Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:00 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...it fits exactly the same pattern as the other two cases I cited. Williams wasn't just paid less than Wahlberg: she was paid the scale rate. That shows this isn't about negotiating power: Williams agents didn't actually negotiate even after they secured 1.5 million for their other client. Its why transparency is important. Its why the problem is structural and baked into the system.
Maybe Williams' agents know something you don't? They are the pros and as you said, they got it for Wahlberg. Do you think that they didn't do their job or just patted Williams on the head and told her to be a little doll and go home?

There is only one Wahlberg and if a movie wants him, they have to pay him that type of money or he makes a different movie where they will pay him that type of money. Williams doesn't have that type of bargaining power.

Williams seems to be a fine enough actor, but she has nowhere near the star power of Wahlberg. Not even close. It would be like saying that something nefarious was going on because a golf tournament pays Tiger Woods a bundle more to show up than would pay me to show up.

If it wasn't Williams, but say, Steve Buscemi, would you think that something unfair happened?
  #152  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:01 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...because I've read several stories about this, cited them in this thread, and they explain what happened? How did you not know this?
I've read all the cites you posted in this thread, and none of them say that her agents didn't negotiate. Maybe you can point out where the articles say that?

I did read this though: "Williams previously told USA TODAY that when Scott's team called to request her time for the reshoot, "I said I'd be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort."

Which seems to me that she voluntarily gave up any salary for the reshoots.
  #153  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:03 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Well, I personally find that very sad.
  #154  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,372
I don't have a handy cite, but from our past debates it seems that women who remained childless and therefore who did not take substantial time off take from the workforce to raise children, had pay rates equal to men.

If this is true, and please comment if it is not, then there does not seem to be a gender pay gap in the sense that companies are discriminating against women. It seems a legitimate reason to pay someone less who has been away from the workforce for four years than you would pay someone, male or female, to do the job who had been continuously in the industry, learning and gaining experience.
  #155  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:29 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm using the terms synonymously, but I more mean the economy. Society was the word choice I was responding to so I mirrored it. Feel free to substitute the economy.
It still seems like you are using the value of the input to determine the value of the output. How much someone gets paid is not the same as how much they actually contribute to the economy.

A trivial counterexample is the volunteer, who doesn't get paid anything, but still provides something of monetary value to the company they volunteer for.

In fact, the highest value deals are those in which someone pays little but gets a lot out of it. A high value movie is one where you pay less than you get out of the movie, for example.

Mothers actually have a fairly high value, as their mothering produces citizens that can then participate in the economy. Their output is higher than the input, which is just that which is spent on the public good.

I would argue that, if you want to check someone's value to the economy, that value must be made by comparing output and input. I'm not exactly sure how to compare them, as both division and subtraction have their merits, but you can't completely ignore one or the other.

Otherwise you get the absurd example of the volunteer whose work allows companies to make millions (e.g. with open source software) providing less value to the economy than someone who gets paid a million dollars but fails and winds up costing everyone money.

That second guy is much less valuable.
  #156  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:46 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't have a handy cite, but from our past debates it seems that women who remained childless and therefore who did not take substantial time off take from the workforce to raise children, had pay rates equal to men.

If this is true, and please comment if it is not, then there does not seem to be a gender pay gap in the sense that companies are discriminating against women. It seems a legitimate reason to pay someone less who has been away from the workforce for four years than you would pay someone, male or female, to do the job who had been continuously in the industry, learning and gaining experience.
That may be true, but it seems like there are some people who think that employees shouldn't get paid more simply because they've been at the company longer.
  #157  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:46 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It still seems like you are using the value of the input to determine the value of the output. How much someone gets paid is not the same as how much they actually contribute to the economy.
I think you are missing the "supply" side of the supply v. demand equation which sets values for not only goods but services.

Garbage men, for example, provide a very valuable service. Imagine if no one collected garbage and it just festered everywhere in the community. But because it takes no special skill and that pretty much any able bodied man (or woman) can do the job means that the pay will not be as high as another skill which may not be as important for society in the absolute sense.

Athletes, on the other hand, provide a very marginal benefit to society. If football disappeared tomorrow, I might lose a source of entertainment, but I would still largely go on as before. Yet these guys are paid millions. And that is because only a very select few guys in the entire world have the skill set to perform at such a high level.

