What in the hell?

[NeuroLover]

Hello all,

Thanks for clicking. Presumably, I know that my title is a little misleading, and you're probably a little pissed, but please hear me out.
I am currently a Junior at a UNI working towards her BS with an emphasis on Medical Laboratory Science. I am minoring in Nuclear Engineering. However, with this background in mind how the hell am I going to show myself off during a med school interview? Sometimes, I get a little nervous considering how absolutely competitive it may be, and I am a woman. I know, especially with this specialty, that it may be hard for me to find a place that would hire me due to the fact that I am a woman, and that the standing factors of me sticking around are slim to none. Hey, but that's work place sexism for ya? Right? I guess not EVERYONE wants to pop a baby out and call it good whilst doing PAP-SMEARS everyday in a family practice.

This is for the people currently working as ER doctors, and anyone that has some basic knowledge. Anyways, is it easy to get hired on after your residency? Pay rate? Best places to work? Bad ass stories to convince me that this field is awesome, and that I should go with it? What's the burnout rate like? Hours? Having a personal life with family involved? Also, do you think I am on the right track with my current degree? If I do decide to ever discontinue being an ER doc, what else can you do?

Thank you all, I hope reattach a limb with you all one day.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Psai]

I hope reattach a limb with you as well

 

[Doctor Bob]

... so many things to correct here...

Rather than going point by point I'll just make a few quick comments.

1) Just be yourself at medschool interviews. Don't try to game the system.
2) If you think there are big hiring barriers because you're a woman, you've never tried to get a job in an ED. EM is very woman-friendly.
3) All of those questions in the second paragraph; I'm going to defer those until after you're done with M2 year of school. Come back and ask those questions then. Your current degree does not matter.
4) EM docs do not reattach limbs. That's a surgical job. Real life is not like TV.

 

[Doctor Bob]

I hope reattach a limb with you as well

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

 

[dchristismi]

Ok, so the easiest answer to your conundrum is to take a deep breath, work hard in school, and you're going to do it the same way we all did. Work hard.

Being a woman doesn't really change much. There are plenty of women in medicine, myself included. Getting in is the hard part. Medical Schools want you to succeed. Actually, let me clarify: getting the residency is the really hard part, depending on what you want to do. After that, it's going to be fine. Your undergraduate degree doesn't matter except that it would help if you could actually have a career related to it, should you decide that medicine really isn't as great as something else. (Which, to be honest, is a whole other discussion.) I'm not going to dissuade you, but go into it with your eyes wide open.

Now, go read the "Things I learn from my patients" thread. Also, the "Medicine Sucks" thread, as you have to be as much aware of the downside as the up.

 

[StephBee]

Just my two cents: I'm a female entering EM and have never had my gender be an issue. EM tends to have more men but I believe that's more personality than discrimination. But in all honesty, you won't know what you want to do until 3rd year of med school anyway, so don't psych yourself out. Just be yourself, ask questions about the school and see if you'll like it, cause it's home for the next 4 years. And
These questions are better off answered in the premed forums, as we are so removed from the process I don't even know what it's like anymore.

Now as far as pay goes, women make less than men. It sucks, we should be doing something about that.....

 

[Doctor_Strange]

Oh my god, @NeuroLover use the search function geez...

 

[HoosierdaddyO]

^^^Hahahahaha!!!

 

[RustedFox]

Ok, so the easiest answer to your conundrum is to take a deep breath, work hard in school, and you're going to do it the same way we all did. Work hard.

Being a woman doesn't really change much. There are plenty of women in medicine, myself included. Getting in is the hard part. Medical Schools want you to succeed. Actually, let me clarify: getting the residency is the really hard part, depending on what you want to do. After that, it's going to be fine. Your undergraduate degree doesn't matter except that it would help if you could actually have a career related to it, should you decide that medicine really isn't as great as something else. (Which, to be honest, is a whole other discussion.) I'm not going to dissuade you, but go into it with your eyes wide open.

