Comment by tajen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tajen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> everything the conventional media say is probably false

Exactly, and I'll take an example on the gender pay gap situation. Why this one? Because it drives crowds like crazy. If I take this random article [1], and it's a general trend, its title is a lie in the face of the very statistics that its sources are based on (and note that the underlying source isn't even scientifically cross-checked). The title and intro says women are paid $0.76 for a $1. After integrating a few criteria, it says that the measured difference is 2.4% (and that's without even taking into account all considerations). But most people in America only remember the 76% figure, which would depict a disgustingly macho situation... if it were true.

When you hear, let's call them, "mainstream media" deforming a story from 2.4% to 76% and spinning off a title depicting a disgusting image of men (and I didn't even start cross-checking the study, I'm just using the article's own source), it's hard to trust that journalists aren't hugely deforming other stories.

It's not a tiny problem: When the same journalists try to alert on Trump's behavior with women (which probably are crimes, so it's quite bad to elect such a president), they get brushed off by voters as a probably biased piece by an undercover Democrat who's trying to turn everything into sexism (like the article above).

So, yes, credit to conventional media: Not so much.

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-still-earn-more-than-wome...

This isn't false news, I just think you are misreading the article. It states that overall (the uncontrolled gap according to the study) the gap is 24% (not 76% fyi) but when controlling for education, experience and title the gap is 2.4%. Point being, a gap still exists, even when controlling for these various factors...which is reflected in the title: "Men still earn more than women with the same jobs"

The point isn't the specifics of that one article. The point is that because most news organizations have soiled their reputation by misconstruing statistics to generate outrage, many people don't trust legitimate outrage-worthy articles anymore.

I may be missing something, but you seem to have debunked your own comment.

The headline is "Men still earn more than women in the same jobs" and in your comment you both a) say this is a lie based on their figures, and b) quote their figures as saying Men earn 2.4% more than women in the same job with matched experience.

Are you sure you're not more part of the problem than the media you're attacking?

Weirdly, this is far from the first time I've seen someone angrily declare that the gender pay gap doesn't exist, and then cite sources that says it does. Which is kinda weird when you think about it.

edited to add:

I think what's happening here is that someone has decided that the simplistic figure of 76% or whatever doesn't count. Because you can compare apples to apples, which gets you the 2.4% figure. And they're so keen to make that point (and relevantly to rail against the "sexist anti-men mainstream media" which basically doesn't exist) that they ignore the still existing gap, even under those circumstances.

Which kind of distracts further from the point that if women have been systematically excluded from high paying roles for decades, or are penalised harshly for giving birth, then that'll still show up in the total figures, and can still be considered a problem even if some people want to say "it's your own fault for choosing to have children, anything that befalls you from that point is on you, and has nothing to do with society".

> You seem to have debunked your own comment.

Are you saying my comment is debunked because 2.4% is still a gender gap? If so, this is why I say it would be good for journalists to interview scientists: They'd help understanding the difficulty of depicting reality with statistics (see next paragraph). The article just shows raw, non-scientific statistics, spun with an inaccurate interpretation, instead of showing integrity by properly reporting scientific studies.

2.4% average means the gender gap is wider in some sectors, but also negative in other sectors. A 24% pay gap would make it likely that gender gap is wide in all sectors. This is entirely another story: The first one shows general despise on women; The second one shows a society where men reach good progress in integrating women despite some sectors that remain misogynist (and racist, probably). The title tries to spin the first one: Does it show integrity?

The article could, for example, list sectors where women are still badly considered, and show that there is progress in others. For example, if you only take the 150 large US cities, women's pay is usually 8% larger than men[2]. Surprising, isn't it? That hints that agricultural jobs or smaller cities are more misogynist, and other sectors are the opposite (favorable to women) – and that's when we start depicting a situation we can act upon.

I've only shown 2 facts in this comment; Hundreds could be said about the single, short article I've brought to you. Although we could debate all day long, I'd rather expect journalists to show both sides of the story. That was supposed to be their job, wasn't it?

Of course it's easier to title an article "Women are paid less", because it doesn't depict the possible ways of taking action, but rather spreads outrage of both camps (feminists and equalitarians). Ignorance and outrage, of course, creates views and votes.

