Talk:Racial pay gap in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleRacial pay gap in the United States was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed
November 19, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
December 6, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EliFlo27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 December 2018 and 20 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChrisChann1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmastache.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Proposal[edit]

I propose to create an article on the "Racial wage gap in the United States" for 4 reasons:

1. A racial wage gap exists in America and has been documented by many scholars and written about in many journals. Research includes the wage gap for various minority races in the United States, its presence across various occupations and industries, and possible causes and solutions. There is thus ample evidence for the racial wage gap, and this collection of research merits an article to summarize and combine it.

2. The racial wage gap is important topic because inequality in wages is especially detrimental because they are the means by which individuals and families procure food, shelter, healthcare, and other necessities. Differing wages therefore lead to differences in these necessities which they procure, which puts racial ethnicities in America at a disadvantage. Opportunities are thus limited because of the racial wage gap.

3. The racial wealth gap in the United States is something that is not commonly understood amongst American citizens. While some deny its existence altogether, some also attribute it to things such as differences in education or skills. Research shows, however, that these differences cannot account for all of the difference that is observed in wages. Thus, this article is invaluable in combating misconceptions about the racial wage gap as well as for further informing those who already know of its existence.

4. As the racial wage gap has been verified through research, there has also been discussion on possible ways to eliminate it. Thus, I intend on making a section on these solutions and welcome other contributors who know of other ways that have been proposed. In this way, this article will serve to inform and also to provide a space for collecting of ideas to eliminate the racial wage gap.

You don't have to propose an article - just create it (which I will now do). The subject is most certainly notable and important enough for its own article. The only thing I'm wondering right now is whether it should specifically refer to "wage gap" or "income differences" since the two are not the same. Volunteer Marek  19:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Racial wage gap in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. However, considering Male–female income disparity in the United States and Income inequality in the United States, I wonder if this page is named correctly and has the proper redirects pointing to it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being willing to review this article! I titled it "Racial wage gap in the United States" because that is the term used in the majority of the literature I have read on the topic. Scholars talk of racial income disparities, but in my research I most often encountered this concept under the term "wage gap." Do you find this to be a sufficient reason for its name, as long as it has the proper redirects (which it does not yet have)? KiaraDouds (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should talk with WT:ECON and have them come to a consensus. Maybe they could comment right here. If not, a consensus on their talk is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add something to the discussion there and see what they say. KiaraDouds (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the name up on WT:ECON on November 18, but no one has responded. Any suggestions?KiaraDouds (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, more blue links have been added. Headings are capitalized properly. Source links are in the works. What would you suggest for the geographic inequalities section? There's not much out there relating it to the racial wage gap. KiaraDouds (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
There are links to both topics in the "See also" section. Did you mean that they should be mentioned in the article as well? KiaraDouds (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Causes
Changes made. KiaraDouds (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Daly is not the same Mary Daly that authored the article I cited. I asked this in regard to the comment below, but is providing a link to the article in the reference section a way to make up for the fact that these authors do not have their own pages? Most articles give a brief description of the authors' positions and credentials. KiaraDouds (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black
  • The following is a bit redundant: "Progress resumed in the 1990s, with a decrease in the wage gap of .59 percent each year." vs. "During the 1990s, the black-white wage gap decreased .60 percent per year."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hispanic section begins with "The Hispanic minority group in the United States, composed of 50.3 million individuals in 2010". This section should have a similar statement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both are changed. KiaraDouds (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like both of these concerns remain unaddressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the first point. That is now fixed. The second suggestion is addressed in the sentence "Black Americans now number 36 million, 12.9% of the total population." I did not add it to the beginning of the section because it begins with the history the history of the black-white wage gap. I added it to the beginning of discussion concerning the current black-white wage gap. KiaraDouds (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem right. The Asian and the Hispanic section begin with a clear statement on the current demographics. The Black section should begin the same way, IMO. Please reconsider this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the demographics at the beginning would make for more concise reasoning, rather than giving background in a story like format before the numbers are presented. --EliFlo27 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for not placing that information at the beginning is the difference between the sections. The black section begins with the history and how the Civil Rights Act has affected the wage gap. This is unlike the other race sections. Thus, I feel as if putting current demographic information beginning the black section would be out of place. I feel that the section would no longer flow chronologically. KiaraDouds (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hispanic
  • Is there any effect that might support a claim that Hispanic wages are depressed due to employers feeling that their investment in training Hispanic employees might evaporate upon deportment for fake papers otherwise illegal status.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried many different ways of searching for this information, but I have not been able to find any information relating to your question. KiaraDouds (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can only summarize sources here. So if there are no sources, you have done your job.
Asian
  • Also need a statement of the size and composition.
  • I thought the Koreans were a significant part of the Asian demographic and you don't mention them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First is done. My source for information concerning the asian-white wage gap is from 1995 (I could not find anything more recent). According to the National Association of Korean Americans, the Korean population rose greatly from the 1990 to 2000 census (http://www.naka.org/resources/). Perhaps this is why they were not mentioned in the study I used. I have not been able to find any information from legitimate sources concerning the Korean American population's income. KiaraDouds (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
American Indian
I have researched this question and have been unsuccessful in finding the answer. I did find this report: http://www.indiangaming.org/library/studies/1004-erg_98rept_to_ngisc.pdf; However, the closest it gets to answering your question is the discussion of how unemployment rates have changed, information which I think is outside the scope of the article. KiaraDouds (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Private vs. public sector
  • "a $3.65 difference per hour was found between blacks and whites in the private sector, a 34 percent difference.[11] In contrast, a smaller difference of $2.85 per hour was found in the public sector, a 21 percent difference." suggest that public sector pays higher than private sector. Are your numbers correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the numbers and percentages given by the study: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-28.pdf KiaraDouds (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Limitations and criticisms of the racial wage gap

