"balanced assessment" doesn't mean positive and negative if the ideas are bad. Would you downrate someone for not linking to positive assessments of Nazis? Why not read the links and decide if you agree or disagree?
-
-
Helen, you and Peterson are making a mathematical error here. See page 74 of
@causalinf's textbook: http://scunning.com/cunningham_mixtape.pdf … -
What you are doing is called "controlling for a collider". Doing it means your regression has no causal implications. You are *assuming* no discrimination, not proving it.
-
I'm not assuming anything. Just saying that the fact that men and women earn different amounts of money doesn't tell us anything about the cause if the only variable considered is gender and we don't account for different jobs chosen and different hours worked.
-
You are assuming it by the nature of the regression you are suggesting. That you are unaware of it doesn't make it untrue.
-
No. The people you are arguing against already know the simple notion that the choices women make could be affected by discriminatory behaviour/systems. Which is why they spend a large amount of time showing evidence that this effect is weak, and other causes are more likely.
-
Yep. If stats won't show that it matters whether women earn less because they work less or choose lesser paid work or because they are discriminated against, they are no good for this kind of problem. Because that is the difference that, in reality, actually matters.
-
I think the problem is that they believe you, Peterson, etc. are using the occupational control studies to say discrimination does not play a part in the wage gap, when in reality you are just using to argue against the common "paid less for the same job" claim.
-
Yep. Women's choices also matter. He'd have us believe that because choices could be constrained by culture, there is no point in knowing whether women earn less because they're doing different jobs or fewer hours or because they're paid less for the same work. Obviously wrong.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The choices they make are significant. If women are being discriminated against in a given field, you would expect them to be less likely to pursue a career in that field. Including occupational controls will therefor lead to a biased estimate.
-
Sure, but discounting them would also lead to a biased estimate if women actually have a non-discrimination driven preference for certain occupations. Also, the statement that women are self-selecting out of fields that discriminate on pay is empirical and should be validated.
-
I don't think anyone is arguing against empirical validation. Let's fund more studies. At the very least, we'll keep more economists employed. (I'm being flippant, but not sarcastic. More studies really are good.)
-
Yeah, no doubt. My concern isn't so much with good studies as with getting people to accept the findings that don't map onto their worldview. We're all eager to grasp at data that confirms our beliefs, myself included.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.