Much as I'm fully and unequivocally in support of a level playing field when it comes to job and wage opportunities, there's not enough raw data here to provide much insight. Even if my own personal inclination is to side with much of what...um...Cuppycake
(?) is saying - sloppy statistics are sloppy statistics - and a poor basis for reaching sweeping conclusions. And although the author is "disgusted" by the numbers she's seeing, those figures (in and of themselves as reported) don't really support the conclusion she seems to draw from them.
Here's my problem with the reported information in the article. I live in a town with a relatively small population that has a very high per capita income. This is largely due to the presence of a tiny group of outrageously wealthy families who live here. If you pull these few dozen households out of the mix, the town's per capita income drops down about 35% from the official median. Does that mean the town is no longer well-to-do? Not really. But by knowing that little detail, it becomes glaringly obvious it's nowhere near as "wealthy" a town as many would imagine it to be. I think there's enough of a possibility something like that may be happening with the figures reported in the article that it's worth asking for more detail before reaching a conclusion.
It would be interesting to see a more granular
breakout by gender by years of industry experience since a demonstrated track record generally has a huge impact on your compensation level if you're in a tech field. As would total years employed
in almost any business. So a breakout of the compensation details in each group by gender by years employed would also be interesting to see. That level of detail would provide data worth looking at closely in order to form some arguably better and more valid conclusions.
Does anybody know if that information breakout is available?