Now, go read the "Things I learn from my patients" thread. Also, the "Medicine Sucks" thread, as you have to be as much aware of the downside as the up.

You're a woman ?! This whole time, I thought you were a femmebot!

 

[Mad Jack]

Hello all,

Thanks for clicking. Presumably, I know that my title is a little misleading, and you're probably a little pissed, but please hear me out.
I am currently a Junior at a UNI working towards her BS with an emphasis on Medical Laboratory Science. I am minoring in Nuclear Engineering. However, with this background in mind how the hell am I going to show myself off during a med school interview? Sometimes, I get a little nervous considering how absolutely competitive it may be, and I am a woman. I know, especially with this specialty, that it may be hard for me to find a place that would hire me due to the fact that I am a woman, and that the standing factors of me sticking around are slim to none. Hey, but that's work place sexism for ya? Right? I guess not EVERYONE wants to pop a baby out and call it good whilst doing PAP-SMEARS everyday in a family practice.

This is for the people currently working as ER doctors, and anyone that has some basic knowledge. Anyways, is it easy to get hired on after your residency? Pay rate? Best places to work? Bad ass stories to convince me that this field is awesome, and that I should go with it? What's the burnout rate like? Hours? Having a personal life with family involved? Also, do you think I am on the right track with my current degree? If I do decide to ever discontinue being an ER doc, what else can you do?

Thank you all, I hope reattach a limb with you all one day.

Being a woman is a barrier in pretty much no field of medicine, I have no idea where you're getting this idea from. Are you reading articles from the 80s?

I'll leave the rest to the EM guys, but basically, if you tire of the constant rotations, nights, and holidays, you are pretty much looking at a job in urgent care if you don't want more training- there aren't many other opportunities in EM without pursuing a fellowship. If you get a fellowship in something else (pain, CCM) you can easily transition to those, but the EM skill set is fairly particular and doesn't translate well to most other areas of medicine (nor will you be reimbursed properly in most other areas of medicine without being BC/BE in those specialties).

 

[Doctor_Strange]

^^^Hahahahaha!!!

I mean, I lurk on here quite often, and I am understanding the angst from veteren SDNers. The search function is a powerful tool. But in addition, from a fellow undergraduate student, @NeuroLover lacks what I would called emotional maturity at the moment. She is trying to see far down the future, and it sounds fairly neurotic.

 

[StephBee]

I mean, I lurk on here quite often, and I am understanding the angst from veteren SDNers. The search function is a powerful tool. But in addition, from a fellow undergraduate student, @NeuroLover lacks what I would called emotional maturity at the moment. She is trying to see far down the future, and it sounds fairly neurotic.

...wait. You mean there's a search function?!

 

[deleted77919]

…

 

[deleted480308]

I'm only posting here so the ridiculousness will show up in my "participated" feed for viewing.....carry on with the crazy

Can a woman be a doctor? Hahahahaha

 

[Tenk]

After reading this thread the title name becomes surprisingly appropriate!

 

[theseeker4]

Hello all,

Thanks for clicking. Presumably, I know that my title is a little misleading, and you're probably a little pissed, but please hear me out.
I am currently a Junior at a UNI working towards her BS with an emphasis on Medical Laboratory Science. I am minoring in Nuclear Engineering. However, with this background in mind how the hell am I going to show myself off during a med school interview? Sometimes, I get a little nervous considering how absolutely competitive it may be, and I am a woman. I know, especially with this specialty, that it may be hard for me to find a place that would hire me due to the fact that I am a woman, and that the standing factors of me sticking around are slim to none. Hey, but that's work place sexism for ya? Right? I guess not EVERYONE wants to pop a baby out and call it good whilst doing PAP-SMEARS everyday in a family practice.

This is for the people currently working as ER doctors, and anyone that has some basic knowledge. Anyways, is it easy to get hired on after your residency? Pay rate? Best places to work? Bad ass stories to convince me that this field is awesome, and that I should go with it? What's the burnout rate like? Hours? Having a personal life with family involved? Also, do you think I am on the right track with my current degree? If I do decide to ever discontinue being an ER doc, what else can you do?

