dstrohmaier

I doubt your assessment of the literature. Since we do not seem to agree on this, I would defer to the opinion of specialists in this case. An independent panel of economists would thus have to settle the issue.

But your other argumentation is quite interesting. Do you also hold that 0 physicist ever worked on the theory of phlogiston? Or on ether? Neither of those to exist. Because your argumentation would also imply that. I would reject that suggestion. So even if I were to grant that this problem does not exist, which I do not, I would disagree with the conclusion of your post.

The point of linking these studies was that economists study these issues. As I am not an economist myself, I do not want to weigh in on the specific final conclusion the literature arrives at. All I can say, that multiple studies seem to find an unexplained part which is taken to be due to discrimination.

As far as I can see, the comments did not (just) assert that adjusted wages were nearly identical. They asserted:

1) That this is not a serious issue and 0 economists study it.

2) That at no point in history was the adjusted wage different between men and women. (This was asserted and not argued for.)

Comments which just asserted that adjusted wages might be nearly identical can still be seen. I agree that this might be debated. The other two opinions appear more extrem and much less plausible, as far as I am concerned.

Here is a case in which I think you do not engage in the most charitable interpretation: 'You're saying "has now been flagged" like I called for all women to be killed' A more charitable interpretation would have been that I wanted to make clear that what I responded to can no longer be seen. I ask you to please interpret me as charitably as possible. I will try to do the same.

You said 0 economists study the issue. I showed you that multiple economists study it. You now also assert that I didn't make you change your mind. Do you still hold that 0 economists study the issue? If you do not, you have changed your mind. If you do still hold that opinion, then I am not sure how to proceed as that would indicate that you are impervious to argumentation.

You are using the number of 10% in two ways: 1.) About 10% of the gender pay gap are unaccounted for and therefore likely to be the result of direct discrimination. 2.) Every group is discriminated against by other people by around 10% of the population. But these are very different issues. If every group was discriminated against by 10% of the population, the resulting pay differences would (more or less) even out. The does not, which suggests that this a widespread and systematic phenomenon. For some people, although perhaps not you and I grant that it would need to be debated, this might make the problem appear more severe.

Much of your posts just questions the importance of the issue. That is a normative question, which I consider separate from the issue whether the gender pay gap can be partially traced back to discrimination. Here is what I hold in regard to that normative question: I do not want to tell other people that they should not care about the discrimination they experience when I am on the end that profits or at least does not suffer it. It is up to people subjected to this treatment to decide how big of an issue they want to make out of it. I suggest it is a good normative heuristic that one should be wary to question the severity of the problem if one is on the side who is not affected by it. If you are fine discounting discrimination you experience, then that is all well but I would suggest you should not extend that to other people so easily.

(I edited this post to more adequately reflect the position of the previous poster.)

I believe you are willfully misconstruing my position instead of trying to engage in the most charitable interpretation.

You original comment which has now been flagged suggested that 0 economists took the issue of the gender gap serious. By "denialism" I meant to refer to your position of denying that this is an issue at all. That it is an issue treated by serious economists is a fact. You have since reneged from that denial, which I consider a step forward. What you are now questioning is how big an issue it is.

Nowhere in my comment do I refer to any "evial patriarchy", although I do consider such an issue grave. If around half of the working population is discriminated against by 5% that would be a pretty huge issue overall. That other instances of discrimination exist, for example discrimination against people of Italian descent does not change that.

I am afraid you are also incorrect in picking out the end of the Wikipedia section I linked to. As this section I linked to points out, the Uber setting is very special because the pay is set via the Uber company without hiring the drivers in the usual sense.