So just because you can point to very important jobs with low pay doesn't mean that there is something nefarious going on.
  #158  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:52 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That may be true, but it seems like there are some people who think that employees shouldn't get paid more simply because they've been at the company longer.
Well, as a small business owner, I understand the value of consistency. If I have a good employee or even an average employee, I don't want them to get sniped by another company and make me undergo the costs of finding someone to replace them, bring them up to speed on company policies, and then wait to see if I made a wrong choice because they show up drunk, call out a lot, or otherwise cannot do the job so I have to go through the process again. Or they make a mistake that costs the company money.

If I have a serviceable employee, it makes sense to keep their pay at or above market rate to give them an incentive to stay.
  #159  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:55 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, as a small business owner, I understand the value of consistency. If I have a good employee or even an average employee, I don't want them to get sniped by another company and make me undergo the costs of finding someone to replace them, bring them up to speed on company policies, and then wait to see if I made a wrong choice because they show up drunk, call out a lot, or otherwise cannot do the job so I have to go through the process again. Or they make a mistake that costs the company money.

If I have a serviceable employee, it makes sense to keep their pay at or above market rate to give them an incentive to stay.
Well, I think that too. But some in this thread seem to think that a new hire should be paid the same as a person whose been there for 5 or 10 or 15 years. It's strange to me.
  #160  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:01 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Maybe Williams' agents know something you don't? They are the pros and as you said, they got it for Wahlberg. Do you think that they didn't do their job or just patted Williams on the head and told her to be a little doll and go home?
...we are talking about an industry that out of over 400 total nominees for the best director oscar only 5 women have ever been nominated and only 1 woman has ever won. We are talking about an industry where 94% of women have said they have experienced sexual harassment or assault. We are talking about an industry where 50% of film school graduates are women but only 1.9% of them ever get the opportunity to direct big budget films. So do I believe they literally patted Williams on the head and told her to be a little doll and go home? Nope. But I don't think your characterization is too far off the truth. Its an industry that has historically and continues to devalue the contributions of women. Its baked into it culture.

Quote:
There is only one Wahlberg and if a movie wants him, they have to pay him that type of money or he makes a different movie where they will pay him that type of money. Williams doesn't have that type of bargaining power.
She's got significantly more bargaining power now than she had before all of this got made public.

Quote:
Williams seems to be a fine enough actor, but she has nowhere near the star power of Wahlberg. Not even close. It would be like saying that something nefarious was going on because a golf tournament pays Tiger Woods a bundle more to show up than would pay me to show up.
Williams has won 1 more Golden Globe than Wahlberg has and is one of the finest actors of her generation. This isn't about you showing up with Tiger Woods. Its Serena Williams playing in a tournament with Roger Federer and paying Federer 1.5 million dollars and paying Serena Williams with a gift bag.

Women almost never get offered the same roles as men. Women don't get lead roles in movies like "Boogie Nights" and "Planet of the Apes" and "Three Kings" and "The Departed." "Star Power" is a metric that women (currently) will never be able to match. Its a metric that inherently values male actors more than female actors.

Things are changing though. More men are refusing to take roles/taking paycuts to force parity with their female costars. With movies like Captain Marvel demonstrating that women can lead an action movie and make billions of dollars things will start to change. We don't have to accept the status quo.

Quote:
If it wasn't Williams, but say, Steve Buscemi, would you think that something unfair happened?
If Steve Buscemi was top billed in a movie and got paid scale while the person who got last billing got paid 1.5 million dollars I think Steve Buscemi would be absolutely fucking ropable and yes of course I would think that would be unfair. Let me know when that happens and I will join you in your outrage.
  #161  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:08 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
You have yet to cite a single example.
...LOL. I missed this. Didn't you say you weren't going to "engage in this distraction anymore?"