Thank you all, I hope reattach a limb with you all one day.

I think the biggest problem you face is trying to match to EM with a user name of "neuro lover." With a name like that, how will anyone take you seriously as a candidate to EM? Assuming you get into medical school and still want to do EM......

 

[BoardingDoc]

I am utterly baffled at how many responses this post got, but seeing as the crazy train is rolling, I figured I'd hop on.

I am currently a Junior at a UNI working towards her BS

Wrong forum.

I know, especially with this specialty, that it may be hard for me to find a place that would hire me due to the fact that I am a woman,

I would hesitate to start that sentence with "I know."

I guess not EVERYONE wants to pop a baby out and call it good whilst doing PAP-SMEARS everyday in a family practice

I literally have no idea how to respond to this comment. I'm guessing this is based on your incorrect preconceived notions about what fields in medicine are open to women (hint: all of them)

Thank you all, I hope reattach a limb with you all one day.

.... <facepalm>

 

[Arcan57]

As other have (hilariously) pointed out, there is so much wrong with the original post that it requires a chart. However, in a show of solidarity with the OP, a large part of my interest in EM was motivated by watching ER (the TV show). Having a shaky grasp on the various tribes in medicine, I definitely contemplated whether I wanted to "just" do EM or do a fellowship after an EM residency so I'd be a trauma surgeon. Fortunately I kept that internal struggle hidden from the world until now. I'm still slightly pissed that my intern year looked nothing like Carter's. Think of how the applicant pool would change if PGY-1 surgeons spent all their time seeing cool operative trauma in the ED or OR.

 

[Druggernaut]

I know, especially with this specialty, that it may be hard for me to find a place that would hire me due to the fact that I am a woman, and that the standing factors of me sticking around are slim to none. Hey, but that's work place sexism for ya? Right? I guess not EVERYONE wants to pop a baby out and call it good whilst doing PAP-SMEARS everyday in a family practice.

My residency program really wants to recruit more female residents, as have a few places I rotated. There's a huge shortage in board certified emergency medicine physicians, so once you've graduated you're not going to have difficulty finding a job regardless of gender. Your concerns are unfounded.

1) Just be yourself at medschool interviews. Don't try to game the system.

Eh, maybe in this case being someone else is advisable...

 

[The White Coat Investor]

I'm not going to bother answering the rest of the questions because I think in your current state of ignorance it is unlikely that you will get into medical school anyway. I've been on an admissions committee and I probably wouldn't admit you if my impression of you after interviews and reading statements and the rest of your app remained the same as after reading that post. That said, you can change that ignorance by learning a whole bunch before you apply and show me I'm wrong.

Don't put the cart before the horse. Med school first, then residency.

 

[dchristismi]

You're a woman ?! This whole time, I thought you were a femmebot!

And the thread derailed almost too far off-off topic to reply... because I'm sure there's some sort of Austin Powers joke in here, Foxxy... or should I call you Foxxy Cleopatra?

(Yes, I just compared you to Beyonce. And that's how we roll here in the EM forum...)

 

[deleted109597]

Now as far as pay goes, women make less than men. It sucks, we should be doing something about that.....

In medicine? Where what you earn is either straight hourly or based upon your collections? You're basing this statement on a well designed study of salaries?

 

[StephBee]

In medicine? Where what you earn is either straight hourly or based upon your collections? You're basing this statement on a well designed study of salaries?

There's a decent JAMA article on it done by U of M and Duke that showed that even when adjusted for hours and specialty, women make ~12k les a year than men, so yes.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1182859

The quick and dirty: Peters-Belson analysis (use of coefficients derived from regression model for men applied to women) indicated that the expected mean salary for women, if they retained their other measured characteristics but their gender was male, would be $12 194 higher than observed.