[2] http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...

Look, it's fairly obvious that you are in fact the one with a partisan take on this, that's torturing the data until it tells you what you want. Any accusations you're lobbing at the media are clearly projection.

e.g. your link, which you characterise as "women's pay is usually 8% larger than men" and claim is surprising, is much more limited in your source:

"Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities."

And they go on to explain it very succintly, there's 3 female graduates for every 2 male graduates in these areas in that demographic. People with degrees make more money than people without. Surprising? No. (And while I haven't run the numbers, this appears to show that the male graduates are still being paid more than their female peers, there's just less of them!)

So you've railed against the 76% percent figure and said the 2.4% is better (but still not perfect) because it doesn't control for every variable, but you're happy to use any old figure to back up your own case. This is very weak sauce.

> you are in fact the one that's torturing the data until it tells you what you want.

If a journalist issues a press article claiming "Women earn less than men", he/she's the one who extracted a story out of the statistics, and they ought to be very well justified to say that, because such titles create outrage against men. And I'm just cross-checking the title against the own source of the article and it already shows huge weaknesses.

I reckon that -24% (raw average), -2.4% (on equal jobs), +8% (for big cities) or +15% (in NYC/Atlanta) are figures that are up for discussion, but that is exactly my point: All of this analysis should be in the journalist's investigation (and eventually cross-checked by a scientific) before warranting the claim that women are underpaid.

> there's 3 female graduates for every 2 male graduates in these areas in that demographic

That is another concerning problem that isn't taken very seriously either: Since we've helped help women reach males' wage levels, shouldn't we help men reach females' education levels? Shouldn't that make the headlines too?

You've just repeated your false fact "+8% (for big cities)" after I corrected it, with a quote from the source, in the very comment you replied to.

You provided the link in the first place and yet you're happy to misquote it twice in the face of correction. What hope for any kind of conversation is there now?

People might take your cause more seriously if you even put slightly more effort into your lies, or alternatively told the truth.

> You've just repeated your false fact "+8% (for big cities)" after I corrected it

You "corrected it" by showing the criteria that were used to obtain samples with the same profiles. Yours wasn't a correction or a proof of falsehood: The scientist performed the required steps to be able to determine the wage gap with "all other variables being neutralized".

The false fact is "Women are paid 76% of men's pay for the same work". I'm unable to find words to explain you what "for the same work" means, and how such titles are consequently a lie.

Note the article doesn't actually say it, but every reader does understand it: It shows how wrongful the writer's intent is.

Do you want to know why I'm pointing this out? Based on 10 years of career in programming and reading hundreds of statistics on those topics, I've witnessed that women are promoted faster than men (3 years vs 7 years), assuming the same number of hours worked, the same results, the same IQ, the same training – but of course such a testimony from a man is not going to be accepted by people like you, so I have to rely on public sources to raise what is false about existing press articles. It is, however, very frustrating that:

- Studies on wage gap are not even close to scientific accuracy (They never properly compensate for same profiles - At least if we talk about people who have suspended their career to carry a baby, let's compare it to people who have done a gap year abroad),

- A lot of men had to leave their expectations for promotions, in order to make room for women, and when we put the proof of this "woman effect" in the eyes of people, we're merely acknowledged with a recognition of the fact like "Ok, yes, I reckon, we have to sacrifice a generation of men to give women the manager's jobs", and we don't even get a tiny "thanks" or a pat on the back.

- And yet the figure that depicts men as the most awful kind of persons always make the headlines. Try finding a worse title for the article, if you don't believe me.

Once again, I'm not against positive action for women, as long as we also help men for their problems too (men commit suicide 3x as often as women, are homeless 2x as often, are bad students 50% more often than women, etc). Most help networks are organized in sexist ways (budgets and preference being given to women, even for suicide prevention).

The 8% figure was not "all other variables being neutralized" as I pointed out in my first comment on the matter. It didn't take into account the number of graduates. And even if it did, it would still only apply to the specific demographic that it was based on.

If you continue to quote it as "women in big cities earn more" then you're just wrong. Factually incorrect. You have no basis on which to make that statement.

Now, why should I believe any other unsourced statement in your posts? How does throwing your credibility away help advance your case?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com