So, I'm happy to say that NH trails behind Mass by a meager 3 cents, but then I am shocked that we both trail behind Vermont, who is a cent behind New York (if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere) who is a cent behind the tied-for-first surprises (at least to me): Nevada and Florida!!
Also, Hey Ladies
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
I don't particularly like median income as a measure. It really needs to be broken up into field and experience/age as well. Without that, the data is significantly less useful.
There are gender differences in what fields people go into. Women are less likely to go towards STEM carreers, but they pay more than average. Note, there was a recent study showing women get lower offers in STEM fields, which is a problem that this map wont show. Many dismiss the idea that it is a problem at their company or in their field, and this map doesn't help disprove them.
Similarly, I would guess (but have no studies to back it up) that different age groups show different pay differences. There are significantly fewer older women with 30+ years experience in a high paying field because there were fewer women entering those fields in the 70s and 80s, let alone people with more than 30 years.
There are lots of problems. This map is misleading as to where they are though and makes it harder to draw useful conclusions that promote intelligent discussions. It is an easy way to bring people into the discussion though and get them thinking about it.
edit: corrected mean income to meadian, which the map is using.
Then you missed Borden, TX; Loving, TX; Briscoe, TX; Kennedy, TX; Sierra, NM; Mora, NM; Shannon, SD; Mellette, SD; Blaine, NE; and Randolph, GA. In each one, mama earns more than papa, based on medians.
The evil that is math makes me wonder what this map would look like if we went by means instead of medians.
Celestial Healer wrote:Then you missed Borden, TX; Loving, TX; Briscoe, TX; Kennedy, TX; Sierra, NM; Mora, NM; Shannon, SD; Mellette, SD; Blaine, NE; and Randolph, GA. In each one, mama earns more than papa, based on medians.The evil that is math makes me wonder what this map would look like if we went by means instead of medians.
Let's agree not to talk about modes, shall we, Freehold?
Caineach wrote:I don't particularly like ... blah blah blah...
THEN MAKE YOUR OWN MAP !!
** spoiler omitted **
Not sure about your point, but the reason I wont is because I don't have the data required, and I doubt anyone does. Its really easy to take census data and do simple math on it. Its really hard to actually do data annalysis.
My problem is this map has obvious flaws, and those flaws can be used to dismiss it. There is a problem right now with equal pay, but the people who need to be convinced of it can so easily point to the flaws of this map that nothing will improve. The only people it will convince are people who don't understand the problems or the solutions but who think that this makes them experts.
The problem isn't so much the data or even the analysis, but the presentation.
The data exists. The analysis can be and, at least in some cases, has been done. There still appears to be a gender disparity in pay after other factors (like age disparity, like which fields women go into, etc) are considered.
Any presentation that tried to display all the factors would be as hard to follow as the original data itself.
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
As always, when it comes to maps like this, I wonder about the specific jobs that at being held. Is it that there at more men in positions of power(which I don't doubt), or that women are not being paid the same for the exact same position as their male counterparts?
The answer of course is: Yes.