I cited two additional cases in my response to your claim "It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap." Kerri Sleeman and Eleanor Bradford. Post 135.
  #162  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:20 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Which seems to me that she voluntarily gave up any salary for the reshoots.
...yep. There wasn't a point where the agent tried to negotiate and they were told "Nope. Scale and that's it!". If they did then both Michelle Williams and the agency has kept that part of the story secret. This would have put all the blame on the production company and if the agency had this as an "out" they would have taken it.
  #163  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:23 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...yep. There wasn't a point where the agent tried to negotiate and they were told "Nope. Scale and that's it!". If they did then both Michelle Williams and the agency has kept that part of the story secret. This would have put all the blame on the production company and if the agency had this as an "out" they would have taken it.
According to the links you provided, they refused to comment. So again I ask you, how do YOU know this?
  #164  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:25 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
According to the links you provided, they refused to comment. So again I ask you, how do YOU know this?
...I ask you again: how do YOU not know this?
  #165  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:29 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I ask you again: how do YOU not know this?
Because I don't make up things to believe. I use facts to determine what happened in situations. Simply point to something that shows that her agent didn't negotiate and I'm cool with it.
  #166  
Old 05-21-2019, 10:52 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Because I don't make up things to believe. I use facts to determine what happened in situations. Simply point to something that shows that her agent didn't negotiate and I'm cool with it.
...I don't really care "what you are cool" with or what you are not. The sequence of what happened is clear. Michelle Williams voluntarily gave up any salary for the reshoots, the same as what she thought the rest of the cast had done. The assertion that after she did this her agent would then "try to negotiate and they were told "Nope. Scale and that's it" is not an assertion I have to disprove.

Did they try and negotiate after they secured 1.5 million for their other client? Well if they did they didn't tell Michelle Williams about it. Because Williams only found out about the disparity when Jessica Chastain broke the news and tweeted about it. Until that tweet Williams had no reason to believe that anybody had been paid differently.

So when did these supposed negotiations happen?
  #167  
Old 05-21-2019, 11:40 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...LOL. I missed this. Didn't you say you weren't going to "engage in this distraction anymore?"

I cited two additional cases in my response to your claim "It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap." Kerri Sleeman and Eleanor Bradford. Post 135.
No you have not. You continue to post with blatantly non-factual responses.
  #168  
Old 05-22-2019, 12:11 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
No you have not.
...no I have not what?

I have not posted cited two cases gender pay story examples? You don't think Kerri Sleeman and Eleanor Bradford count? Or you actually think I didn't post that information? Can you put at least a bit of effort into clarifying your point?

Quote:
You continue to post with blatantly non-factual responses.
I haven't made any "blatantly non-factual responses". If you want a debate then have at it. But so far in this thread you have claimed I'm "obsessed with Hollywood actresses being the great victims of this world." You've claimed "rich Hollywood actresses that you would care about." You've claimed "It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap." You've now just claimed I "continue to post with blatantly non-factual responses."

Just stop it already. I'm here to debate if you want to debate. But just stop with these baseless attacks.
  #169  
Old 05-22-2019, 01:42 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I haven't made any "blatantly non-factual responses". If you want a debate then have at it. But so far in this thread you have claimed I'm "obsessed with Hollywood actresses being the great victims of this world." You've claimed "rich Hollywood actresses that you would care about." You've claimed "It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap." You've now just claimed I "continue to post with blatantly non-factual responses."
I think you'd be much better advised to drop the Hollywood case as an example. That doesn't seem to be a clear example of unfairness based on gender but, seeing as no-one got paid extra apart from Wahlberg, it was a case of him v everyone and I don't see where his maleness comes into it, you could substitute him for any other film diva who happens to be female and no-one would be surprised at all.

Not every case of "being paid less whilst being a woman" is an example of "being paid less because you are a woman" and they shouldn't be used to dilute the very real importance of the latter.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #170  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:31 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I think you'd be much better advised to drop the Hollywood case as an example.
...sure. How about Eleanor Bradford?
  #171  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:39 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...sure. How about Eleanor Bradford?
Potentially a better example but, unless there is information unknown to me, that is just her assessment of what was going on. I haven't seen the BBC side of the case.

If that truly was an example of less pay for equal work and the only factor was gender then she would have a slam-dunk legal case at an industrial tribunal. Only in such circumstances would we hear all sides of what I imagine is a more complicated situation than has been self-reported by her.

My experience suggests it is pretty much always more complicated than any single side will willingly express.

I don't doubt that she thinks she was bringing equal value to her role and she may be right and could make a good case for it. The flip side of that is that someone else could just as easily make a case that, actually, they were bringing more to the role in ways that Eleanor may know nothing about. What then?

This can of course be rectified with having strict wage bands and zero discretion but that is not necessarily as popular as you might suppose, certainly not outside of areas of employment with straightforward and tangible deliverables.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #172  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:50 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Potentially a better example but, unless there is information unknown to me, that is just her assessment of what was going on. I haven't seen the BBC side of the case.