 

[StephBee]

And the slight gender equalitist (pretty sure that's not a word but it is now! ) in me feels the need to point out that even if it weren't true in medicine, it is certainly true in most jobs, and we as a society should probably work on that too

 

[HoosierdaddyO]

*Egalitarian lol

 

[StephBee]

*Egalitarian lol

Ah yes, that was the word I was looking for! 4 hours of sleep doesn't help my vocabulary it would seem.

 

[deleted109597]

There's a decent JAMA article on it done by U of M and Duke that showed that even when adjusted for hours and specialty, women make ~12k les a year than men, so yes.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1182859

The quick and dirty: Peters-Belson analysis (use of coefficients derived from regression model for men applied to women) indicated that the expected mean salary for women, if they retained their other measured characteristics but their gender was male, would be $12 194 higher than observed.

3 things.
Yes, women should be paid the same for doing the same job (and they are in medicine, based on pay scales dictated by insurance and government payor entities.)
This was a study of physician researchers, a small subset of physicians.
Nowhere in medicine can you find a job where the advertised rate for women is different from men. So the difference then must come from something else than base pay. Is it job selection, location selection, or something else. Surely the media would be all over (anyone but Hillary Clinton that is) any boss who could be shown to be paying less to women for the same work.

So then where does the difference come from? I don't know, maybe reporting bias, maybe something else. Maybe it's a subtle argument for paid maternity leave. But you'll have to provide better evidence than 1 small, self reported study of NIH grant physician researchers.

 

[StephBee]

3 things.
Yes, women should be paid the same for doing the same job (and they are in medicine, based on pay scales dictated by insurance and government payor entities.)
This was a study of physician researchers, a small subset of physicians.
Nowhere in medicine can you find a job where the advertised rate for women is different from men. So the difference then must come from something else than base pay. Is it job selection, location selection, or something else. Surely the media would be all over (anyone but Hillary Clinton that is) any boss who could be shown to be paying less to women for the same work.

So then where does the difference come from? I don't know, maybe reporting bias, maybe something else. Maybe it's a subtle argument for paid maternity leave. But you'll have to provide better evidence than 1 small, self reported study of NIH grant physician researchers.

Another article with 8000 NY doctors, found an even bigger gap.

http://m.content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/2/193.abstract

Between those two studies alone , that's almost 9k responses. Yes surveys are imperfect measure. Yes more research needs to be done, but it's far too easy to just write it off as non-existent.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/844685_3

The gender gap *has* been in political debates, but it won't focus on physicians because average America doesn't want to listen to the people who make >150k a year complain about how one gender makes 10%more. And the debate shouldn't focus on us, we are by far the minority, but we aren't exempt from it. More training doesn't get rid of the gender gap. And if everyone got the advertised salary like you do for residency, then yes it would probably do away with any discrepancy but once you're actually able to negotiate your salary, the data show that women end up making less than men, for whatever the reason. I'm by no means trying to wage a gender pay equality debate, I just think that if we don't think it exists, it perpetuates the problem.

You can find fault in just about any study,
But if a new drug was take by 8 thousand people and was found to be 10% less effective, we certainly wouldn't use it unless there was damn good reason to. And we would certainly want the research that shows that good reason.

*end rants*

 

[link2swim06]

Another article with 8000 NY doctors, found an even bigger gap.

http://m.content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/2/193.abstract

Between those two studies alone , that's almost 9k responses. Yes surveys are imperfect measure. Yes more research needs to be done, but it's far too easy to just write it off as non-existent.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/844685_3

The gender gap *has* been in political debates, but it won't focus on physicians because average America doesn't want to listen to the people who make >150k a year complain about how one gender makes 10%more. And the debate shouldn't focus on us, we are by far the minority, but we aren't exempt from it. More training doesn't get rid of the gender gap. And if everyone got the advertised salary like you do for residency, then yes it would probably do away with any discrepancy but once you're actually able to negotiate your salary, the data show that women end up making less than men, for whatever the reason. I'm by no means trying to wage a gender pay equality debate, I just think that if we don't think it exists, it perpetuates the problem.

