I'm currently writing my thesis on wage gaps and this way of thinking has problems because historically many occupations have had low wages specifically because a majority of the workers in that occupation is women. Breaking it out by occupation often doesn't help much at all.

[deleted]

Agree to disagree, it absolutely matters

Comparing % of men, it should be % of all people. You’re binning incorrectly for a comparison.

... I am asking, because in my european (post-communist) country, the numbers would be 47 -> 60. I always thought, that this was quite wild, considering that during communism our state encouraged women to study, and during this time we had +/- parity, but the number got much higher afterwards. Do you know what was the reason for the abnormally high numbers of female graduates in canada already in 1992?

I never said that. There is obvious meaning and value in understanding drivers.

But saying this view is meaningless without the drivers is what I am challenging.

I’d also add that the comment here talks to no value without examining a single driver of occupation. There are others that should be examined (e.g. part time vs full time employment, or number of hours worked per week paid and unpaid).

You don't think understanding the drivers is important to fixing the disparity? Or do you only want to slap a bandaid on the symptoms and never fix the cause?

Your source says nothing like what you say it says:

> He said protesters from his small activist group, the Committee to Mobilize Against Dictatorship in Haiti, will continue to level their allegations - so far all unproven - if the Democratic candidate wins the White House.

You forgot that people survive sarcasm without a /s marker.

As you say yourself this is obviously sarcasm.

Disagree. Breaking it out by occupation will help you better understand some of the drivers, but understanding that women are a higher proportion of lower paid earners is in itself useful.

Say you’re planning policy for low income people in times of tight economy. You should consider that a higher proportion are likely to be women. Policies that speak to financial vulnerability will commonly not care if you were a teacher, plumber or a baker.

Shhhhh. Wage gaps are only caused by gender. No other factors. This is Reddit sir.

Ok proportional income distribution then

I'm not sure that really means much intrinsically. Just look at these graphs showing the United States vs the ither G7 nations Income at each decile PPP adjusted, I'm not sure you can say that the Gini Coefficient being higher means much when the middle deciles in the United States have higher incomes.

https://dart.lisdatacenter.org/dart

Sort by the following:

• Equilivalised Disposable Income
• Median (PPP in $ USD)
• Income Deciles

[deleted]

Okay but this means nothing without it being broken out by occupation

My bad. Income distribution then. Same logic applies

We can't/shouldn't argue if you can comprehend something, but arguing about if something is generally comprehensible is different.

Maybe light horizontal markings would help track the label to the data point?

[removed]

[removed]

This is income not wealth

Report: I'm in this photo and it bothers me.

I think you mean FEMALE money earned in highest buckets but i get your drift. Interesting. So what information does this graph tell me?

Something like Russia perhaps.

Agree to disagree I suppose, whether or not something is comprehensible to someone isn’t really a point one can argue about