Slashdot Mirror
Research Suggests 'CS For All' May Mean Lower Pay For All
theodp writes: The NY Times reports that new research suggests as women take over a male-dominated field, the pay drops. "A striking example," writes Claire Cain Miller, "is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points. The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige." Addressing concerns raised about gender pay equity in tech, Amazon recently told the SEC to get off its case, explaining that it's working with organizations such as Code.org, the Anita Borg Institute and Girls Who Code to increase women's involvement in the technology industry. But even if such efforts achieve pay parity, will CS for All result in lower pay for all?
Ya think!
You mean when there is a larger supply of something, and demand stays even, the price of that thing goes down? That's crazy talk, it's almost as if this were a field of study or something. It may even involve charts.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
and start submitting stories to /.? No kidding. That's the _point_. If you haven't figured that out by now you haven't been paying attention.
The more interesting question is will people ever notice that the 1% does stuff like this? Every time the rich target an industry for lower wages I'm baffled that folks pretend like it's not happening. They tell me I'm a conspiracy loon because the idea that somebody might think 10 or 20 years down the line is nuts because well, they don't think that far down the line so why should anybody else?
This is kinda why workers formed Unions folks. The 1% are _always_ looking for ways to stop paying you. You know how you look for ways to save money on your day-to-day expenses? You clip coupons, they depress wages. Basically the same thing.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've never found a woman coworker to be even half as passionate about technology and computers as I am.
I'm coding at home on the weekend, coded for hours last night, will code for a few more hours today. During my breaks I'll read more about crypto or learn about a new fad language to see how it's gone off course.
When I am at work, I only go to lunch with other passionate types mainly so we can talk about our little "side" projects at home. I'm writing a few opengl games, a friend is writing a CMS, another is writing an order management system for healthcare, another is writing a tabletop boardgame application.
The women we work with however talented they may be, lack passion. They will go to lunch and get mad at us for "still talking about work". Then they wonder why they don't get invited next time around.
I've worked with a few that are that passionate, and they end up being published and respected like other men. They would be a welcome addition to our lunch crew but women like that tend to have other priorities which don't involve eating lunch with a bunch of men.
My passion is what makes me better at what I do. The fact that I don't stop should mean I get paid more than someone else "who only does it as a job". That's the black and white issue at play here.
More supply equals lower wages is only true if demand doesn't go up also. Honestly, do we think we're going to need the same number of programmers or more in the next twenty years?
Soon you'll be like like...
You: computer make me a game
Computer: OK. What kind?
You: something like doom
Computer: what do you want the environment and computer opponents to look like
You: lava caves and evil
Computer: what do you want your character to look like
You: Hillary
Computer: Wait... You said you want your opponents to look evil so I'm using Hillary already
"But even if such efforts achieve pay parity, will CS for All result in lower pay for all?"
Yes. Not because women depress pay scales, but because when more and more people get into a field, competition inevitably causes lower prices. Lowe prices for the things we buy - like groceries or electronics - is good. Competition in the stuff we sell - like our labor - is bad.
lower wages, faster turnover, more offshoring.
Ask anyone who used to work in gate array / fpga in non-military work in this country
First the move to standardized HLL such as Verilog, SystemC, VHDL and a few proprietaries.
Result of standardized code?
Lower speed, higher prices, longer time to market, cheaper labor
Cheap labor is the sine qua non of high stock prices.
But does it really create more product to export?
Ask the several ten thousand unemployed / former engineers replaced by Chinese and Indian H1-B and offshored labor
Wrong. In high tech, higher supply has always resulted in rising offshoring and H1-B wage cutting
Maybe it was just me but the first CS course I took was an intro to FORTRAN programming way back in 1984 (ha!) and it was difficult. I struggled with the concepts taught at the university level but eventually "got it". I worked as a C programmer for 12 years before switching to systems management. Many of the students I met along the way to a BS CS degree failed or lost interest. I just don't see CS for the masses ever taking hold. It's like pushing Calculus on everyone.
As pay drops, women take over male-dominated fields.
