Antarctica is a continent, no?

[removed]

Its interesting that though China is on a similar trajectory and hasn't quite reached the bursting bubble point, the media has very much moved on from the "The future is Chinese!" trope.

In Asia, yes but at global scale the big players are mostly American 🇺🇸 banks 🏦 like Goldman Sachs

Anf 4070ti goes for $900, at least where I live.

The unadjusted one is about 3% on average, so you can't state it's close to zero without mentioning the participation issue

The name of the sub is data is beautiful, not beautiful data

A possible graph title:

Actual Gender Wage Gap is Only 2% (Or possibly zero, being within the margin of error)

That 2% number is the end result of the entire exercise, and should have been front and center.

The lines are a little misleading, because it looks like a "range". And the visual weight is hugely below zero, so it appears to show that the wage gap is hugely negative.

Separating the "equivalized" numbers into their own chart would make clear that they dance pretty evenly around both sides of zero.

(Exactly how close to zero, we are evidently supposed to guess, as you mysteriously did not include the overall average!?)

I thought the x axis would help with that. On average, it's about 2% after equivalising

What about the first part of the question--what IS the difference?

That's what I assumed, but was more curious about the correction methodology.

Given the presumably high inverse correlation between hours worked and domestic hours worked, I'd assume that there's a risk of double-correction.

However it'd be awesome to see whether the impact of domestic hours worked has a bigger impact in certain job types over others, based on "uncounted working hours" which typically accompany higher paid roles.

Sounds interesting, but it is painful to try to read and digest. I think even if you just break it up a bit, that would be a good start.

I don't know what those variables would be so it's difficult to include them

That's unpaid work done in the home, which women usually do more often so may negatively impact participation

[removed]

Can you explain the domestic hours worked and the correction for it?

Saying "there is a difference" without giving the amount is maddeningly incomplete.

You should also include possible confounding variables that were not controlled for.

Averages please? Ideally weighted by population size?

For each group, and overall? Thanks in advance.

I mean the data seems meaningful, but honestly it is certainly not beautiful to me.

[deleted]

Hmmm I don't think I can go into the negatives so sorry but no

Which category includes capital expenses?

Could you make the font smaller?

I’m getting really tired of this visualization method