SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   73,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About SE23.com | Advertising | Contact | |
Canvas & Cream  Armstrong & Co Solicitors



Post Reply  Post Topic 
Statistical stupidity
Author Message
Elizabeth25


Posts: 212
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #1
19-12-2007 03:54 PM

In the US a government agency had this to say about the pay gap.

"In attempting to explain the discrepancies in pay between men and women, the GAO concluded:


Women in the workforce are also less likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, further suppressing women's wages. These differing work patterns lead to an even larger earnings gap between men and women - suggesting that working women are penalized for their dual roles as wage earners and those who disproportionately care for home and family.

Men with children appear to get an earnings boost, whereas women lose earnings. Men with children earn about 2% more on average than men without children, according to the GAO findings, whereas women with children earn about 2.5% less than women without children.

Women have fewer years of work experience.
"The world today is vastly different than it was in 1983, but sadly, one thing that has remained the same is the pay gap between men and women," said U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York, 14th). "After accounting for so many external factors, it seems that still, at the root of it all, men get an inherent annual bonus just for being men. If this continues, the only guarantees in life will be death, taxes and the glass ceiling. We can't let that happen."

This GAO study updates a 2002 report it conducted at the request of Rep. Maloney, which examined the glass ceiling for female and male managers. This year's study used data from a more comprehensive, longitudinal study - the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. The study also accounted for a slew of external factors for the first time, chief among which were the differences in men's and women's work patterns, including more leave from work to care for family."

In like of some of the posters on this thread I was intrigued by this finding:

"...Men with children earn about 2% more on average than men without children, according to the GAO findings, whereas women with children earn about 2.5% less than women without children."

I wonder how much bile will be thrown over the finding that men earn more when they have children?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Messages In This Topic
Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 15-12-2007, 05:18 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - roz - 15-12-2007, 09:05 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - shzl400 - 15-12-2007, 10:13 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 16-12-2007, 12:39 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 17-12-2007, 11:46 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 16-12-2007, 01:18 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - shzl400 - 16-12-2007, 02:25 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - shzl400 - 17-12-2007, 12:06 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Dotcom - 17-12-2007, 02:21 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 17-12-2007, 02:50 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Dotcom - 17-12-2007, 03:25 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 17-12-2007, 08:41 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 17-12-2007, 10:36 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 18-12-2007, 10:59 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 17-12-2007, 11:05 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 18-12-2007, 12:14 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - roz - 18-12-2007, 10:54 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - baggydave - 19-12-2007, 12:06 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 19-12-2007, 11:32 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 19-12-2007, 12:30 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 19-12-2007, 12:42 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - shzl400 - 19-12-2007, 10:31 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 19-12-2007, 11:26 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - shzl400 - 19-12-2007, 12:49 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Jane - 19-12-2007, 02:10 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 19-12-2007, 02:37 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 19-12-2007, 02:38 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 19-12-2007, 02:44 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 19-12-2007, 02:49 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Elizabeth25 - 19-12-2007 03:54 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 19-12-2007, 03:59 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Elizabeth25 - 19-12-2007, 04:05 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Elizabeth25 - 19-12-2007, 03:58 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 19-12-2007, 04:24 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Elizabeth25 - 19-12-2007, 04:03 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 19-12-2007, 04:06 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Elizabeth25 - 19-12-2007, 04:24 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 19-12-2007, 04:15 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 19-12-2007, 04:33 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Jane - 19-12-2007, 07:09 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - hilltopgeneral - 19-12-2007, 07:39 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - roz - 19-12-2007, 07:51 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - nevermodern - 20-12-2007, 01:04 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Jane - 20-12-2007, 11:15 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - baggydave - 24-12-2007, 01:36 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Baboonery - 24-12-2007, 01:30 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - shzl400 - 24-12-2007, 01:54 PM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 25-12-2007, 02:23 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 25-12-2007, 10:52 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - roz - 25-12-2007, 11:24 AM
RE: Statistical stupidity - Ooperlooper - 26-12-2007, 11:10 PM