If that truly was an example of less pay for equal work and the only factor was gender then she would have a slam-dunk legal case at an industrial tribunal. Only in such circumstances would we hear all sides of what I imagine is a more complicated situation than has been self-reported by her.

My experience suggests it is pretty much always more complicated than any single side will willingly express.

I don't doubt that she thinks she was bringing equal value to her role and she may be right and could make a good case for it. The flip side of that is that someone else could just as easily make a case that, actually, they were bringing more to the role in ways that Eleanor may know nothing about. What then?

This can of course be rectified with having strict wage bands and zero discretion but that is not necessarily as popular as you might suppose, certainly not outside of areas of employment with straightforward and tangible deliverables.
...how about Kerri Sleeman?
  #173  
Old 05-22-2019, 06:55 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,577
One quote here from Eleanor

Quote:
It was only when I asked for an equal pay review that I was given an immediate £5,000 pay rise, which brought me up to the average salary for a BBC Scotland correspondent. There were still male colleagues around me, though, doing exactly the same job and getting paid more.
As she was on the average, that suggests that there were now people around her doing the same job as her and getting less than her. I wonder how she justified that to herself? I wonder what the gender breakdown of that below-average group was?

Also, seeing as she left the BBC and a replacement would be required, I wonder what incentives were then at work when considering a new hire. A woman on a low rate would make their gender pay-figures worse. A man on a low rate would make them better.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #174  
Old 05-22-2019, 07:09 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...how about Kerri Sleeman?
Possibly stronger still. Certainly on the facts as reported by Kerri and such a case wouldn't surprise me, surely incidents of unequal pay must still happen from time to time and a hefty sanction should be the their reward. Laws exist so that any company trying that shit will not have a leg to stand on.

However, that isn't what the "gender pay gap" figures are designed to address (at the least in the UK), if indeed they are designed to address anything at all.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #175  
Old 05-22-2019, 10:42 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
.

If Steve Buscemi was top billed in a movie and got paid scale while the person who got last billing got paid 1.5 million dollars I think Steve Buscemi would be absolutely fucking ropable and yes of course I would think that would be unfair. Let me know when that happens and I will join you in your outrage.
This happens all the time. In Iron Man Robert Downey Jr was paid $500,000 and Terrance Howard was paid $3.5 milion. Downey was the star of the movie, the titular character and received one seventh what the supporting actor made.
Marlon Brando got more money to be in Apocalypse Now than Martin Sheen did even though he was only onscreen for fifteen minutes.
In Superman Christopher Reeves got $250K, Brando got $3.7 million salary and 19 million in profit participation. Brando was only in the movie for a couple of minutes.
In the Force Awakens Mark Hammil was paid more for his cameo at the end than stars John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, and Oscar Isaac.
  #176  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:17 AM
Delayed Reflex is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Potentially a better example but, unless there is information unknown to me, that is just her assessment of what was going on. I haven't seen the BBC side of the case.

If that truly was an example of less pay for equal work and the only factor was gender then she would have a slam-dunk legal case at an industrial tribunal. Only in such circumstances would we hear all sides of what I imagine is a more complicated situation than has been self-reported by her.

My experience suggests it is pretty much always more complicated than any single side will willingly express.

I don't doubt that she thinks she was bringing equal value to her role and she may be right and could make a good case for it. The flip side of that is that someone else could just as easily make a case that, actually, they were bringing more to the role in ways that Eleanor may know nothing about. What then?

This can of course be rectified with having strict wage bands and zero discretion but that is not necessarily as popular as you might suppose, certainly not outside of areas of employment with straightforward and tangible deliverables.
Any single case can likely be explained as a multitude of factors, but how do you explain systemic, workforce-wide discrepancies in pay between men and women? It seems like nobody ready my post about the data which shows a ~5% gap in compensation even when adjusted for job type, education, experience, etc. Is this due to systemic discrimination (even might be primarily unconscious biases), or is it potentially due to systemic differences in productivity and subsequent merited differences in pay (which could just be due to social norms - eg. women might be less likely to work overtime (paid or unpaid) due to family commitments). Neither is an ideal situation, but tackling the problem will take a different approach depending on which ends up being a bigger factor.
  #177  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:21 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post

Those have nothing to do with being paid the same wage for the same job.
To heck they dont. At my job you might have two level 7 mechanics both at step 5 of the pay scale. One working overtime (say 4 OT hours a week), 3rd shift (nights where you get a night differential), and on sundays (sunday bonus) which pays more and the other working 2nd shift on weekdays which pays less. Even though they are both level 7's at pay scale 5, one is going to have higher wages because of the extra things.