Heck, what do I know. I'm just a middle aged heterosexual white guy.
Being a productive coder is about personality as much or more than intelligence or classes. Knowing how to code teaches some problem solving skills, but a class in playing checkers would do the same thing.
I have been coding successfully for 20 years, and my degree is in psychology. I have also taught many programming classes, and coding is the easy part. Know what to code and how to structure the code is the hard part.
Some people may become developers because they like coding, but most won't.
Driving down computer weenies' wages is only a good thing. Let's push those shit nerds into the gutter!
That's what we get for listening to the Borg Institute. "Resistance to wage decreases is futile!"
Since when does "become less dominantly male" become "taken over by women"? Or is it the submitter's contention that men will start fleeing the field as more women enter it?
The group I'm in is all guys, and all of the people who were here when I got hired were guys. Any time we have an opening, the applicant pool is 95% male (and for Unix positions I think it's been 100% male). I like my coworkers, but sometimes it'd be nice if the place were a little less of a nerd sausage-fest.
#DeleteChrome
... to push women into IT.
Which is why there are more tech jobs per capita in the US in 2016 than there have been in its ~240-year history.
You cannot build a scalable (grow-able) organization by depending on a few 4 sigma outliers to do all the work (read up on "bus factor"). Successful large scale means developing processes that use the median skill employee that is readily available. Maybe you need one or two with the drive and passion to set the general direction, but all the *work* is done by folks at the 50th percentile (or more realistically, people within 1 sigma on any given day of the week, with the population varying around that over time).
And that "rock star" (how I hate that term) shouldn't be "covering".. they're performing their function, and management is responsible for making sure there's enough median performers to get the work done, that budgets and schedules are aligned to median performance, not exceptional performance. And if that "rock star" gets all "divo/diva" like about "covering for others", then they either need to realign their thinking (if the company is otherwise well run) or head to the door (if the company is mismanaged).
You really won't get any work as a coder unless you've done college. College however requires Calculus/Physics, and places little or no value on high school CS experiences. So... What was the point of CS for all again? There's also the observation that, particularly in year one, college CS seems to be a desperate attempt to get butts on seats as opposed to having any end goal.
I woke up one day in my late thirties, alone, burned out and grossly overweight. I spent thousands of dollars on dating services and many dates with obese head cases.
My employer then fired us all and sent the work to India.
I realized I spent the best years of my life in front of a fucking computer allowing myself to be exploited by employers who took advantage of my "passion". And when you get into your 40s, employers don't give a rat's ass about your 'passion' because they want cheap 20 somethings who are stupid enough to spend all their time in front of the computer and training themselves on their own dime and time.
To make a long story short, all of your "passion" will amount to nothing in the end.
And the 6' 3" ballplayer with the square jaw who got his degree in Marketing that we laughed at when we all started? Well, while we were getting kicked out after our jobs were off-shored to India, he was getting kicked up to the executive suite.
Just to put things into perspective for you guys.
I'm not really sure why we're assuming more people are going to go into CS because they took it earlier in school. Computers have been in school for a long time. I am not young, and I remember programming logo in school. There was enough exposure for the kids to find out that it was what they wanted to do. A MUCH bigger motivator is the QUALITY OF LIFE you have when you go in the field. It is up to hiring companies collectively to make it a good and solid career with good earning and a good quality of life if they want people to go into the field. That is really all there is to it, and from what I see today they're totally failing. I don't care what my kids learn in school, I don't see good jobs in tech, and everyone I know in tech is leaving the field or getting let go, so I'm not going to encourage my kids to go into tech at all. If they love it then fine, they can go in as long as they understand what the future will hold for them. But will I encourage them? No way.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I wish more women pushed themselves into the intellectually hard jobs that they are capable of. Childcare sometimes takes them away from the workplace (my career suffered when I was at home looking after the offspring). We need to remind our employers that even if noone is indispensible, it is hard to find people who can make your product any good.
