Contradictory data in gender pay gap report

At there is a study on the gender pay gap that includes this statement:

"Based on more than 505,000 salaries shared by full-time U.S. employees on Glassdoor, men earn 24.1 percent higher base pay than women on average. In other words, women earn about 76 cents per dollar men earn. "

A dollar is 36.6% bigger than 76 cents. 24.1% more than 76 cents is 94.3 cents. Anybody know what’s up? Basic math skills issue?

76 cents is 76% of a dollar, so from that perspective a dollar is 24% more. It’s not math skills that are lacking, it’s basic English skills: they mean to say that women earn 24% less, not that men earn 24% more.

It’s both math and English. They did mean to say that women earn 24% less, but the math therefore is what Napier said, that men earn 36.6% more.

Right. Nothing like a report on the gender pay gap, that’s written with the (unconscious) assumption that men are the natural, better, state of humanity, and women are hideous deviations from the normal.

So of course men’s pay is the normal amount, and if women’s pay is different, it should be expressed as a change from the men’s pay (so the percentage is as a proportion of the ‘normal’ men’s pay). But at the same time, the author apparently doesn’t really want to say that women are getting shafted, rather he thinks that men ‘earn’ more (so he puts it as men earn X% more than women).

really want to say that women are getting shafted,


You can’t conclude that women are getting shafted or even discriminated against from these across-the-board pay reports. In order to conclude that, you’d have to directly compare pay by sex for the same jobs.

A lot of women, of their own free will, select lower-paying careers. They don’t want to work the 70+ hours a week that most of the higher-paying jobs require. Even when you take child care and home care out of the equation, many women prefer to have a life rather than an extremely demanding, high-paid job. I did that-I opted for a lower-paying less-demanding job because I didn’t want to spend every minute of every day slaving away for someone else.

The only factor discrimination may play in this is that many “traditional” women’s jobs were never highly paid, but no one forces women to stick with those types of jobs these days.

If only there was a study that did that.

Abject mathematical incompetence. And lousy English to boot.

Morons. The wage gap is real. Their ability to explain it is not.

Those factors represent some of the universe of possible considerations, but not all. Consider all of the jobs with the same job title and with similar education and experience. What about working longer hours, or willingness to travel, or even the ability/propensity to negotiate a higher starting salary or larger raise?

But the big mistake is not reporting the adjusted pay gap. If you read the actual report, after taking into account the stated factors (but not likely ALL factors), the gender pay gap is 5.4 percent, not 24.1 percent as indicated by the reporter. But, of course, a 5 percent gap isn’t as striking as a 24 percent gap.

This being GQ, I am not taking a position on whether the pay gap exists or whether the study is any good. I am merely pointing out that it does exactly what it was criticized for not doing in the post I responded to.

Apparently a common mistake. Used as the subject of a Dilbert strip nearly 20 years ago:

Sad, but I have to fess up – this strip is exactly what I thought of when I read the report.

I’ve always wondered how do these studies take into account jobs in construction and such that are rare to find any women workers. My Dad is a Union Lineman up North and he earns six figures but it is hard grueling work, and I’m sure there are a couple but as far as I know there are almost no women working this kind of job. Do they not take those jobs into account or they just use the data point to reinforce that men earn more or are jobs like this that aren’t very sexually diverse just not included?