You can find fault in just about any study,
But if a new drug was take by 8 thousand people and was found to be 10% less effective, we certainly wouldn't use it unless there was damn good reason to. And we would certainly want the research that shows that good reason.

*end rants*

Ahhh this topic, again.

People love to quote studies as fact. If the study is fundamentally flawed then in fact you have proved NOTHING. You can play make believe and go about your way which is what most people do. The pay difference is a lot more complicated than most of these studies are giving credit.

In the EM world a lot of groups you get paid by your productivity or a even a flat rate. So man or women it doesn't matter.

Here are some variables that may get confused as pay inequality. You need to control for all of these confounders first:
1. Proportion of full time to part time in each gender
2. The proportional distribution of men vs women based on geography. Proportionally more women live in big cities on the east coast than men. Those are also typically lower paying than less desirable other parts of the country. If more men live in undesirable locations they will be paid more.
3. If you work part-time a lot (see number 1) then you may have not fulfilled the requirements to become partner if applicable in your group.
3b. If you work more hours you have more contact with other doctors and potentially a better chance at networking to find a better job.
4. The average age of women physicians is much lower than men; as medicine use to be mainly dominated by men. Therefore the it will skew the salary upwards for men because they have more experience (hence greater chance at being a partner or paid higher).
5. Women get married at a younger age than women, this may limit their geographical options for choosing a job, while unmarried men may have more flexibility to move to higher paying jobs as they have less things tying them to a certain city.
6. It is unclear if men and women choose jobs for the exact same reasons. Men may focus on salary more than other variables. This does not mean women are paid less than men because they are female, it means they choose a job that paid less for other reasons (benefits, facility, staff, etc).

So please control for all of those and make sure they are not confounding before you try to claim some conspiracy against women.

 

[StephBee]

Ahhh this topic, again.

People love to quote studies as fact. If the study is fundamentally flawed then in fact you have proved NOTHING. You can play make believe and go about your way which is what most people do. The pay difference is a lot more complicated than most of these studies are giving credit.

In the EM world a lot of groups you get paid by your productivity or a even a flat rate. So man or women it doesn't matter.

Here are some variables that may get confused as pay inequality. You need to control for all of these confounders first:
1. Proportion of full time to part time in each gender
2. The proportional distribution of men vs women based on geography. Proportionally more women live in big cities on the east coast than men. Those are also typically lower paying than less desirable other parts of the country. If more men live in undesirable locations they will be paid more.
3. If you work part-time a lot (see number 1) then you may have not fulfilled the requirements to become partner if applicable in your group.
3b. If you work more hours you have more contact with other doctors and potentially a better chance at networking to find a better job.
4. The average age of women physicians is much lower than men; as medicine use to be mainly dominated by men. Therefore the it will skew the salary upwards for men because they have more experience (hence greater chance at being a partner or paid higher).
5. Women get married at a younger age than women, this may limit their geographical options for choosing a job, while unmarried men may have more flexibility to move to higher paying jobs as they have less things tying them to a certain city.
6. It is unclear if men and women choose jobs for the exact same reasons. Men may focus on salary more than other variables. This does not mean women are paid less than men because they are female, it means they choose a job that paid less for other reasons (benefits, facility, staff, etc).

So please control for all of those and make sure they are not confounding before you try to claim some conspiracy against women.

It helps when the study is actually read before deeming it flawed.
Re points 1-4: "The survey allowed for control over numerous observable factors, including specialty type, hours worked, designation of hours, immigration status, age, and practice location. Additionally, by focusing on starting salaries, we could avoid confounding variables such as experience, rank within an institution, and on-the-job productivity that become evident once a person has been working for a number of years."

And and no point did I claim a conspiracy, merely stated that there is enough data out there that it warrants more research and should raise questions as to why this gap exist. My point was never that we make less *because* we are women, merely that we do. If it came across that way, that was not my intent. It may be due to confounding variables, it may not be. Won't know without more research.

