[Glock]

Here's the write up from someone who perused the whole study:

Quote:

Female small-business owners, who generally set their own salaries, pay themselves about 80 percent of what men in the same position do. Amazingly, this is almost the same as the unadjusted pay gap in the larger workforce between what full-time male and female workers earn.

You can find the full study here:

http://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/...report.pdf

[Beyond Borders]

Great facebook-trolling material.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I wonder how they can blame the patriarchy for this one. Maybe it conditions women to think of women as lesser beings? Anyone has a better idea?

[Glock]

(02-19-2014 04:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I wonder how they can blame the patriarchy for this one. Maybe it conditions women to think of women as lesser beings? Anyone has a better idea?

They don't know their own minds. False consciousness. Brainwashing.

This is proof of society's all-powerful Magic Eye that causes women to oppress even themselves.

[Onto]

I suspect the reason why women make less is because they feel like an ego if they ask for anything.

The Feminine principle says there should be no egotism (self-interest) in the world. She's not even really there as a seperate identity. She just blends in with the rest of the world. Thus to ask for or demand a raise goes against their grain and they would instantly stick out as an ego.

It's why women want men to read their minds. If they were to tell us what they "want" it would make her become a self-interested person (ego), self-councious of herself. It's why they nibble on a cracker before hunger sets in, or why they rush for a blanket before they get chilled. It's all an effort to avoid becoming aware of themselves. It's also why women love to have the door held open for them, so they don't have to "act" in the world as an ego and thus become aware of themselves

The masculine has no qualms with egotism. It's completely ok to compete with and win at the expense of the other, to establish yourself as a seperate individual (identity).

Also part of it is that women look at the work world as a Soap Opera where business is secondary to relationships and developing a sewing circle. They are less likely to job hop and leave their friends behind for more money, where as we wouldn't hesitate a bit.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-19-2014 04:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I wonder how they can blame the patriarchy for this one. Maybe it conditions women to think of women as lesser beings? Anyone has a better idea?

Yes. Interaction with the opposite sex is a need for most humans. In order to get this, men have to fork over money while women are the recipients of that.

Subconsciously, this factors into the way men and women are paid. We're not corporate robots. We're people and we take this into account whether we realize it or not.

This is one reason (of many) why the idea of "equal pay" bothers a lot of guys. Women focus on that, but will go into insane rages on blogs if you dare ask them to "go Dutch." Again, feminism isn't about equality but about reconfiguring society in favor of women.

Even Tom Leykis has a "$40 date limit," not a "make her pay" policy. He knows we all live in the real world, after all.

[Glock]

Quote:

I suspect the reason why women make less is because they feel like like an ego if they ask for anything.

But this study involves women who owned their own businesses and set their own salaries. That is why the usual excuses simply don't apply it all.

[Onto]

(02-19-2014 04:42 PM)Glock Wrote:  

Quote:

I suspect the reason why women make less is because they feel like like an ego if they ask for anything.

But this study involves women who owned their own businesses and set their own salaries. That is why the usual excuses simply don't apply it all.

Exactly, that's why it's such a beautiful example. They "could" give themselves market rate, but they don't so they can feel comfortable not being an ego, men are.

This is done unconsciously of course.

[Onto]

The feminine doesn't believe anything should be earned, it should just be given. Like the love of the Mother, the child needs do nothing, it only needs to exist.

The masculine on the other hand demands everything be earned and the Father gives his child love when they have earned it through hard work, making the right decisions, obeying, and carrying his ideals and principals forward in life.

Manifested in economics, Socialism/Comminism is feminine and Capitialism is masculine.

[redbeard]

Wow, this is an amazing find. Obviously women don't want more money because they want to appease "corporation boyfriend" while also "proving" to men that they are hard workers who aren't just in it for money. I feel bad for many of the women I know trying to take this path. It's not satisfying. The only reason men more money is so that we can live a better life with the people around us. Women just want to prove themselves to everyone else.

[MrLemon]

It doesn't matter how much you earn or don't earn. What matters is how much you keep after taxes and expenses.

Men might or might not earn more than women. It doesn't matter. What matters is, at the end of the day, men turn over all their money to women and women tuck it in the bank and laugh their asses off.

Women in the US and most other countries, own the majority of assets.

[soup]

They would say that the patriarchy is so powerful that women are even brainwashed to think of themselves as less valuable than men, thus the lower self-pay.

This just fodder for the other side.

[The Lizard of Oz]

This is a classic case of a study where there are so many possible confounds that it's nearly impossible to know if the headline result means anything or not.

As correctly noted in the article that the OP links to,

Quote:

As a caveat: These data are very far from ideal. A Babson professor who worked on the survey notes that women may have founded businesses in sectors with lower revenues than men, for instance

This is just one obvious confound that could easily explain some, all, or none of the effect.

Such numbers should always be taken with pinches of salt because the confounds here are so massive as to render the result very nearly meaningless.

Analyzing these sorts of claims will be the bread and butter of my stats and numeracy thread once it really gets going.

[tarquin]

(02-20-2014 11:45 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

This is a classic case of a study where there are so many possible confounds that it's nearly impossible to know if the headline result means anything or not.

As correctly noted in the article that the OP links to,

Quote:

As a caveat: These data are very far from ideal. A Babson professor who worked on the survey notes that women may have founded businesses in sectors with lower revenues than men, for instance

This is just one obvious confound that could easily explain some, all, or none of the effect.

Such numbers should always be taken with pinches of salt because the confounds here are so massive as to render the result very nearly meaningless.

Analyzing these sorts of claims will be the bread and butter of my stats and numeracy thread once it really gets going.

I agree. It's exactly the same thing that Milton Friedman pointed out when discussing the alleged "pay gap." You need to compare like companies to like companies just like you need to compare like careers to like careers.