So you have 2 level 7 mechanics who both technically are paid the same but in reality, one brings home more pay.
  #178  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:32 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
These things are motivated by perceived demand - but it is the perceived demand of the employer, not the employee.

Regards,
Shodan
Your right on "perceived demand of the employer". I know a country club that after getting a new general manager, fired the head chef, golf pro, and tennis pro because they were making way to much money and he knew he could hire new people at way less than what they made.

I've also seen this in IT where some computer person claims they are the only ones who know all the passwords and know the computer system so much they think they are invincible and no way would they be fired. Well the company calls in other IT experts who proves them wrong and they end up getting fired.

So sometimes people can get themselves by negotiating raises where they are paid too high and the employer calls them on it.
  #179  
Old 05-22-2019, 11:54 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delayed Reflex View Post
Any single case can likely be explained as a multitude of factors, but how do you explain systemic, workforce-wide discrepancies in pay between men and women? It seems like nobody ready my post about the data which shows a ~5% gap in compensation even when adjusted for job type, education, experience, etc. Is this due to systemic discrimination (even might be primarily unconscious biases), or is it potentially due to systemic differences in productivity and subsequent merited differences in pay (which could just be due to social norms - eg. women might be less likely to work overtime (paid or unpaid) due to family commitments). Neither is an ideal situation, but tackling the problem will take a different approach depending on which ends up being a bigger factor.
I just looked at the study. A serious question, how did they, for instance, go from 25.3% gap to 23.0% gap by adding controls for age, education and years of experience? How do they know it's not 22.5%? Maybe they are 1% off on each successive control, and then end up with 0% gap?

Also, I didn't see any mention of comparing average hours worked by men and women. If that average ends up being significantly different, wouldn't that affect the pay gap?
  #180  
Old 05-22-2019, 04:33 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
This happens all the time. In Iron Man Robert Downey Jr was paid $500,000 and Terrance Howard was paid $3.5 milion. Downey was the star of the movie, the titular character and received one seventh what the supporting actor made.
Marlon Brando got more money to be in Apocalypse Now than Martin Sheen did even though he was only onscreen for fifteen minutes.
In Superman Christopher Reeves got $250K, Brando got $3.7 million salary and 19 million in profit participation. Brando was only in the movie for a couple of minutes.
In the Force Awakens Mark Hammil was paid more for his cameo at the end than stars John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, and Oscar Isaac.
...none of those actors were paid scale. It doesn't happen "all the time."
  #181  
Old 05-23-2019, 05:56 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delayed Reflex View Post
Any single case can likely be explained as a multitude of factors, but how do you explain systemic, workforce-wide discrepancies in pay between men and women?.
Unfortunately the answer is not one that the "gender pay gap" addresses. i.e. it's complicated and it is not necessarily because women are treated worse because they are women, their freely-made choices may well be a factor and that, ultimately, seeing a zero "gender pay gap" may not be possible nor even desirable because as it is currently defined and calculated it may drive behaviours and decisions that are ultimately harmful to women.

That, unfortunately, is a less snappy title and requires us all to think a little more deeply about what factors are actually at work and what will actually help.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #182  
Old 05-23-2019, 09:56 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...none of those actors were paid scale. It doesn't happen "all the time."
Williams was not paid scale for the rest of the movie. She made $625K for the movie. The only reason she was paid scale for the reshoots is that union rules mandate that actors can not work for free on reshoots.
  #183  
Old 05-23-2019, 10:51 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I just looked at the study. A serious question, how did they, for instance, go from 25.3% gap to 23.0% gap by adding controls for age, education and years of experience? How do they know it's not 22.5%? Maybe they are 1% off on each successive control, and then end up with 0% gap?
I'm not sure if you're asking how an OLS regression works or if you didnt know they used one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Also, I didn't see any mention of comparing average hours worked by men and women. If that average ends up being significantly different, wouldn't that affect the pay gap?
They're assuming a 2000-hour work-year for full-time, salaried workers. Which has issues, obviously.
  #184  
Old 05-23-2019, 11:28 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I'm not sure if you're asking how an OLS regression works or if you didnt know they used one
Well, no I don't really know how it works. I assume it works by the people doing the study plugging in some number somewhere that represent the affect that different controls have. How do they come up with the numbers they used? The study doesn't say.

