Can we quit pretending women are being discriminated against?

[Loren Pechtel]

Young women are out-earning young men in several U.S. cities

The gender wage gap is narrower among younger workers nationally, and the gap varies across geographical areas.

www.pewresearch.org

Lots of places with high skill jobs where young women outearn young men even when you don't control for profession etc. Now, if you're in a red area without a lot of knowledge jobs it's another matter...the human advantage is the brain, use it!

 

[laughing dog]

Your OP does not show what you claim. Young women could outearn young men and still be discriminated against - perhaps without discrimination that gap might even be larger!

Please notice I am not saying that there is or is not discrimination - just the OP's reasoning is flawed.

 

[Politesse]

The inability of certain posters to read, even articles that they themselves post, continues to astound me.

The very first line of the linked article:

Women in the United States continue to earn less than men, on average. Among full-time, year-round workers in 2019, women’s median annual earnings were 82% those of men.

Uh, yeah.

It does note that in in a small number (22 out of 250 surveyed) of cities, young women either match or slightly outearn young men. The fact that this is true, yet the national average is still so dismal, is a clear indicator of how bad things are in the rest of the country.

As the article notes:

Overall, about 16% of all young women who are working full time, year-round live in the 22 metros where women are at or above wage parity with men.

So if you're a young woman who wants to make pay equal to her labor's worth, there are only 22 substantial American cities (almost all of which are characterized by either progressive legislation or a prevalence of hospitality/tourism jobs) in which you can do so. And you better hope you never turn 30!

Learn to read.

 

[Rhea]

the OP's reasoning is flawed.

The very first line of the linked article:

From the article:

Overall, about 16% of all young women who are working full time, year-round live in the 22 metros where women are at or above wage parity with men.

So, in answer to the OP question,

Can we quit pretending women are being discriminated against?​

The answer is,

1. We’re not pretending, and
2. No we should not stop highlighting it, and
3. This is how you convince yourself there is no problem? Are you serious with this? And
4. Do you really think pay is the only way that women are discriminated against?

 

[Metaphor]

So if you're a young woman who wants to make pay equal to her labor's worth, there are only 22 substantial American cities (almost all of which are characterized by either progressive legislation or a prevalence of hospitality/tourism jobs) in which you can do so.

How do you figure this? This implies that the uncontrolled earnings gap between men and women must be zero in order for a woman's pay to match her 'labour's worth'.

 

[Metaphor]

Uncontrolled pay gap figures measure nothing except the uncontrolled difference in earnings between men and women. Men and women are different.

The controlled pay gap is less than one cent.

2025 Gender Pay Gap Report (GPGR) | Payscale Research

Payscale’s 2025 gender pay gap report reveals how much women are paid compared to men, both overall and controlled for job.

www.payscale.com

EDIT: BTW, this is not an endorsement of payscale's political commentary. It makes several false statements in its report, such as:

The uncontrolled gender pay gap reveals the overall economic power disparity between men and women in society.

The earnings gap doesn't reveal that, given that most people live in households and women control about 70% of household spending.

 

[Hermit]

The inability of certain posters to read, even articles that they themselves post, continues to astound me.

The very first line of the linked article:

Women in the United States continue to earn less than men, on average. Among full-time, year-round workers in 2019, women’s median annual earnings were 82% those of men.

Uh, yeah.

It does note that in in a small number (22 out of 250 surveyed) of cities, young women either match or slightly outearn young men. The fact that this is true, yet the national average is still so dismal, is a clear indicator of how bad things are in the rest of the country.

As the article notes:

Overall, about 16% of all young women who are working full time, year-round live in the 22 metros where women are at or above wage parity with men.

So if you're a young woman who wants to make pay equal to her labor's worth, there are only 22 substantial American cities (almost all of which are characterized by either progressive legislation or a prevalence of hospitality/tourism jobs) in which you can do so. And you better hope you never turn 30!

Learn to read.

It's not an inability to read. It's cherry picking / confirmation bias. Thus, the mention of young women matching or slightly outearning young men in 22 cities is proof that women are not being discriminated against. The fact that this is not the case in over 90% of the cities surveyed simply gets ignored because it does not fit the bias.

 

[Rhea]

And in a further display of cherry picking and confirmation bias, we have exhibit B with this article and the implication that 1 cent is nothing to see here.

Since we have started tracking the gender pay gap, the difference between the earnings of women and men has shrunk, but only by an incremental amount each year. There remains a disparity in how men and women are paid, even when all compensable factors are controlled for, meaning that women are still being paid less than men due to no attributable reason other than gender.