Have you been linking notable authors of studies throughout? Who is Butler? Is Heckman James Heckman?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the authors that have Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, I will be shortly adding links in the references. As these links will take one to the article, does this make the fact that not all authors are linked ok? KiaraDouds (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KiaraDouds (talk · contribs) has not contributed to wikipedia since November 26. If I have left a message on his/her talk page stating that if he/she does not respond here by December 15 this nomination will close as a fail unless someone else steps forward to address these concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you fail this now. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She has responded on the 12th and I replied on the 16th. There are just a few issues (one each in the Black and Hispanic sections as mentioned above) remaining.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, GA[edit]

The first sentence of the lead should prevent this article as being considered for a GA. The relationship between slavery and wages is WP:FRINGE with the exception of African-Americans, and a minority position even then. It should not be in the lead. I'm not saying there is anything else appropriate or inappropriate about the article, just that the first sentence is inappropriate anywhere in a lead on Wikipedia.

(I found this article while looking for a place to put an addition made to Wealth inequality in the United States, which clearly doesn't belong there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: An anonymous editor added another NPOV tag to this article in February 2016. Are there any other sections in this article that need improvement? Jarble (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: The first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead is problematic:
Knowing the inequalities in the wages of various races is useful for understanding the overall racial inequality in the United States because of the integral role that wages play.
It almost qualifies as content-free, but to the extent it means something, it takes a strong POV. I haven't looked at this article in some time, and I don't intend to, now. I don't see anything else obvious in the lead, and I don't want to get back in to the morass that editing this article has proved to be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this article is heavily slanted to push current political views on discrimination and inequality - at least the few sentences I read before bursting out laughing.
One extra laughable comment is, "The history of Black Americans in the United States is one characterized by social control and domination. The disparity in wealth between Black and White America has a history as long as the relationship between the two groups. Across the country, white Americans benefitted from not being required to pay enslaved Africans for more than four centuries"
Good to know that we didn't have to pay slaves for more than four centuries, despite USA slavery only lasted 245 years (according to a quick Google)! Our nation was only colonized by the British in 1607, meaning that according to this article, slavery was only abolished in 2007. Of course, that leads to the even more unpalatable fact that President George W. Bush is responsible for outlawing slavery. =P
ComServant (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ComServant: These disparities are also described in a related Wikipedia article about wealth inequality in the United States. Jarble (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble That other article also looks pretty opinionated! =) Also, I'm think I'm missing what you are saying - are you saying the claimed "four centuries" is explained in the other article? ComServant (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, they are taking the start of European enslavement of Africa to the end of United States slave trade to get four centuries, but mis-applying all four centuries to the United States directly ("White Americans ['in the United States', as previously mentioned] benefited from four centuries..."), and broadly applying it to everyone who lived in the United States, whereas obviously the economic gain of Slavery benefited some areas more than others - primarily (but not exclusively) the South, of which any economic benefit was destroyed during the Civil War, where the South had pretty much suffered economically. So, despite the economic gain being mostly destroyed, the gain is being applied to areas like the modern-day wealth of California, which is highly speculative. Anyways, my point is opinions in the article are being treated like facts, and viewpoints are being implanted in the article through phrasing and word choices. ComServant (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I only came to this article because of statements made in Wealth inequality in the United States, which, if they should be anywhere, should be here. Looking back of them, they clearly shouldn't be anywhere, for the reasons ComServant gives above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking[edit]

@Prcc27: In this revision, several paragraphs were removed from this article. I don't understand the purpose of this edit. Why was this content removed? Jarble (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jarble: I don't remember doing that.. It must have been on accident. Sorry! Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: The deleted content has not yet been restored to this page. Will you be able to repair it? Jarble (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbertolotti: That would be a reasonable action. The lack of peer review in this article makes it vulnerable to conflict-of-interest editing and vandalism. Jarble (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Racial wage gap in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latinos?[edit]

Why are latinos mentioned. The ref in the opening states correctly that these are ethnic groups, not races. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to move to Ethnic wage gap in the United States. Any objections? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Occupational Segregation[edit]

Hi all. I will be expanding the article on occupational segregation in the next few months and will add a link to it in the occupational distribution disparities section of this page. Since currently Occupational segregation only talks about gender segregation, I will make the page more relevant to this article and discuss causes and effects, as well as possible solutions to racial occupational segregation. If you have any questions, feel free to check out my user page or sandbox! -Angelalin79 (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 22:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Racial wage gap in the United States → Racial pay gap in the United States – To make this consistent with Gender pay gap in the United States, which is a more widely discussed topic. feminist (talk) | free Thailand 09:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as consistent with other article. Free1Soul (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Study Reliable?[edit]

In Section Specific Groups In Subsection African American In Paragraph 6, Sentence 6.

It States "When no factors other than race are considered"

Wouldn't excluding factors other than race make this study unreliable?

Eisforbiggayapples (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does the rest of the paragraph say? Hint: this is called controlling for various factors. It's how scientists figure out which factors are determinative. Generalrelative (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: African American Studies[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seven.legged.octopus (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Seven.legged.octopus (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: African American Studies[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Forestgreen0918 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Forestgreen0918 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_pay_gap_in_the_United_States&oldid=1215431471"