Gender Pay Gap
- Thread starter Brewer
- Start date
Athena said:
No. This subject arose in a thread in the Swamp. l and was split off to start a new topic. Sorry for the confusion.
Edited to add:
I'll admit that my reply was also a swipe at Brewer now that I look back at it. I felt devalued by some of his comments. My apologies Brewer and all.
Gonzo
The Living Force
Hi Jones,
I may be misunderstanding your comment, so forgive me if I am. I'm not quite clear on what specifically you found inconsiderate, Brewer's attitude or the fact that the thread went off topic.
Quite often a thread evolves when a person commenting in thread, other than the original poster, demonstrates a characteristic or pathology so significant that it becomes a temporary side focus. It doesn't mean the original topic cannot be discussed in the same thread at the same time, and eventually the primary focus returns. However, occasionally, the side focus becomes so significant that it necessitates mod intervention to either redirect the conversation or to split the thread.
I don't think it is inconsiderate when such things occur. In fact, I think it provides many lessons for all involved, including those who come upon the thread down the road.
For example, a reader learns from seeing certain characteristics and behaviour being identified and challenged, how the person possessing such characteristics responds, and how such response is handled.
As well, there have been times when the original poster felt a sense of ownership to a conversation they initiate, wanting to ensure it only goes where they want it to go, and feel slighted when it goes in a different direction. It is equally interesting when another person feels that wound for them, experiencing an identification with the perceived wound.
Nothing prevents anyone from continuing the original discussion. So, when someone feels prevented, they are afforded a great opportunity to look inside and examine their need to control conversations, the focus of attention and the source of their perceived wounding.
Pathological behaviour and thought patterns should always be pointed out in this forum and it usually comes at the expense of the focus on the original topic, although temporarily. A small price to pay, OSIT.
Gonzo
Edit: typos, clarity
I may be misunderstanding your comment, so forgive me if I am. I'm not quite clear on what specifically you found inconsiderate, Brewer's attitude or the fact that the thread went off topic.
Quite often a thread evolves when a person commenting in thread, other than the original poster, demonstrates a characteristic or pathology so significant that it becomes a temporary side focus. It doesn't mean the original topic cannot be discussed in the same thread at the same time, and eventually the primary focus returns. However, occasionally, the side focus becomes so significant that it necessitates mod intervention to either redirect the conversation or to split the thread.
I don't think it is inconsiderate when such things occur. In fact, I think it provides many lessons for all involved, including those who come upon the thread down the road.
For example, a reader learns from seeing certain characteristics and behaviour being identified and challenged, how the person possessing such characteristics responds, and how such response is handled.
As well, there have been times when the original poster felt a sense of ownership to a conversation they initiate, wanting to ensure it only goes where they want it to go, and feel slighted when it goes in a different direction. It is equally interesting when another person feels that wound for them, experiencing an identification with the perceived wound.
Nothing prevents anyone from continuing the original discussion. So, when someone feels prevented, they are afforded a great opportunity to look inside and examine their need to control conversations, the focus of attention and the source of their perceived wounding.
Pathological behaviour and thought patterns should always be pointed out in this forum and it usually comes at the expense of the focus on the original topic, although temporarily. A small price to pay, OSIT.
Gonzo
Edit: typos, clarity
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
Brewer said:
So, you're deeply identified with your own subjective understanding. That doesn't mean that you're right. In fact, you're missing the bigger picture but you're so identified with the idea that you're right that nothing anyone else says to you even makes a dent in your thinking, which basically means that until you're ready to consider the idea that you do not have the whole banana on this one, there is really no reason to talk to you about it at all because it's equivalent to talking to a wall.
This is an old thread but it seems to be the best place to post the below article. While doing research for work I bumped into an interesting study done a few years ago. In 2019 Uber hired external researchers to look into their gender pay gap issue, and the results of the research proved that yep, there is a pay gap, but there are very clear reasons for it:
Choice of routes: 20% is due to where people choose to drive (routes/neighbourhoods). Men tended to choose more dangerous routes and neighbourhoods that women usually avoided. Also, men tended to drive at night or early in the morning where there was less competition from other drivers and strong demand.
Experience: 30% is due to experience. More experienced Uber drivers make more and there is a significant gender turnover gap at Uber, over a six-month period, 60% of men and 76% of women quit.
Speed: 50% was due to speed, they claim that men drive slightly faster, so complete more trips per hour. N.B. in the study, speed = “distance divided by time on the trip in a given driver-hour."
The Uber paper was written by five economists—two employed by Uber, two Stanford professors; and the chairman of the University of Chicago economics department, who “moonlights as head of the ubernomics team at Uber.” One of the economists is Jonathan Hall, who leads the public policy and economics team at Uber.
The above summary was taken from this article by Forbes: Uber's Gender Pay Gap Study May Show The Opposite Of What Researchers Were Trying To Prove
Here's the link to the study published by Stanford University: https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf
Despite the results confirming what many conservatives, including Jordan Peterson, have been saying all along, the author at Forbes goes on to try to squeeze the square peg into a round hole and reject very clear findings. They blame the results on Uber's toxic culture and lots of other nonsense. Their tactics are very similar to Facebook's fact checkers' attempts to prove an obvious point wrong so there is little point in reading the article past the description of the study results.
Choice of routes: 20% is due to where people choose to drive (routes/neighbourhoods). Men tended to choose more dangerous routes and neighbourhoods that women usually avoided. Also, men tended to drive at night or early in the morning where there was less competition from other drivers and strong demand.
Experience: 30% is due to experience. More experienced Uber drivers make more and there is a significant gender turnover gap at Uber, over a six-month period, 60% of men and 76% of women quit.
Speed: 50% was due to speed, they claim that men drive slightly faster, so complete more trips per hour. N.B. in the study, speed = “distance divided by time on the trip in a given driver-hour."
The Uber paper was written by five economists—two employed by Uber, two Stanford professors; and the chairman of the University of Chicago economics department, who “moonlights as head of the ubernomics team at Uber.” One of the economists is Jonathan Hall, who leads the public policy and economics team at Uber.
The above summary was taken from this article by Forbes: Uber's Gender Pay Gap Study May Show The Opposite Of What Researchers Were Trying To Prove
Here's the link to the study published by Stanford University: https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf
Despite the results confirming what many conservatives, including Jordan Peterson, have been saying all along, the author at Forbes goes on to try to squeeze the square peg into a round hole and reject very clear findings. They blame the results on Uber's toxic culture and lots of other nonsense. Their tactics are very similar to Facebook's fact checkers' attempts to prove an obvious point wrong so there is little point in reading the article past the description of the study results.