Besides the usual stuff like H1's and cries of "not enough CS grads!", companies also endlessly push the myth that open source software is "better", and have conspired to ensure that programmers who do not contribute to open source are less employable. This means that new coders just starting out in the industry have to work for free just to be able to be considered for a job, giving companies like Google and Apple a huge base of code from which they can freely benefit without having to pay anyone. The "Open Source" marketers really pulled off an amazing coup against the profession with that one.
college for all = a big loan mess.
What happens when you have masses defaulting and filling for a undue hardship
As always with this kind of studies you have to wonder about cause and effect. Perhaps men tend to flee from the work fields where wages are dropping, and flock to fields where wages are going up? Perhaps women not so intensely?
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Fuck you.
CS needs to form a union to push back at these assholes hard. Electricians all across the country get really good pay and their job is 80X simpler than CS. Yes. it is, I was an electrical journeyman I got my card but I prefer working at a desk writing code and programming lighting systems for whole buildings than pulling wire in unfinished building and wiring panels.
It is time CS and IT formed a Trade union and started fucking business owners hard with the biggest stick we can find.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
...let me explain it to you:
From the dictionary:
Mysogyny: a hatred of women.
Google provides this definition: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
Absolutely *nothing* in his post fits these definitions. At no point did he say he disliked women, nor did he disparage women in any way. He stated that the women he has met do not show passion for his field of work. Passion-for-work isn't necessarily vice nor virtue. Many people react that he is too passionate, and would be better off being more like the women he has observed, thus what he said is construed (by that audience) as complementary towards women (for their more appropriate work-life balance). Regardless of how one interprets the OP's own passion, the fact remains: he said nothing hateful towards women.
You are looking for excuses to over-react.
Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women.
When was this ever the case? The first programmers were mostly engineers, the designers of the systems, and mightily male.
and more to do with maintaining a decent standard of living for 99% of the population.
Yes, any large organization can be abused. The Army Core of Engineers does great things. They prevent floods, bring water into disaster areas. Build bridges. They also gave smallpox blankets to Native Americans.
The solution is not to throw up your hands and declare defeat. It's to keep an eye on them. If you think you and your little lonesome stand a snowballs chance in hell of maintaining a middle class lifestyle without some sort of unified front to protect your interests then again, you're not paying attention. Go read the summary again for a good reason why you want/need this.
Put another way, there's a Grover Norquist Quote about a gov't small enough to down in a bathtub that sums up why you need large, powerful organizations to protect your interests. Sooner or later anything that's on your side and doesn't have some weight behind it is going to get the bathtub treatment from 'ole Grover.
What the US needs is a 20-30 hour work week, mandatory voting (ala Jury Duty), parliaments and the end of Electoral Colleges and in general we need to drag everybody into managing their long term well being. This is the sorta thing the Investor Class does with their time, and we need everybody to do it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've been in the industry professionally for about 15 years and I am not the least bit worried.
Wages won't go down. The thing is, over 90% of those is in tech industry suck ass. Despite their degrees, certs, and experience they somehow still don't "get it." Their pay for sure will remain near the bottom, but the companies who are willing to pay for actual talent will continue to shell out the big bucks, more like the sports and entertainment industries.
...is that all the jobs they compare to are not professions.
I keep coming back to this point on slashdot, across multiple topics - H1B competition? Wouldn't be as easy to displace you if you were a profession.
Women also jumped big into accounting in the 70s, medicine and law in the 80's and now engineering in the 21st century; wages in exactly none of those professions went down.
Professional organizations like the AMA act a little bit like unions, if not exactly like them - they don't negotiate money or conditions, but they do negotiate required education and skill levels, which prevents employers from constantly undercutting wages by threatening to switch to employees that are a little cheaper, then a little cheaper again.
Women entering a mere "job category" lower salary expectations because they've been discriminated against, and are hungrier, the way H1B immigrants are hungrier. But in a profession, there's a basement put on how much effect that has.
IT badly needs to be a profession like accounting, medicine, law, engineering. On a societal basis, I don't think it would even cost anything. Sure, programming would get more expensive - but how much money is wasted right now by bad programming?