And then they go on to talk about the things they can control for, which do NOT, it should be noted, account for opportunity; the likelihood that women will get promototed compared to men, nor for the likelihood that they’ll get a job in the first place.

The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled gender pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal work. The gap should be zero. It’s not zero.

Let’s not take with complete credulity the implication that they successfully controlled for all items.
But even so, they STILL emphasize that there is discrimination that is pervasive.

Due to the economic turmoil of COVID-19, women — especially women of color — have disproportionately faced unemployment at higher rates than in typical years. When women with lower wages leave the workplace, it moves the median pay for women up — slightly closing the gap between men and women’s pay overall. When unemployed women return to work, they could face a disproportionate wage penalty from being unemployed compared to men, suggesting that the gender pay gap could widen again in subsequent years. However, this depends on the market and the pay women receive after unemployment.

In summary, we must be cautious about the gender pay gap appearing to close in the current economy.

Here they do touch on some of the discrmination that is not controlled for, and they themselves caution against the false conclusion of claiming the gender gap is closing.


So - thanks for the article that says even if you think you’ve controlled for everything, there is still a pervasive gender pay gap.

 

[Metaphor]

And in a further display of cherry picking and confirmation bias,

You are the only one displaying that.

And then they go on to talk about the things they can control for, which do NOT, it should be noted, account for opportunity; the likelihood that women will get promototed compared to men, nor for the likelihood that they’ll get a job in the first place.

When men and women apply for promotions, women are more likely to be promoted.

Of course, this is never regarded as discrimination against men. This is always regarded as men being overconfident in their promotion prospects and putting in lower-quality applications.

Let’s not take with complete credulity the implication that they successfully controlled for all items.

No. There are always unobserved variables that could explain further variance. Indeed, unobserved variables could tilt the measure of the controlled pay gap to show men earn less than women.

Here they do touch on some of the discrmination that is not controlled for, and they themselves caution against the false conclusion of claiming the gender gap is closing.

I never claimed the gender pay gap was closing, controlled or uncontrolled.

So - thanks for the article that says even if you think you’ve controlled for everything, there is still a pervasive gender pay gap.

It's also tiny. And it is possible that the controlled pay gap is actually in the opposite direction.

 

[Rhea]

More from Payscale the article:

Men and women choosing different careers doesn’t mean that the uncontrolled gender pay gap is less meaningful than the controlled gender pay gap. The uncontrolled gender pay gap reveals the overall economic power disparity between men and women in society. Even if the controlled gender pay gap disappeared — meaning women and men with the same job title and qualifications were paid equally — the uncontrolled gender pay gap would persist as higher paying positions are still disproportionately accessible to men compared to women.

and

Women of color can face increased barriers in opportunity as gender and racial biases can intermix to create obstacles to hiring, pay raises, referrals, promotions, and leadership.

ANd no, the promotions do not add up. Not sure where you got that, but your article does not say it. It said the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Women aren’t promoted as often or as quickly as men​

Men are also disproportionally promoted faster and more often than women. Why? One reason is that women can be pushed into performing work that is “non-promotable” such as party planning, volunteering, or routine maintenance work that isn’t necessarily compensable or celebrated by the business. Women can also be consciously or unconsciously blocked from networking and the visibility necessary to be considered for promotions or discouraged from displaying personality traits like ambition or a strong opinion, vision, or purpose, which are often associated with leadership.

And even when they do get the promotion, they don’t get the pay.

Women are paid less than men as they move up the corporate ladder​

Payscale’s gender pay gap research shows that even when women make it to the top rungs, they make less than their male counterparts. Women are also underrepresented in leadership roles, which can reinforce ideas that women do not make good leaders. This is why diversity in leadership is important alongside equity.

Women of every job level (individual contributors, managers, directors, and senior executives) make less than men of the comparative job level, but the gender pay gap widens as women progress up the corporate ladder. Women at the executive level make $0.95 to every dollar a man makes even when the same job characteristics are controlled for. In the uncontrolled group, women executives make $0.73 to every dollar a male executive makes. This is an improvement of $0.03 since last year in the uncontrolled group and $0.01 in the controlled group, which still isn’t much to cheer about.

 

[Rhea]

Read your article.

 

[Metaphor]

More from Payscale the article:

the uncontrolled gender pay gap would persist as higher paying positions are still disproportionately accessible to men compared to women.

More unevidenced assertions, you mean. What does 'disproportionately accessible' mean, and how did Payscale measure it?

Women of color can face increased barriers in opportunity as gender and racial biases can intermix to create obstacles to hiring, pay raises, referrals, promotions, and leadership.

ANd no, the promotions do not add up. Not sure where you got that, but your article does not say it.

