Gender pay gap at the BBC

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

You mean like opinion surveys, or small sample sets?

Both. And then some.

Unrepresentative samples can occur either due to small sample size or due to poor sampling methods.

Conscious or subconscious bias on the part of those gathering the stats can play a role.

Questions that are deliberately worded or structured or sequenced so as to be leading can produce misleading outcomes.

Unclear definitions of terms can be an issue. "Have you ever cheated on your partner", for example, could mean many things.

I'm referring to statistics in general, not to this specific case. Which I only shared in order to rile the broflakes.

[Jack]

You mean like opinion surveys, or small sample sets?

Both. And then some.

Unrepresentative samples can occur either due to small sample size or due to poor sampling methods.

Conscious or subconscious bias on the part of those gathering the stats can play a role.

Questions that are deliberately worded or structured or sequenced so as to be leading can produce misleading outcomes.

Unclear definitions of terms can be an issue. "Have you ever cheated on your partner", for example, could mean many things.

I'm referring to statistics in general, not to this specific case. Which I only shared in order to rile the broflakes.

Yes, I see. My response may have been more related to state of mind. Today it reads like a funny joke. 74% if all statistics are bollocks. Really? Is that one of them?

[Al Swearegen]

You mean like opinion surveys, or small sample sets?

Both. And then some.

Unrepresentative samples can occur either due to small sample size or due to poor sampling methods.

Conscious or subconscious bias on the part of those gathering the stats can play a role.

Questions that are deliberately worded or structured or sequenced so as to be leading can produce misleading outcomes.

Unclear definitions of terms can be an issue. "Have you ever cheated on your partner", for example, could mean many things.

I'm referring to statistics in general, not to this specific case. Which I only shared in order to rile the broflakes.

What is a broflake?

[Al Swearegen]

The BBC numbers tell a different story.

Actually, they don't. You're making the same mistake you made with the Google employee numbers.

You just look at the surface numbers and don't scratch below the surface to see why there's a difference.

BBC has commissioned 3 different independent investigations over recent years and all 3 found that there were no gender bias in the wages of anyone who worked there.

THIS IS A FAKE STORY, PERIOD!

How do you explain the fact that there is a 6.8% gap, then, according to their own numbers? How do you explain the fact that they will cut the salaries of some of their male journalists following the publication of their own study, the one where they claim there is no gender bias?

If you scratch below the surface a bit, you'll find a lot of criticism aimed at their studies. Yes, it's easier to just claim it's fake news but I'm guessing that you wouldn't if you were paid 6.8% less than a female colleague.

As for the Google numbers, you were the one to miss the division between tech and non-tech employees. Statistics are so easily misunderstood, aren't they? It happens to the best of us so it goes without saying that it happens to you. Happy to revisit the discussion if you can produce sources that back up your claims.

I dunno? Fear? Public outrage? Allaying the sponsor's concerns? Being seen as Progressive?

Could be many reasons.

I take it that you don't have any sources either?

How does one quantify such things or measure them AND if one can't should one dismiss them to push a narrative bereft of any of these things? Seems odd.

[odeon]

So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?

[Al Swearegen]

So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?

So you are working on assumptions that do not lend themselves to the kind of critique such as I have offered.
That is okay. I do not mind assumptions. People can assume anything they want.

[odeon]

So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?

So you are working on assumptions that do not lend themselves to the kind of critique such as I have offered.
That is okay. I do not mind assumptions. People can assume anything they want.

Got it. You don't.

[Al Swearegen]

 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?

So you are working on assumptions that do not lend themselves to the kind of critique such as I have offered.
That is okay. I do not mind assumptions. People can assume anything they want.

Got it. You don't.

Neither does the odeot.   

[odeon]

So neither of you can actually produce any sources, then?

So you are working on assumptions that do not lend themselves to the kind of critique such as I have offered.
That is okay. I do not mind assumptions. People can assume anything they want.

Got it. You don't.

Neither does the odeot.   

Brilliantly argued.

[Arya Quinn]

Considering how the BBC has a history of harbouring paedophiles among other sins...I mean, a pay gap isn't the worst thing they've done by a goddamn mile. 

[odeon]

True, but does it mean that you should only address one problem at a time?

[El]

Considering how the BBC has a history of harbouring paedophiles among other sins...I mean, a pay gap isn't the worst thing they've done by a goddamn mile. 

good point

True, but does it mean that you should only address one problem at a time?

also good point

[Yuri Bezmenov]

THE PAY GAP ISN'T REAL!!!


Neither is ritualistic, Satanic, Child Abuse.   

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

THE PAY GAP ISN'T REAL!!!


Neither is ritualistic, Satanic, Child Abuse.   

Dude, there's a pay gap. Fact!