Quote:
They're assuming a 2000-hour work-year for full-time, salaried workers. Which has issues, obviously.
That would seem problematic if data suggests that men work an average of 100 hours a year more than women (not saying that's true, but it seems to me would be relevant)
  #185  
Old 05-23-2019, 11:39 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Well, no I don't really know how it works. I assume it works by the people doing the study plugging in some number somewhere that represent the affect that different controls have. How do they come up with the numbers they used? The study doesn't say.
They describe their approach starting on p8 and reference their 2016 study which has more detailed methodology. Let us know which part has you stumped.
  #186  
Old 05-23-2019, 12:10 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
They describe their approach starting on p8 and reference their 2016 study which has more detailed methodology. Let us know which part has you stumped.
Well, for instance this: "The estimated coefficient on the male dummy term β1
tells us the salary advantage experienced by males over females once all other factors are statistically adjusted for"

Does 'estimated' in statistics mean something different than 'estimated' in other fields?
  #187  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:41 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Williams was not paid scale for the rest of the movie. She made $625K for the movie. The only reason she was paid scale for the reshoots is that union rules mandate that actors can not work for free on reshoots.
...why are you telling me stuff I've not only already cited but I obviously already know? You don't need to lecture me on how Hollywood works.
  #188  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:50 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...why are you telling me stuff I've not only already cited but I obviously already know? You don't need to lecture me on how Hollywood works.
If you knew how Hollywood works you would know that stars get paid more than other actors and that it has nothing to do with male or female. That Mark Wahlberg is a much bigger star than Michelle Williams and is thus paid more.
  #189  
Old 05-23-2019, 03:08 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
If you knew how Hollywood works you would know that stars get paid more than other actors and that it has nothing to do with male or female. That Mark Wahlberg is a much bigger star than Michelle Williams and is thus paid more.
...again: I've talked about this. I've literally talked about this. If you had read my posts you would have known this. Why don't you read my posts first before continuing to lecture me?
  #190  
Old 05-23-2019, 04:29 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Well, for instance this: "The estimated coefficient on the male dummy term β1
tells us the salary advantage experienced by males over females once all other factors are statistically adjusted for"

Does 'estimated' in statistics mean something different than 'estimated' in other fields?
It's an estimate of the coefficient for the population because they are fitting a sample of that population. I estimate the fairness of a coin by flipping it a bunch of times.
  #191  
Old 05-23-2019, 05:21 PM
Delayed Reflex is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Well, for instance this: "The estimated coefficient on the male dummy term β1
tells us the salary advantage experienced by males over females once all other factors are statistically adjusted for"

Does 'estimated' in statistics mean something different than 'estimated' in other fields?
I'm not very well versed in statistics, but my understanding with OLS regression is basically like fitting a line to a scatter plot in such a way that it minimizes error, in this case with multiple variables. Thus, "estimated" in this case could possibly replaced by "calculated best fit" (with "best fit" being specifically minimizing the square of the errors). It's potentially possible for them to have "overestimated" the effect of a particular variable (eg. education) if there were significant outliers in their data set - but I think it's just as possible that they could have "underestimated" - basically their estimates are going to be totally a function of their data set, with no room for interpretation in their methodology (unless they are cherry-picking data points).

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972
That would seem problematic if data suggests that men work an average of 100 hours a year more than women (not saying that's true, but it seems to me would be relevant)
I agree, and it's a bit unclear to me reading the report how this is addressed, if at all. They have footnotes indicating that any "All amounts reported as hourly wages are expressed in annual terms assuming a 2,000-hour full-time work year" - which I interpret to mean that only the base $/hr wage matters for this report, not number of hours worked for workers paid by the hour (ie. $20/hr = $40,000/yr, regardless of how many hours worked). If that is the case, any difference in # of hours worked between men and women wouldn't show up as a pay gap.

However, as I mentioned previously, it's possible that for salaried employees, men might work more "unpaid" overtime hours than women, and might actually get compensated with higher salary for the subsequent higher productivity. So if there's data out there on hours worked in salary positions, it would be good to correct the data for that as well.

Last edited by Delayed Reflex; 05-23-2019 at 05:21 PM.
  #192  
Old 05-23-2019, 06:32 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,907
Great, thanks for the info!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017