
A scientist calculated the cost of not being a straight man, she wants a tax cut - clbrook
http://qz.com/631455/a-scientist-cacluated-the-cost-of-not-being-a-straight-man-and-she-wants-a-tax-cut/
======
c3534l
> women in the US tech industry pay a tax of between $100,000 and $300,000

First, that doesn't sound even remotely plausible. That's a "tax" greater than
what most heterosexual white men make. Claiming discrimination based on being
transgender is also weird since you don't have to tell anyone that.

But my biggest problem with the article is that it appeals to some magic
algorithm, but doesn't tell you much about it. Certainly not well enough to
evaluate potential problems with it, which is especially important because the
article makes it sound like she was out to reach a certain conclusion and
then, surprise, she did. I like data science. Give me the source code, I'm not
going to just take your word on it that your methods were theoretically sound
and free from arbitrary manipulation.

~~~
klipt
I've seen several papers that claim to "control for all factors" and still
find a gender gap. What they usually mean is that they threw some additive
factors into a linear regression model of salary and found that according to
that model, gender had an effect.

What they notably _don 't_ do is control for all the intersections (which is
the only thing that could actually prove that equally qualified and
experienced women are paid less for exactly the same job).

E.g. they'll say stuff like "controlling for field women are paid less, e.g.
in medicine", while ignoring job titles, like the fact that doctors and nurses
are both in medicine, but nurses are paid less and are more likely female.

------
Kinnard
I wonder what the sum of generations of government hiring discrimination would
come to.

The article doesn't delve into a possible legal basis for pursuing redress
which I think is a logical next step.

