Society/Culture The Gender Pay Gap

[the_interloper]

1) Role, apologies for the confusion.
2) The “why” is largely subjective but what is generally accepted is that males are more comfortable negotiating for more money where females generally take what is on offer. This is obviously irrelevant for many roles on enterprise agreements but is the case broadly for those that aren’t.

I've heard this a lot, I haven't really seen anything substantial on it I must say. I feel that what Carringbush2010 has written is what's required for proper analysis, it's not like people just get given big salaries, there are reasons for it, I think even he can see that his role should get paid less than the sparkies etc.

Without knowing the details of what they do the sparkies take a bit more physical risk and exertion in their roles, maybe there's more overtime, there's a lot of reasons.

I've said it before but looking at the gender pay gap stat and just assuming sexism is dumb. It's as dumb as looking at crime statistics by race and assuming people of colour are inherently bad.

 

[CM86]

I've said it before but looking at the gender pay gap stat and just assuming sexism is dumb. It's as dumb as looking at crime statistics by race and assuming people of colour are inherently bad.

Jesus.

Yes, looking at statistical outcomes and attributing it to the fault of someone's gender or skin colour is beyond stupid.

Yet the results do exist.
So instead of ignoring the outcomes, or assuming it's fair because of someone's sex or race, maybe we can look at other possible reasons in our society, that might lead to those outcomes?

Or, you can shrug your shoulders and admit that this is yet another issue that you've never looked into, because you don't care enough.

 

[the_interloper]

Jesus.

Yes, looking at statistical outcomes and attributing it to the fault of someone's gender or skin colour is beyond stupid.

Yet the results do exist.
So instead of ignoring the outcomes, or assuming it's fair because of someone's sex or race, maybe we can look at other possible reasons in our society, that might lead to those outcomes?

Or, you can shrug your shoulders and admit that this is yet another issue that you've never looked into, because you don't care enough.

Thats more or less what I’m getting at by using the example of crime statistics by race.

I feel you should try and read people’s posts a bit more carefully rather than looking for a “gotcha”.

 

[CM86]

Thats more or less what I’m getting at by using the example of crime statistics by race.

I feel you should try and read people’s posts a bit more carefully rather than looking for a “gotcha”.

It's hard to simplify such a basic concept for you, but I'll try.

You're pointing out that the disparity in statistics for women in pay, and 'black people' in crime, exists.

And you're stating that biology isn't a factor for this disparity.

But while you seem to accept that the disparity in criminal statistics is due to systemic racism.
You somehow use that to argue that disparity in pay statistics across biological sex, is justified and nothing to do with systemic biases.

 

[Fadge]

How is the 'Gender Pay Gap issue' impacted in consideration of the multitude of gender identities?

 

[the_interloper]

It's hard to simplify such a basic concept for you, but I'll try.

You're pointing out that the disparity in statistics for women in pay, and 'black people' in crime, exists.

And you're stating that biology isn't a factor for this disparity.

But while you seem to accept that the disparity in criminal statistics is due to systemic racism.
You somehow use that to argue that disparity in pay statistics across biological sex, is justified and nothing to do with systemic biases.

My overall point is that you can't just take a broad statistic and run with it to push some sort of narrative, it requires deeper investigation.

Biology would be a factor in the gender pay gap, blokes in general are bigger and stronger and will do harder jobs in terms of labour more often, and they often pay well.

And I think socio-economic factors are more of a reason for higher incarceration rates for people of colour. More non whites are poor I believe (don't know the stats) and that group would be more represented in prisons I'm fairly sure.

I'm not saying there's no systemic racism or sexism but I feel other factors are more important in this issue.

I'm sure you'll take this post and interpret it in some sort of different way though, god bless ya!

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

How is the 'Gender Pay Gap issue' impacted in consideration of the multitude of gender identities?

Great question. I have asked the family expert and she tells me the following:

1) WGEA reporting is done on the basis of what the person identifies as in the payroll system of their employer.
2) WGEA is not yet sophisticated enough to account for anybody not identifying as either male or female. Therefore, gender neutral or non-binary people are not accounted for in the data at this stage.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

My overall point is that you can't just take a broad statistic and run with it to push some sort of narrative, it requires deeper investigation.

Biology would be a factor in the gender pay gap, blokes in general are bigger and stronger and will do harder jobs in terms of labour more often, and they often pay well.

And I think socio-economic factors are more of a reason for higher incarceration rates for people of colour. More non whites are poor I believe (don't know the stats) and that group would be more represented in prisons I'm fairly sure.

I'm not saying there's no systemic racism or sexism but I feel other factors are more important in this issue.

I'm sure you'll take this post and interpret it in some sort of different way though, god bless ya!

I think you make a number of good points here but I just want to comment on the bolded.

Leaving aside the "bigger, stronger" argument, even in roles that are the same there is evidence that males get paid more. This is not really open to dispute. As I have pointed out before, for whatever reason men feel more comfortable asking for more money than women do. I do think this will change in future as younger generations are far more open in discussing salary with their peers and seem to know what all of their cohort are getting paid these days. This was rarely the case in generations past as salary was rarely discussed openly (and confidentiality clauses were prevalent in employment contracts).

 

[the_interloper]

I think you make a number of good points here but I just want to comment on the bolded.

Leaving aside the "bigger, stronger" argument, even in roles that are the same there is evidence that males get paid more. This is not really open to dispute. As I have pointed out before, for whatever reason men feel more comfortable asking for more money than women do. I do think this will change in future as younger generations are far more open in discussing salary with their peers and seem to know what all of their cohort are getting paid these days. This was rarely the case in generations past as salary was rarely discussed openly (and confidentiality clauses were prevalent in employment contracts).

