Sorry, I don't buy that the same errors would be done all over the globe. Also, I place a little more faith in the average statistician than you do. Making sure that comparable raw data is used is Statistics 101.
Haha, did not see this thread come up for a while and forgot about it.
You know what information is shown on my tax return that goes to the Tax Department? My gross salary and my tax and my net salary.
There is nothing in deductions or whatever really.
So the place that the statisticians will pull data from will be the Australian Bureau of Statistics and they in tern will get most of their details in respect to the Gross salary off the Australia Taxation Office.
Now, again, IF they are getting my Gross salary as informed by my tax return and my tax and Net salary and they did theta for each of my colleagues, then I would get more than most of the others and the guys on average would get higher than the girls.
Based on this small instance, and based on precisely the information that would be made available to the statisticians, what kind of information would be available for them to collate? If ATO did not record more than the gross tax and net salary then what would the statisticians assess of my gross salary towards voluntary overtime or commission? If you say none, then I say simply, then I would be shown as earning higher than any of the ladies in my workplace and NOT because of bias but because I earn more commission and more overtime.
If similar situations happen with other men in the office - and I know there are others. If similar is in other offices and workplaces around Australia where lack of available information is given to contextualise difference, then a statistician can be good, bad or indifferent and still get the same result with it being out in the same way.
You still place very little faith in statisticians.
Just did some quick googling about the methods. This paper includes some info. I haven't read it all, I just glanced through it to see if they explain their methods, which is what I was after.
There are other papers like it but I don't have the time, right now.
I read this. I am not impressed. At all.
"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including those that concentrate women into particular occupations and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past."The reason I am not impressed is that, for all it's statistics we only have to look at
"those that concentrate women into particular occupations" and
"direct discrimination and differences in the labour market motivations and preferences of women as compared with men".
Not only does this tell me that women are making choices of where to work (job choice and industry choice) BUT when they do this "impartial" study uses the loaded terms like "those that concentrate women". What the fuck does concentrate women mean? The employers herd women into a specific job or bar them from working in an industry? That what it looks like BUT I really think it is more about women making choices to work in specific fields that show high female to male ratio. Hence the "concentration". The terminology is loaded and that automatically gets me to say....hang on, if they are loading the terms like this then is this really impartial?
The answer of course is...."No"
It could foreseeable have been re-written thus
"Broadly, the research finds that gender differences in life-time working patterns (That is men tend to stay in continuous employment throughout their lives and reap the benefits for doing so) account for 36% of the pay gap. Rigidities in the labour market, including rigidities that have women seek out specific employment and mean that they are more likely to work in smaller and non-unionised firms rather than making a choice to work in larger and unionised firms, account for a further 18% of the pay gap. 38% is due to direct discrimination and and choices women make in respect to the type of work women prefer which often does not pay as much as work that men are prepared to do. The remaining 8% is due to women's lesser educational attainment in the past."I would say that this basically holds true to what I said from get go, barring of course the holdover of the 8% of women with worse education an therefore notable to apply for jobs needing a higher educational pre-requisite. (I am surprised that there is still a holdover at all).
Not impressed and the pear basically reiterated these points and in the same kind of loading of terms and sought to justify its bias.
But again Odeon, this basically says EXACTLY what I have been saying. If women make the choice about what type of job, how flexible the job, how many hours and what industry and this informs a lower pay........it is NOT discrimination or Patriarchy or anything of the sort. It is personal choice.
Accountability. You see why I place so little faith in Statisticians, now?
BTW this is not trying to say no women make choices that are that of their male counterparts, were that the case there would be a much greater difference.