What? What do you mean 'the promotions do not add up'?

I said when men and women apply for promotions, women are more likely to be selected. That wasn't in the article, that's separate research.

And even when they do get the promotion, they don’t get the pay.

Women are paid less than men as they move up the corporate ladder​

Payscale’s gender pay gap research shows that even when women make it to the top rungs, they make less than their male counterparts. Women are also underrepresented in leadership roles, which can reinforce ideas that women do not make good leaders. This is why diversity in leadership is important alongside equity.

Women of every job level (individual contributors, managers, directors, and senior executives) make less than men of the comparative job level, but the gender pay gap widens as women progress up the corporate ladder. Women at the executive level make $0.95 to every dollar a man makes even when the same job characteristics are controlled for. In the uncontrolled group, women executives make $0.73 to every dollar a male executive makes. This is an improvement of $0.03 since last year in the uncontrolled group and $0.01 in the controlled group, which still isn’t much to cheer about.

And there are a million unobserved variables that are not controlled for. The controlled gender pay gap, if these unobserved variables were included, could in fact favour women over men.

 

[Metaphor]

Read your article.

I've read it more than once, and understood it better than you have, I imagine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The inability of certain posters to read, even articles that they themselves post, continues to astound me.

The very first line of the linked article:

Women in the United States continue to earn less than men, on average. Among full-time, year-round workers in 2019, women’s median annual earnings were 82% those of men.

Uh, yeah.

It does note that in in a small number (22 out of 250 surveyed) of cities, young women either match or slightly outearn young men. The fact that this is true, yet the national average is still so dismal, is a clear indicator of how bad things are in the rest of the country.

Or that it's not discrimination at work. Note that this didn't control for what jobs they were doing.

As the article notes:

Overall, about 16% of all young women who are working full time, year-round live in the 22 metros where women are at or above wage parity with men.

So if you're a young woman who wants to make pay equal to her labor's worth, there are only 22 substantial American cities (almost all of which are characterized by either progressive legislation or a prevalence of hospitality/tourism jobs) in which you can do so. And you better hope you never turn 30!

Learn to read.

There's two reasons for the under 30 bit--first, that shows what the market is like now and that substantially reduces the effect of taking time off for having children.

 

[Politesse]

Or that it's not discrimination at work. Note that this didn't control for what jobs they were doing.

Funny how quick you were to accept that the data were meaningful, even "proof", when you thought it agreed with your ideological perspective. But now that you realize it obviously does not, suddenly you're asking critical questions about what this data means, how it was produced, and whether it proves anything at all.

 

[Elixir]

Can we quit using false, self referential clickbait implications in our thread titles?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Quit pretending? So when did it go from discrimination to pretending?

 

[Elixir]

Quit pretending? So when did it go from discrimination to pretending?

Upon creation of the clickbait thread title.

 

[Toni]

More from Payscale the article:

the uncontrolled gender pay gap would persist as higher paying positions are still disproportionately accessible to men compared to women.

More unevidenced assertions, you mean. What does 'disproportionately accessible' mean, and how did Payscale measure it?

Women of color can face increased barriers in opportunity as gender and racial biases can intermix to create obstacles to hiring, pay raises, referrals, promotions, and leadership.

ANd no, the promotions do not add up. Not sure where you got that, but your article does not say it.

What? What do you mean 'the promotions do not add up'?

I said when men and women apply for promotions, women are more likely to be selected. That wasn't in the article, that's separate research.

And even when they do get the promotion, they don’t get the pay.

Women are paid less than men as they move up the corporate ladder​

Payscale’s gender pay gap research shows that even when women make it to the top rungs, they make less than their male counterparts. Women are also underrepresented in leadership roles, which can reinforce ideas that women do not make good leaders. This is why diversity in leadership is important alongside equity.

Women of every job level (individual contributors, managers, directors, and senior executives) make less than men of the comparative job level, but the gender pay gap widens as women progress up the corporate ladder. Women at the executive level make $0.95 to every dollar a man makes even when the same job characteristics are controlled for. In the uncontrolled group, women executives make $0.73 to every dollar a male executive makes. This is an improvement of $0.03 since last year in the uncontrolled group and $0.01 in the controlled group, which still isn’t much to cheer about.

And there are a million unobserved variables that are not controlled for. The controlled gender pay gap, if these unobserved variables were included, could in fact favour women over men.

Nice use of hyperbole and speculation to fill in where data does not support your preferred interpretation.

 

[Toni]

Read your article.

I've read it more than once, and understood it better than you have, I imagine.

Nothing that you’ve written supports that assertion.