlement)
Fairfield Resorts ($5M settlement)
San Diego State University ($3.35M settlement)
Chadbourne & Parke, LLP (on going)
Columbia University (on going)
Novartis/Alcon (on going)
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Forest Laboratories, Inc. (on going)
Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. (on-going)
Garda (on going)
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (on going)

I could make you go blind by providing links to judgments that have gone in favor of women who have proven their employer guilty of leveraging the pay gap, let alone the number of suits out there against employers who have institutionalized the practice.

Name on recent example where an equally qualified woman makes a lower wage then a male counterpart in the same position?

How about an entire industry? Is that sufficient? The financial services industry is known for over-paying men and under-paying women, and a comprehensive study proved that women are paid 60 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.

I asked where you got your news from, and you proceed to tell me about anecdotal and empirical evidence. What are these credible sites you keep alluding to?

I use all media sources, so long as they use credible/reputable sources of data, use empirical studies and evidence to support their claims, and follow journalistic standards of reporting, like multi-sourcing and validation of information through cross referencing. If something doesn't have that cross reference I don't believe it. If I can't go out and find multiple sources of information to support the claim, I'm not going to believe it. Yes, that means more work, but being educated on an issue requires that work is put in. Your argument is only as good as the proof you can put forth to support it, or the depth to which you are willing to go to to explain the validity of your argument.

Hahaha the mainstream media doesn't have bias, did you watch the campaigns leading up to the election?

Yes, I did, and it was appalling how much garbage they allowed Trump to get away with.

Its ironic, but the mass media is now recognizing just how poorly they covered Trump and did not hold his feet to the fire nor dig into his background liken they should have. They also didn't do as good a job vetting Clinton, nor the attacks on her, especially the late breaking Comey letter. None of this was a result of bias, but was instead a result of changing goals within the corporate run newsroom. Depth has been replaced by superficiality, and ratings matter more than pursuit of the facts.

You are trying to say that all the mainstream media gives a completely neutral and unbiased perspective based on the facts all because of journalistic standards? That's funny because most of it is owned by the same handful of major corporations.

Therein lies the problem. The ability to control the voices of those in the mass media is why we have this perceived bias. When you lack the diversity of voices in the mediasphere you end up with only a few who polarize issues with presentation more so than data. What is missing is the investigative journalism that was once par of the regional newsroom. With a consolidated media it is much easier to influence presentation and shape the newshole. That doesn't mean that the journalists are not complying with their training and practices, just that management now has a mandate to make those newsrooms profit centers, and that can lead to less data and more sensationalism.

You can cherry pick stats and misinterpret data to fit your perspective and call it facts, most media does this, mainstream and alternative. Look no further then what you are attempting to do with this wage gap myth.

You mean by hitting you over the head with facts and empirical data? Yup, cherry picking those facts.

Wow, how could you even argue Hillary wasn't given special treatment. Did you watch the debates?

What special treatment was she given? Trump was crushed in the debates. He behaved like a spoiled child and refused to follow protocol. Yet he got away with it. He was able to manage the message the media was forwarding and got them to chase him around, focusing on his personality rather than his lack of policy. The media failed us in their approach to covering this election. If they had instead treated this like an election of a politician, rather than an popularity contest between two celebrities, we would have been better off.

You are so bitter about Trump winning that you are trying to convince yourself that the msm favoured him over Hillary, nothing could be further from the truth. They helped him unintentionally by being so over the top biased towards her, that the people saw they were trying to manipulate them into voting for that neo-con shill.

I'm actually not bitter about anything. I find it fascinating. Would I prefer an experienced politician in the highest office in the land? Yes, I would. But I'm not bitter about Clinton losing. I don't view politics through the lens you do. I don't look at candidates though the cult of personality. I care about what they can accomplish for the country, and I don't see Donald Trump as presenting anything of value for this country. He doesn't understand government nor diplomacy. He is not qualified for office.

Your response? She's a neo-con shill. So many facts and reasons behind your argument. So many. Yuuuuge argument.

" Try to understand what makes a site credible. What you call credible is embarrassing. "

What site have I called credible? I don't get my news from a single source, I try to look at all perspectives, motives and intent before I form my own opinion. The links I posted were sites I was hoping you would find credible, but you just stick to the establishments view, if it isn't CNN, MSNBC then it must not be legit news. What a joke.

Your references have been crap. You don't even understand the issue you're trying to discuss and are presenting references that do not support your case. The perfect example is the Forbes article. You posted it thinking it was the big nail you were going to use to seal the deal. Turns out that the writer took some liberties with the podcast and didn't report the complete context of what as said by Ms. Goldin. Nor did the writer follow up to see if Ms. Goldin's other research supported the claim she put in her story. Turns out you didn't either, and that crushed your argument. Turns out that your expert witness actually supported the existence of the pay gap, but was only trying to explain reasons for its existence. That does not dismiss the existence of the pay gap. In fact, it hammers home that there is a pay gap. It just makes an excuse for the gap to be there in some instances. What it does not explain away is the institutionalized pay gap that exists in so many industries and companies. And that's where you and your references fail, and fail so hard.

"Proof please"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13...sly-known.html

Bills sexual escapades are pretty well documented, he has faced numerous public allegations. You seem like one of those people that require a citation for the obvious.

What do you make of Anthony Weiner? Seems like a good guy to have around.

How is any of this relevant??? Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness for office, nor the gender pay gap. What incredibly stupid tangent are you trying to take us down? Here, just use this link to post your next citation of defense for your argument, and then claim victory yet again. It is equally as random.