Recently I sat several interviews with "the boss" for a junior contract position. From various candidates, there were many who pretty much had carbon-copy resumes of school experience, but one guy who had some outside CS+personal experience, plus a girl who had less technical interest/experience but good communications skills and looked to be a fast learner.
We both agreed that the guy seemed to be the best candidate (of all interviewees) as he had more experience than the others and his motivation seem to lie more towards IT self-improvement.
However, before we passed it up to HR, my boss asked me "unless you'd prefer a girl on the team. " It was a very off-the-cuff remark but I wanted to scream "what the hell does the gender or even my preference therein matter". Also illegal, but frankly few people seem to care unless it's a white CIS male getting the preference. That really bugs me.
The selection should be the BEST candidate. I don't care if we get a gay transexual as of asian-hispanic decent so long as it is somebody who can do the job, work with the team, and has good hygiene (the last being an oft-missed importance in IT).
It actually goes like this:
Extremely simplistic computer programming done in the earliest days of trivial computer architectures and largely trivial computing tasks, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by anyone possessed of a week's familiarization and two wet brain cells to rub together. But as computer architectures became more sophisticated, and the programs written under them were both more aggressively complex and able to utilize considerably broader and deeper resources in terms of both hardware and data, the job began paying more and gained prestige. A process that continues to this day.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ha! You wish, geek loser! What's that line again, we should have been kind to you neckbeards 'cause you would have been our bosses? LOL! Guess what, I get to hire and fire tech weenies and right now we're downsizing IT to the bone and pushing wages down so much those keyboard humpers will soon beg us to let them eat our snot. Hah! I never thought I would have made a career out of shoving nerds into trashcans!
Teachers' salaries also decreased dramatically relative to inflation in the same timeframe. It's partly a reflection of the changing perception of educational and child-rearing value, and also a huge dose of wealth transfer out of the middle class.
Yes, the programmer bandwagon initiative has just created an oversupply of wannabe script kiddies playing around in HLL sandboxes while having mega-angst attacks about utterly insignificant UX issues. While mostly making a huge bloody mess. And inflicting travesties like roll-over activated menus and pop-ups on everyone they can. They're so busy appity-apping their grossly overweight, minimally functional apps they haven't had time to learn how computers work or build deep algorithmic competencies. Nor do I ever expect they will.
FTFY. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...pay in industries in decline goes down as the industries decline, and pay goes up in growth industries as they grow. Who possibly could have imagined this happening?
I love when idiots claim more jobs than ever buy completely neglect to think about the number of working adults is higher than ever as well. 240 years ago the population may have been 3-5 million at best! It's 300M now. Use your brain!
Honestly, the trick is to funnel your passion for your work into something that pays you back in the long-haul. If you're giving 110% all the time but all your effort is just going back into a salaried job where your hard work is more taken for granted than respected? Then yeah, you're going to wind up in your 40's, burnt-out and with nothing to show for it but prematurely grey hair and a lacking social life.
The Anonymous guy who posted would have had a much different story if he had the guts to take a chance on going it alone, working for himself. If you're such a good software coder, you need to write your own killer app (or even game!) and start marketing it yourself. That, or at least work as a freelancer, getting paid per project on terms you negotiate each time.
When you look at who actually owns the companies that employ you, you'll usually find those folks had a real passion for something having to do with the business. That's how they built the whole thing up into something successful enough, they could afford to hire you. Not everyone is in a position where they can be or want to be that person .... But if you're young and full of motivation/drive and passion for a subject, you shortchange yourself not to try to be one of those people.
Retail Management. Haven't wages dropped in that area since more and more women started working in retail management, which once, albeit some time ago, was largely a male preserve? Public Transportation. Wages have dropped in the bus industry since women started driving buses in larger numbers.
Onwards & Upwards!
Women tend to afflict their careers with personal issues like marriage and pregnancy yet many employers are choosing women over men. Part of that is, the workplace now offers flexibility to women (but male workers rarely get the same flexibility) and part of the reason is many employers want people who have more 'soft' skills, meaning women, in all service roles.