 

[deleted109597]

From one of your links.

In the 2015 Medscape survey, specialists in ob/gyn and women's health reported earning $249,000 for patient care activities. ACOG's most recent study of gender gaps in this specialty, which appeared in 2007,[9] explored the years 1990-2002. It concluded that by 2002, the income gap was nearly completely explained by differences in practice patterns and productivity.

An, of note, the anecdotal nature of the initial post in the medscape article screams of unreliability. New hires get signing bonuses.
And again, if the studies you cited showed an actual difference in pay per hour or pay per patient based on gender, there would be no argument. But it isn't, is self reported pay per year. And since the IRB for this study would require that the "this study is being undertaken to determine pay inequalities in medicine" or some such nature, the bias possibility is real.
So again, if someone posted a job ad in any of the trade papers that said "locums, $X per hour, $X-10% for women" we would all rightfully put that company out of business quickly. I mean, it is against the law after all. And while you can argue "different jobs" in many fields of work, true or not, it's pretty hard to argue that a woman physician does different work than a man.
I personally would have no problem telling my boss to shove it if a woman in the group was able to show me that they were getting paid less per hour. But there's no evidence of that here, or anywhere else. Studying it is fine, blaming the culture for something that may or may not exist isn't. (of note, there isn't [or isn't as big depending on study] a racial difference in medicine, which arguably would be easier to demonstrate, since most of our patients are less likely to go to a physician of a different race, thus decreasing their ability to generate income).

 

[deleted480308]

With all the variables location to location, you simply can't say "women are discriminated against in pay" without finding an employer actually discriminating in pay. Find even 1 single employer doing and we can start talking about them...find 20 employers doing it and we can talk systemic. But self-reported literally means nothing.

 

[Old_Mil]

 

[RustedFox]

Imagine a genderless robot picking up EM Monthly and looking thru the want-ads in the back.
The numbers on the page don't change whether you imagine a masculine or feminine robot.
There is no pay-discrimination based on any other factors but the robot's choices of employment, or history of employment choices.

 

[gro2001]

In response to Drs MacNinja, RustedFox and Ron Swanson:

Although it is true that the advertised rates in medicine do not differ by gender (that would be very illegal), to say that this means there must be no pay gap is false. After all, in other industries the advertised rates also do not differ (it would be just as illegal) but the existence of a pay gap is well established in the economics literature. "But... how?" you may ask. Let's conduct a thought experiment.

Imagine a small US town with 100 people entering the work force every year. 50 of these are men and 50 are women. This is an otherwise very egalitarian town and somehow these men and women end up with the same amount of education and general job relevant skills. There are only two employers in this town: 2 factories across the street from each other. One pays its employees $20/hour and the other pays $15/hour. Each hires about 50 people anually. As a result, everyone need to find work at one of these places, as there is no other source of income in this town.

So where does this leave our population in terms of a pay gap? You would think that there should not be a pay gap between the two genders. However it turns out that the one sexist person in this otherwise statistically perfect town is the hiring manager at the more generous factory. For whatever reason, he has imagined that men make better factory employees than women, and he is not being dissuaded by any arguments against this, even though the gender can not possibly play into their day-to-day work relevant skills. So as a result, although he ends up interviewing equal number of men and women (the annoying folks from HR and legal make sure of that), he just seems to end up hiring more men than women. He would like to hire just men, but the buggers at HR and legal won't let him, saying something about "class action this" and "lawsuit that". However, by inventing arbitrary, difficult to disprove criteria, he ends up hiring 30 men and 20 women every year. The other factory naturally ends up with 20 men and 30 women. You can see that the average salary for men and women will be slightly different, creating an income gap.

