[TheVrist]

Would the "same job" still be subjective to overall performance capabilities?

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Would the "same job" still be subjective to overall performance capabilities?

Of course they would, and that's the argument most people make for why the pay isn't the same on average. You would have to do a full in depth study of overall job performance compared to pay and it's correlation to being a man or woman. That argument makes sense for physical labor, because most men can create a greater physical output than women on average. That doesn't explain the reason women don't get the same pay in non-physical professions. Men nearly always come out ahead regardless of profession, so it leads me to believe it's more than simple output.

[niknik]

I remember when the administration brought this subject and these stats up before the election. And a investigation revealed the administration itself paid it's men more.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Would the "same job" still be subjective to overall performance capabilities?

Poo meant to say no. His graph doesn't take any of that into account.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Poo meant to say no. His graph doesn't take any of that into account.

"Any of that" being overall performance capabilities, a singular thing?

So what are you trying to say Nik, you don't think women can perform at the same mental level men can?

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

"Any of that" being overall performance capabilities, a singular thing?

So what are you trying to say Nik, you don't think women can perform at the same mental level men can?

It has nothing to do with gender. I'm sure millions of women perform at a higher mental level than you for instance.
And any of that being any factor at all. Your graphs don't take any factors into consideration. So as far as I'm concerned they're inaccurate.

[TheVrist]

Does the earnings graph cover all earnings, of professions? I see the graph that shows numbers in broken down sexes in particular fields, but not any median per sex+ particular field.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Does the earnings graph cover all earnings, of professions? I see the graph that shows numbers in broken down sexes in particular fields, but not any median per sex+ particular field.

All that info is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports for 2013. But yes they do have the median numbers broken down in the report but not added as graphs.

Among both women and men, median weekly earnings for those working full time in management, business, and financial operations jobs were higher than in any other major occupational category in 2013 ($1,049 for women and $1,412 for men). Of women in management, business,and financial operations occupations, those who were chief executives and computer and information systems managers had the highest median weekly earnings ($1,811 and $1,549, respectively). Among men in this job group, chief executives and architectural and engineering managers had the highest earnings ($2,266 and $1,898, respectively). The second highest paying major occupational category for women and men was professional and related occupations ($944 for women and $1,295 for men). Among women in professional and related occupations, those who were pharmacists ($1,802) and lawyers ($1,566) had the highest earnings. For men in professional and related occupations, those who were pharmacists ($2,092), physicians and surgeons ($2,087), and lawyers ($1,986) earned the most.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/...gs-in-2013.pdf

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

It has nothing to do with gender. I'm sure millions of women perform at a higher mental level than you for instance.
And any of that being any factor at all. Your graphs don't take any factors into consideration. So as far as I'm concerned they're inaccurate.

What factors?

[PlinyTheYounger]

You know, if people stopped committing crimes, and got a job, people wouldn't get shot.