I think more men are tolerant of soul sucking jobs for higher pay, than women are. That seems consistent with society disliking economically unsuccessful men than economically unsuccessful women. Fat, bald 40s man: worthless.
They say you can't take away a college education. The problem is that the bank can not seize your college education. So, why make the loan in the first place?
High school kids with the knowledge of writing the most basic of programs?!? Well, it might be something for front-end script-monkeys to worry about.
When a job is hot, it pays well, men are attracted.
When its not, less competition, women go there.
Its not that women bring down salaries (though, due to lack of experience equal to males, they do)
its that there are more openings for less desirable jobs.
"Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige".
As soon as you read those two sentences you are done. Nothing this person writes can be taken seriously, because she is hopelessly ignorant about the subject she is supposed to be explaining. And one can guess that she is also hopelessly ignorant of her hopeless ignorance.
Computer programming started as an extremely difficult and challenging job mostly done by people with advanced qualifications in mathematics, science or engineering. Early programmers wrote their own operating systems, device drivers, and primitive libraries. Most of their programs were algorithmic, so they had to be experts on algorithms too. And pay was (on the whole) very low indeed.
Gradually, as first assemblers and then compilers were introduced, more and more people began to be able to write adequate programs. Then languages like Cobol appeared, which were supposed to allow ordinary business people and accountants to program (they didn't really though). Followed by 4GLs, which promised the same (and still didn't deliver). And then Visual Basic and its horde of imitations, which lowered the bar a good deal by delegating all the difficult stuff to libraries and reducing many decisions to menu-driven choices. And now we have the Web, which once again makes programming dramatically easier by dint of vastly reducing its scope. Today, a few programmers (and designers and analysts and architects) command very high salaries; but mostly because of their ability to combine programming dexterity with excellent understanding of the problem domain (such as trading).
None of which has anything to do with men or women, as Admiral Grace Hopper could tell you if she were still alive.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
So what you're saying is in the private sector there is something called supply and demand?
Tell me more of this new age concept!
Not everyone can mandate their wages via government fiat no matter how many people are qualified to enter the field.
Women take more time off which means you need more of them to equal the work of men. More people doing the work means the declining wages.
where the flood of women doctors has resulted in no appreciable decline in wages. Though more women are entering, there isn't suddenly an increase in the supply of doctors.
In CS, if more balanced classes of women and men are entering without some sudden increase in supply, then there will be no wage shock.
Increase the H1-B's because software developers are too expensive.
Let's Train Everybody because software developers are too expensive.
In Seattle, a CS BS with certs will get you $40K.
In San Fran, a CS BS with certs will get you $60K
In LA, that same pile of paper will get you $50K
In Chicago, $80K
In St. Louis, $120K
In Detroit, $140K
Why? Multi-language developers are a dime a dozen in Seattle, San Fran, and LA. Very few brogrammers want to live in Chicago. St. Louis really does not have the resources to support a software development industry (hardware, but no software), and Detroit is desperate for people who speak LISP, Fortran, COBOL, and C++. Just get your CCW, some 3A+, and pack a few water filters.
Oprah Winfrey addressed this issue long ago. While working with a male co-anchor, Richard Sher, she was paid less for the exact same job. When she confronted her boss, his rationalization was that Sher was a man and had to support his family. As long as the hiring and wage setting is predominantly controlled by males, this kind of bias will be evident.
Why do morons think the very same companies pushing for an explosion of H1-B visas are also pushing for everybody to learn to code in school???? Those two concepts are completely contradictory..... unless the goal is to push-down wages. If the perception is that "everybody can code"(the facts matter less than the perception), then it'll be like tying a shoe - a skill assigned no particular monetary value in the mind of the public. When a skill is perceived to be without value, then the billionaires who employ people with that skill will be able to maintain a "good guy" public image and go to all the fashionable parties while getting richer off the labor of slaves, and telling politicians that these are jobs the middle class just won't do.
at least until you reach a complexity of programming where the two are indistinguishable, and the "Teach everyone to code" movement recognizes that at that level you're not going to be able to depress wages (which is the real goal) because you're basically dealing with genetic freaks that we don't yet know how to create.