There are a number of other ways that the income gap can be created without violating "we pay men the same hourly rate as women for the same work" statement. Also, outside of out statistically convenient town, the effects become more difficult to measure and a whole bunch of things end up having to be accounted and adjusted for, but inventing ways of doing that is how academic statisticians get papers published

 

[deleted480308]

In response to Drs MacNinja, RustedFox and Ron Swanson:

Although it is true that the advertised rates in medicine do not differ by gender (that would be very illegal), to say that this means there must be no pay gap is false. After all, in other industries the advertised rates also do not differ (it would be just as illegal) but the existence of a pay gap is well established in the economics literature. "But... how?" you may ask. Let's conduct a thought experiment.

Imagine a small US town with 100 people entering the work force every year. 50 of these are men and 50 are women. This is an otherwise very egalitarian town and somehow these men and women end up with the same amount of education and general job relevant skills. There are only two employers in this town: 2 factories across the street from each other. One pays its employees $20/hour and the other pays $15/hour. Each hires about 50 people anually. As a result, everyone need to find work at one of these places, as there is no other source of income in this town.

So where does this leave our population in terms of a pay gap? You would think that there should not be a pay gap between the two genders. However it turns out that the one sexist person in this otherwise statistically perfect town is the hiring manager at the more generous factory. For whatever reason, he has imagined that men make better factory employees than women, and he is not being dissuaded by any arguments against this, even though the gender can not possibly play into their day-to-day work relevant skills. So as a result, although he ends up interviewing equal number of men and women (the annoying folks from HR and legal make sure of that), he just seems to end up hiring more men than women. He would like to hire just men, but the buggers at HR and legal won't let him, saying something about "class action this" and "lawsuit that". However, by inventing arbitrary, difficult to disprove criteria, he ends up hiring 30 men and 20 women every year. The other factory naturally ends up with 20 men and 30 women. You can see that the average salary for men and women will be slightly different, creating an income gap.

There are a number of other ways that the income gap can be created without violating "we pay men the same hourly rate as women for the same work" statement. Also, outside of out statistically convenient town, the effects become more difficult to measure and a whole bunch of things end up having to be accounted and adjusted for, but inventing ways of doing that is how academic statisticians get papers published

You aren't very good at this

 

[gro2001]

You aren't very good at this

Definitely not. Which part in particular?

 

[deleted480308]

Definitely not. Which part in particular?

The part where you try to blame a fake gender gap on 1 guy.

Avg woman makes less than avg man doesn't mean at all that anything unfair is taking place. Statistically in america, Women select industries that pay less, they take more time off, they work less hours. When controlled for these things, company to company women make the same for the same work.

If women were actually willing to do the same work for less money, anyone who ever hired a man would be an idiot. But it's not the case because women are intelligent enough to know their work value and negotiate their salary like an adult.

 

[gro2001]

The part where you try to blame a fake gender gap on 1 guy.

Avg woman makes less than avg man doesn't mean at all that anything unfair is taking place. Statistically in america, Women select industries that pay less, they take more time off, they work less hours. When controlled for these things, company to company women make the same for the same work.

If women were actually willing to do the same work for less money, anyone who ever hired a man would be an idiot. But it's not the case because women are intelligent enough to know their work value and negotiate their salary like an adult.

Unfortunately, you are factually incorrect. Adjusting for all those things you listed accounts for only a portion of the pay gap. Let me reference my Alma Mater (wikipedia) to prove this:

"...Similarly, a comprehensive study by the staff of the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the gender wage gap can only be partially explained by human capital factors and "work patterns." The GAO study, released in 2003, was based on data from 1983 through 2000 from a representative sample of Americans between the ages of 25 and 65. The researchers controlled for "work patterns," including years of work experience, education, and hours of work per year, as well as differences in industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. With controls for these variables in place, the data showed that women earned, on average, 20% less than men during the entire period 1983 to 2000."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States#Explaining_the_gender_pay_gap

This is well established, with a substantial body of literature. Repeating unsupported statements to the contrary will not make it less so.

