Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew
this study was about cfo's not someone working up the ladder.
no point for intellectual gymnastics. women's work is simply valued less. even though they do exactly the same amount and quality of work.
|
The article about CFOs specifically says they did not control for exactly those I obvious factors that I mentioned:
Quote:
The GMI study didn?t account for the possibility that female CFOs could have shorter work histories due to being more likely than men to interrupt their careers to bear and care for children, according to the report.
The study also didn?t consider the possibility that women might be more likely to move up within a single organization over time. Men may be more likely to switch employers as they move up, a factor that could lead to higher pay.
|
Further, they did engage in a lot of gymnastics to come up with a model of what a woman might be paid. It's not that they just used raw numbers and didn't adjust for things. They DID adjust in ways that they chose too, they just chose to ignore the obvious factors like experience. That doesn't necesarily mean that they were TRYING to come up with the answer the sponsoring organization wanted, but it does show they ignored fundamental considerations perhaps because a proper study is very difficult.
Of course that's what you would expect to find if you look on thinkprogess.com, a liberal activism site that doesn't pretend their articles are in any way objective. If you look on conservative.org you'll find tne opposite. Pointless examples of liberals (or conservatives) telling themselves what they want to hear. Like mental masturbation. To actually learn anything we have to leave thinkprogress.com, moveon.org, conservative.org and other mental masturbation sites and find something that tries to be objective.