It's got nothing to do with SJWs and everything to do with a longstanding economic pattern, namely that when capital notices labor prices going up it takes measures to increase supply. You remember Supply and Demand, right? That's what this is. Pay is good and programmers have middle class lives because supply is low. Middle Class lives don't come cheap, and somebody is actively looking to make it cheaper. This is how things work.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The concept of ANY one topic for all is narrow-minded and just plain idiotic. We don't do this for ANY other subject. Not math. Not English. Nothing. Only MORONS suggest this concept.
Symptom not cause - isn't it obvious?
Only 10% of my fellow freshmen computer science majors, actually made it to a degree (most changed majors). Of those, only a fraction actually became software engineers. Teaching computer science to "everyone" might net a few more software engineers, but most everyone who has the ability and desire to be one, already becomes one. If the pay isn't enough to attract more people to the profession, then throwing more people into classes surely isn't going to attract them!
Pay will go down, but not because women are coming into the field. (Although, I would take a cut in pay to get to work next to a smart woman instead of yet another egotistical techno-jock.) Pay will come down because it will be even easier to round up a bunch of resumes that almost but don't quite meet a set of precicely overinflated requirements. Then they will hire an H1-B-er.
I am now convinced that all those Indian "recruiters" are actually H1-B candidates, and their first task is to gather up a bunch of resumes of Americans that don't quite meet the requirements. Once they have enough to satisfy the labor dept. (or whoever) then the employer can justify hiring them. This is why I won't even reply to or talk to any recruiters with Indian names or accents any more. Sorry if that smacks of racism. It's just the little bit that I can do to throw a wrench in the H1-B grist mill.
Those problems have been around since.. well, forever. Ya see, we like to hold this fantasy of Utopia. In fact since we have written things down we see that type of story. Many of us _want_ peace and harmony but forget that human nature means that other people lack that same morality. History is this long chain of events where the higher morals revolt and squash the immoral leaders, and since human nature is to be trusting pretty soon we find ourselves back in the same position again.
So yeah, Povery is a problem. We have had the know-how to fix poverty and starvation for at least a century. There will always be an excuse for war, power grabs, land grabs, punishing those other guys for what they did, etc...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
These pushes are the same thing as H1B pushes. It's a competative race to the bottom.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Or for the simplest reason of all: minimum wage has not kept up with inflation (and TFA's numbers are, as you'd hope, inflation-adjusted). Obviously if you go far enough back, minimum wage didn't exist. However, if you look at historical, inflation-adjusted minimum wages, they trend downward nationally... because for some reason, the minimum wage wasn't indexed to inflation and requires an act of congress to update it.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
In other words, the glass ceiling doesn't only affect women, and abolition of the glass ceiling would actually help male wages too.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Obvious troll is obvious
When you double the size of the worker pool, pay drops. Duh.
And you thought any of this was about morality? Well yes, but that isn't why it will actually happen.
More people enter a career...supply goes up, pay goes down...duh, that's real hard to figure out...how is this about 'pay equity' (which in itself is a non-sense notion...eg. 'equal pay for work of equal value' begs the question of 'who sets the value'?)...if people can't negotiate a salary commensurate with what they THINK they are worth then they aren't worth a higher salary.
I'll gladly take a cut in pay if it means more people can get out of the unskilled labor market.
"I ain't denyin' the allegations; I'm denyin' the allegator."
Clair Cain Miller is an SJW reporter, quoting a "study" by an SJW organization. Probably the results are just a twisting of statistics, and are not valid. Previous studies have shown that almost all the difference in pay between men and women can be attributed to longer hours put in on the job -- not because hours x pay = more money, but because longer hours yields both more expertise and higher valuing by the organization. In fact, women later in their careers do as well as or better than men, when they are no longer limited by for example family obligations from putting in heavy hours, or achieving the same level of expertise as men who had earlier put in heavier hours.
Unfortunately, once these issues become partisan, everyone wants to twist the statistics, and you can no longer believe ANYTHING anyone says.