Before you go "Why wouldn't everyone want to hire women if we can get away with paying them 20% less?" see my thought experiment again. The hiring manager at the place that is paying EVERYONE more (not just women) is using his market advantage to hire more men, who he perceives to be better employees. I was trying to show you in a simple scenario, where factors such as education and hours worked were adjusted for, and same advertised pay, you could still see an income disparity due to workplace discrimination.

 

[RustedFox]

King Maddox says there is no gap, your argument is futile:

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women

 

[deleted480308]

Unfortunately, you are factually incorrect. Adjusting for all those things you listed accounts for only a portion of the pay gap. Let me reference my Alma Mater (wikipedia) to prove this:

"...Similarly, a comprehensive study by the staff of the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the gender wage gap can only be partially explained by human capital factors and "work patterns." The GAO study, released in 2003, was based on data from 1983 through 2000 from a representative sample of Americans between the ages of 25 and 65. The researchers controlled for "work patterns," including years of work experience, education, and hours of work per year, as well as differences in industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. With controls for these variables in place, the data showed that women earned, on average, 20% less than men during the entire period 1983 to 2000."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States#Explaining_the_gender_pay_gap

This is well established, with a substantial body of literature. Repeating unsupported statements to the contrary will not make it less so.

Before you go "Why wouldn't everyone want to hire women if we can get away with paying them 20% less?" see my thought experiment again. The hiring manager at the place that is paying EVERYONE more (not just women) is using his market advantage to hire more men, who he perceives to be better employees. I was trying to show you in a simple scenario, where factors such as education and hours worked were adjusted for, and same advertised pay, you could still see an income disparity due to workplace discrimination.

The main wiki page you linked shows a ~20% difference for gender among all fulltime workers with no adjustments for hours worked/leaves taken/or industry.

I'll repeat that you don't have any data showing widespread discrimination on salary for women given equal circumstances

 

[gro2001]

King Maddox says there is no gap, your argument is futile:

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women

Wow, didn't realize this page still exists! I think I first came across it back in 1999. I can see it hasn't changed much.

Also, those tired of the pay gap discussion can check out such fine articles from this site as:
-Spider Woman's Big Ass is a Big Deal
-Make you own Ossama Bin Laden Death Cookies
-End discrimination agains straight people

 

[Old_Mil]

King Maddox says there is no gap, your argument is futile:

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women

That website is so awesome, it deserves its own thread...

 

[gro2001]

The main wiki page you linked shows a ~20% difference for gender among all fulltime workers with no adjustments for hours worked/leaves taken/or industry.

I'll repeat that you don't have any data showing widespread discrimination on salary for women given equal circumstances

I don't know why you specifically chose to ignore the reference to the landmark study on this issue. Here is a link directly to a pdf of the study I referenced earlier:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf

From page 2: "Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women."

 

[deleted480308]

I don't know why you specifically chose to ignore the reference to the landmark study on this issue. Here is a link directly to a pdf of the study I referenced earlier:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf

From page 2: "Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women."

That study noted in it's limitations that they didn't model for occupation and industry choice....you can't pretend to draw conclusions without doing that

 

[gro2001]

That study noted in it's limitations that they didn't model for occupation and industry choice....you can't pretend to draw conclusions without doing that

Yes, pretty much all studies have limitations. But, just like in medicine, we have to draw conclusions from the best available evidence. I showed you what I found based on my search.

Can I hold you to the same standard you are holding me to? Can you show me a large, well performed, reputable and unbiased study without limitations supporting your statements that the wage gap does not exist? So far you have just repeated your statements without substantiating them.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes, pretty much all studies have limitations. But, just like in medicine, we have to draw conclusions from the best available evidence. I showed you what I found based on my search.

Can I hold you to the same standard you are holding me to? Can you show me a large, well performed, reputable and unbiased study without limitations supporting your statements that the wage gap does not exist? So far you have just repeated your statements without substantiating them.

I don't have to prove a negative. Particularly given that all of the actual individual situations we know of don't have gender discrimination for pay