This is David Pittelli's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following David Pittelli's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
David Pittelli
Recent Activity
1) 8% is more than a third of 22%. In other words, you agree that by looking at hours worked, we have in one step explained a third of the "pay gap," reducing it from about 22% to 14%. Note that there are other factors which will explain most of the remaining gap. In addition to those enumerated below, women are also more likely to work less than a full year (e.g., as schoolteachers). 2) Actually, my “perspective” is that of a stay-at-home dad who knows he will likely never again earn as much as his wife. If you take time off from paid work to raise children, then what you do of course has value, and you may thereby assert a claim on your spouse's income (i.e., to be supported by your spouse). But to demand that you be paid more by your next employer because of this experience (which is generally irrelevant to the employer) would give employers strong reason never to hire a stay-at-home parent. When assigning value, Kitty, you have to consider who gets value from the act, and thus is likely willing to pay for it. 3) Of the top 10 paying college majors, all but one is majority male. “Business and math/science” are not an undifferentiated mass; majors with “engineering” in their name are much better paid than biology and psychology. 4. All jobs may be placed on a continuum of hazard; there isn’t a dichotomy between hazardous and nonhazardous. The salary bump required to lure people (mostly men) to dangerous and/or physically demanding jobs isn’t generally shown as a separate “hazardous duty pay.” Also, there is no reason to think that the percentage increase in pay for a hazardous job should be comparable to the percentage of workers who are actually killed. Would you accept a job with a 1% annual rate of death if it came with a 2% pay raise? 5. A lot of the pay gap is due to people over age 50, and so reflects women's lower educational attainment of 30+ years ago. 6. We are making arguments about the meaningfulness of a statistical claim. As someone trained in science and statistics I agree that you should not cherry pick flawed data or make absurd claims, such as that my explaining a third of a phenomenon with my first factor “does not address” the entire phenomenon, when I have explicitly stated that there other factors at work.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2017 on Speechless in 2017 at On the Banks
Well, the gender "wage gap" is easily explained down from 21% to about 5% just looking at hours/week, weeks/year, years/lifetime, and college major. But the economizing argument isn't very strong, as it would equally show that wage discrimination never happened in the U.S., which is historically false.
Toggle Commented Jan 23, 2017 on Speechless in 2017 at On the Banks
1) 8% is more than a third of 22%. In other words, you agree that by looking at hours worked, we have in one step explained a third of the "pay gap," reducing it from about 22% to 14%. Note that there are other factors which will explain most of the remaining gap. In addition to those enumerated below, women are also more likely to work less than a full year (e.g., as schoolteachers). 2) Actually, my “perspective” is that of a stay-at-home dad who knows he will likely never again earn as much as his wife. If you take time off from paid work to raise children, then what you do of course has value, and you may thereby assert a claim on your spouse's income (i.e., to be supported by your spouse). But to demand that you be paid more by your next employer because of this experience (which is generally irrelevant to the employer) would give employers strong reason never to hire a stay-at-home parent. When assigning value, Kitty, you have to consider who gets value from the act, and thus is likely willing to pay for it. 3) Of the top 10 paying college majors, all but one is majority male. “Business and math/science” are not an undifferentiated mass; majors with “engineering” in their name are much better paid than biology and psychology. 4. All jobs may be placed on a continuum of hazard; there isn’t a dichotomy between hazardous and nonhazardous. The salary bump required to lure people (mostly men) to dangerous and/or physically demanding jobs isn’t generally shown as a separate “hazardous duty pay.” Also, there is no reason to think that the percentage increase in pay for a hazardous job should be comparable to the percentage of workers who are actually killed. Would you accept a job with a 1% annual rate of death if it came with a 2% pay raise? 5. A lot of the pay gap is due to people over age 50, and so reflects women's lower educational attainment of 30+ years ago. 6. We are making arguments about the meaningfulness of a statistical claim. As someone trained in science and statistics I agree that you should not cherry pick flawed data or make absurd claims, such as that my explaining a third of a phenomenon with my first factor “does not address” the entire phenomenon, when I have explicitly stated that there other factors at work.
Toggle Commented Jan 23, 2017 on Speechless in 2017 at On the Banks
Women already have equal pay for equal work, in law and in fact, unless you think the notion of "equal work" must ignore the fact that: 1. women on average work fewer hours per week, 2. women are more likely to take years off from work, 3. women are more likely to major in humanities, and less likely to major in Engineering, and 4. men are 11 times more likely to be killed by their jobs.
Toggle Commented Jan 21, 2017 on Speechless in 2017 at On the Banks
I find it a little odd that they didn't even ask about Hillary Clinton. How did they come up with this list? Sherrod Brown?
The applauding white liberals reminded me of Spalding Gray's professor of Black History in "How High." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKDlE5yqa3g
Toggle Commented Sep 30, 2016 on Do Not Feed The Narcissists at davidthompson
If Obama wants a trillion dollar platinum coin that weighs just a few ounces, he will just have one made. And the courts won't dare stop him, and while Congress might eventually get him to stop making more of these coins, they will never get the already made and "sold" (to the Federal Reserve) coin(s) to be retired or unsold. The reason minting a trillion-dollar coin remains a bad idea is that it will be no more or less than printing another trillion dollars in money; the whole point of the coin is that it would be used to back new cash and loans to pump up the economy.
Toggle Commented Jan 12, 2013 on Before Cashing Out My Coins at JustOneMinute
David Pittelli is now following The Typepad Team
Dec 20, 2012