Slashdot Mirror
Even On eBay, Women Get Paid Less For Their Labor (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: Women in the United States are paid only 79 cents on the dollar compared with men doing the same job. But at least gender melts away in the digital economy of the Internet, right? Nope. A study of more than 1 million auctions on the online commerce site eBay finds that women receive consistently less money than men for selling the very same products. T: The oft-cited "cents on the dollar" claims, though, ought perhaps be taken with a grain of salt; it depends who's counting, and what.
New owner, same third wave feminist bull.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Obviously, people check the gender of the merchant before buying from them.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Why are we not done with this SJW tripe?
For one, how do you know the sex of an ebay seller?
For two, are we sure it's a significant difference?
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Hillary pays her male staff more than her female staff. Or does hypocrisy count?
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Looking at median salaries among full-time, year-round employees, the Free Beacon concluded that women working in Clinton’s Senate office were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.
I am sure that you'll be happy to make excuses or quote methodology (as did HuffPo), but when you're UNWILLING to do the same for studies you agree with then that too is Hypocrisy.
The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Let me try and understand this - are they suggesting that bidders go 'Gosh, that stuff is being sold by ILIKEPINKKITTENS who is probably female so therefore I'll bid less as I'm a pig and hate women'?
Reads article: Hmmm, apparently they're not sure why, but think it's something to do with how men and women describe things.
Damn those Mansellers and their unfair use of words.
Just looking at raw ebay data doesn't cut it. You would need a controlled test using the exact same product description, the exact same seller feedback for both the man and woman sellers, exact same reserve price, etc. with the only difference being the name of the seller (male or female sounding).
Otherwise the discrepancy could just be something as simple as a difference in how men and women describe their product.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The summary doesn't really reflect the articles findings. Yes female identified sellers received less money that sellers identified as male but once it was corrected for various things the difference was down to 97c per dollar. So the difference is no where near the level the summary, or even the opening part of the article claims.
There are also huge windows of error in their statistical sampling. They analysed 1.1m records but only had 400 sellers names assessed for expected gender. From those 35% couldn't be guessed an 9% got it wrong. So to apply that level of inaccuracy and then claim 3% as a significant difference is a bit of a stretch.
I don't see the margin of error cited.
For used items, it was within 3%. For new items, it was 20% on apples-to-apples item comparisons -- same as the purported wage gap. Even on gift cards, which have a real exact value.
Their first guess was that it came down to men describing things in a better light, and they do, but not by enough to really move the numbers, so that's not it. Nobody knows more specifically why this would happen, when raw capitalism suggests you would bid up the cheaper thing that women were selling.
There, I summarized the article because you clicked through and still didn't read it.
All of those surveys they keep touting do NOT compare same (or even similar) jobs and experience. They usually compare anything BUT the same job, with the same hours. Sure, the headlines claim that, but when you look at the surveys, it's just not true.
When they do get around to comparing similar jobs, women get the same pay (or even slightly more), right up until they start having children. Then, they either leave the job market completely (not as common nowadays) or work fewer hours. I have never worked at any place where the women generally worked more hours than the men. I've worked a lot at places where the men worked many, many more hours than the women.
Here's the kicker: if women really were paid 20% less for the same work, who would hire men? Any company that hired only women at that rate would have a huge price differential over their competitors.
What about the 20% difference observed for new items?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
And your point would be?
if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men
I am pretty sure my point was clear. Capitalism doesn't care if you're man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, KKK or BLM. It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They are making the same invalid assumption as the Github study, namely that sellers that identify their gender are statistically the same as those that don't. In fact, the Github study itself showed that they don't. The difference is probably something harmless; for example, it is possible (even likely) that older people tend to use their first names more frequently, and are more likely to have first names that can be classified by gender.
Not this tired old meme again.
They don't get paid less for "The same job", they get paid less because they take different jobs and, on average, work less hours than men.
It's like people forgot about the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
But hey, controversy sells and gets ad revenue. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.
Now if only we could find rational actors to implement it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.
