You asked me to cite a specific graph and I did. Don't think for a moment that I haven't noticed you shifting the goalposts.
Statistics are actually more complicated, as professional statisticians (including those who compile and analyze census figures) are aware.
Actually, no they aren't. It is the manipulation of statistics to support predetermined conclusions that is complicated.
To illustrate...
A cursory examination of your source and your source's source, the US Bureau of Labor Satistics, shows that the average hours for a "full-time" worker are 35.4 hours a week for women and 41.3 for men.
As such the obvious conclusion is that if women were serious about equality they'd get off their collective-asses and work more overtime. Otherwise, if we disregard time-and-a-half, "equal pay" would still result in an income ratio of approximately 86 cents on the dollar. That's most of your "Gap" right there. Oddly enough the pdf you linked makes no mention of this.
no subject
Statistics are actually more complicated, as professional statisticians (including those who compile and analyze census figures) are aware.
Actually, no they aren't. It is the manipulation of statistics to support predetermined conclusions that is complicated.
To illustrate...
A cursory examination of your source and your source's source, the US Bureau of Labor Satistics, shows that the average hours for a "full-time" worker are 35.4 hours a week for women and 41.3 for men.
As such the obvious conclusion is that if women were serious about equality they'd get off their collective-asses and work more overtime. Otherwise, if we disregard time-and-a-half, "equal pay" would still result in an income ratio of approximately 86 cents on the dollar. That's most of your "Gap" right there. Oddly enough the pdf you linked makes no mention of this.
I wonder why. ;)