Indeed. Some studies have found that women are paid MORE than men, once you factor in job field, experience, hours worked, seniority, etc...
I've heard that women tend to be valued less in the work center because of:
1. Heavier use of benefits vs straight pay
2. Tend to take more time off, and work fewer hours(means less seniority as well)
3. Select more flexible, but lower paying, employment options.
4. Choose more for stability over pay (Men buy stocks, Women buy bonds.)
I don't read AC A human right
If women are selling products for lower cost it may be because this is right price to earn the most money. On e-bay commonly the lowest priced item is the dominant seller. For hihg volume sellers the e-bay fees can become fixed costs. As a result the more you sell the lower your overhead and the higher the profit margin. So women may be higher volume sellers, getting more revenue and likely more profits as well.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
But they are also greedy and will do anything for profit, except hire all women and raise profits significantly.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I was looking at the 34 most embarrassing photos on the internet.
The link under #8 said a woman near where I live was earning $430/day online. The link under #19 said that a man nearby was earning $590/day.
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
That makes sense because they lost their male anatomy which any man will tell you is at least 30% of their worth.
Little boy pulls down his shorts and says to the little girl "I've got one of these and you don't ha ha!"
Little girl pulls down her shorts and says "I've got one of these and my mommy says with one of these I can get as many of those as I want!"
It's a buyers market. :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
... And your point would be?
Let's say that theoretical female and male employees are theoretically identical except for the flag "F" or "M". Let's also treat them as an asset. Like, say, a Bolt. Said Bolts, from company "M" has a "M" embossed on the top. From company "F", it has a "F". The bolts are identical otherwise, delivered at the same cost, speed, etc...
Bolts from M cost $1 each. Bolts from F cost $0.72. If I'm a business, I'd be an idiot to buy Bolt M, bolt F is substantially cheaper. I can offer cheaper products buying from F. Under such a scenario, as a business I'd buy bolt F exclusively if possible. But F can't produce enough, so they're only meeting half of my demand. I'd offer F, say, $0.75 per bolt to ensure my supply. Problem, next thing I know, F has raised their prices, and I'm paying $0.85, and M is offering a sale at $0.85 so it can sell bolts as well.
The conclusion, as an amateur economist, but decent at math and science, is that if M can stay in business at $1 and F still has excess production capacity at $1 each, is that the "M" and "F" aren't actually identical. Maybe bolt F is just as strong as M mechanically, but what if M is stainless and F isn't? Then M will be used exclusively in various tasks - exterior applications, corrosive environments, etc...
Same deal with male and female employees. If the $0.72 cents is hanging around, maybe it's because there actually ARE differences, and businesses aren't actually, on average, paying men more for no good reason. Identifying what those reasons could be is the real trick.
I don't read AC A human right
It all comes down to personal decisions It has absolutely nothing to do with gender.
Your personal decisions affect your earning potentials. Women typically made different personal decisions than men. And I say this as a stay at home dad that has earned 80% of what my peers have because of my own personal decisions
Well, speaking as someone who's actually run a business, a lot of the secret of success is actually doing things that any fool would know is the right thing to do. The problem is that what you'd instantly see in a hypothetical case to be the right thing to do is often hard to see in a real one, particularly if it involves making changes. That's because people more often use their powers of reasoning to rationalize the status quo than they do to find a better way of doing things. And it's really, really hard in the moment to tell the difference between reasoning and rationalization.
I absolutely agree that a rationally run company would gain a powerful competitive advantage by not discriminating, but in certain cases biases and cognitive flaws can be so widespread that there isn't enough rational behavior to shift the behavior of the market as a whole. If enough people are acting in a certain stupid way, that stupid way of acting is stable and persistent.
Look around you with open eyes, and you'll see self-defeating behavior everywhere. The idea that economic forces are sufficient to purge most irrational behavior from the world is manifestly counter-factual. I know people who've run successful consultancies telling businesses to do painfully obvious things, like stop pouring money into promoting products that are hard to sell and focus on products customers actually seem to want. The gift these consultant have isn't seeing the obvious, it's getting other people to see the obvious.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.