I really can't confirm or deny this. Speaking for myself I haven't always been a great negotiator in the past, I've gotten better I guess. I'm not convinced because I have a dick and balls I am more hard nosed at the negotiating table than a women, you seem to know a bit more about this than me though.

Maybe the answer is some coaching for women early in their career, but you would want to avoid arming someone going for their first job and demanding x amount and not budging. Early in your career you don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of negotiating power unfortunately.

Your point on salary is a good one in general though. I don't discuss this with my workmates because I know I'm quite well looked after, I'm in sales though and will be first out the door if we **** up. But yeah if more people did this I think that would help even the playing field a bit.

 

[Fadge]

Great question. I have asked the family expert and she tells me the following:

1) WGEA reporting is done on the basis of what the person identifies as in the payroll system of their employer.
2) WGEA is not yet sophisticated enough to account for anybody not identifying as either male or female. Therefore, gender neutral or non-binary people are not accounted for in the data at this stage.

Interesting.

I see that as a significant shortcoming in the whole process.

Why don't gender neutral/non-binary people matter when it comes to pay equality?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Interesting.

I see that as a significant shortcoming in the whole process.

Why don't gender neutral/non-binary people matter when it comes to pay equality?

It's something WGEA is working on so I understand.

But the data would also be statistically insignificant. As an example, my wife's employer has over 8000 staff. Only 4 identify as something other than male or female.

 

[burge13]

Interesting.

I see that as a significant shortcoming in the whole process.

Why don't gender neutral/non-binary people matter when it comes to pay equality?

I've consulted in a few hr system upgrades and most departments barely capture this
It's only a 'new' concept so only employees new to the org would have ticked the box and even then 99% will be ticking male or female. No one is reissuing the forms to ask established staff if they want to change their gender in the system, it's a non issue operationally.

Most older systems will just be set up to have M or F, if it's captured at all
Alot of smaller business won't be keeping up with this, much more important issues on their plate.

One place I worked had over 15,000 staff. All but one were M or F (and an 'other'). There's no meaningful statistic you can get from this so it isn't that they don't count for pay equality, there isn't enough to report on

Though if there is a recruitment drive targeting 'non binary' people for senior roles to fix pay equality expect all and sundry to tick the box on their application. Will be a dogs breakfast, I think vicpol had this issue where they paid allowances to people for different uniforms. People ticked the box and got paid more - who saw that coming?!

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I really can't confirm or deny this. Speaking for myself I haven't always been a great negotiator in the past, I've gotten better I guess. I'm not convinced because I have a dick and balls I am more hard nosed at the negotiating table than a women, you seem to know a bit more about this than me though.

Maybe the answer is some coaching for women early in their career, but you would want to avoid arming someone going for their first job and demanding x amount and not budging. Early in your career you don't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of negotiating power unfortunately.

Your point on salary is a good one in general though. I don't discuss this with my workmates because I know I'm quite well looked after, I'm in sales though and will be first out the door if we * up. But yeah if more people did this I think that would help even the playing field a bit.

It's interesting. And my experience is much the same. People of my vintage (Gen X) are quite guarded. Nobody but my boss, my HR department and I know what I earn. However, I recently hired somebody out of our company's grad program and he knew what the other grads were being offered for roles, not only in our business but across his peer group in other similar organisations. Say what you like about the youngsters these days, but they are very well researched when it comes to who is being paid what and why.

 

[Fadge]

I've consulted in a few hr system upgrades and most departments barely capture this
It's only a 'new' concept so only employees new to the org would have ticked the box and even then 99% will be ticking male or female. No one is reissuing the forms to ask established staff if they want to change their gender in the system, it's a non issue operationally.

Most older systems will just be set up to have M or F, if it's captured at all
Alot of smaller business won't be keeping up with this, much more important issues on their plate.

One place I worked had over 15,000 staff. All but one were M or F (and an 'other'). There's no meaningful statistic you can get from this so it isn't that they don't count for pay equality, there isn't enough to report on

Though if there is a recruitment drive targeting 'non binary' people for senior roles to fix pay equality expect all and sundry to tick the box on their application. Will be a dogs breakfast, I think vicpol had this issue where they paid allowances to people for different uniforms. People ticked the box and got paid more - who saw that coming?!

I work with organisations at the top end of town, and they are all starting to accurately capture the various gender identities of their employees - because it is in their interests to do so (evidence of diversity, fear of backlash when the gender identity of a new employee is not available to select, etc.).

If the WGEA were serious about pay equality for all genders, they would be at the forefront of this and driving this. But they don't appear to be, which suggests to me that their primary interests revolve around one primary gender...

 

[RedStarUncle]

It's hard to simplify such a basic concept for you, but I'll try.

You're pointing out that the disparity in statistics for women in pay, and 'black people' in crime, exists.

And you're stating that biology isn't a factor for this disparity.

But while you seem to accept that the disparity in criminal statistics is due to systemic racism.
You somehow use that to argue that disparity in pay statistics across biological sex, is justified and nothing to do with systemic biases.

Rather than worry about whether we're acknowledging systemic gender discrimination is a factor in the gender pay gap, I think we should be more worried about the assumption that it's the only factor in the gender pay gap.

Once you make that assumption, you just spend more and more time, effort, and money or addressing that single factor and all the while you'll barely make a dent on closing the gap. Because you're not addressing the other (in my opinion, significantly more relevant) factors primarily the disparity in mothers versus fathers being primary carers for children.


It's the exact same problem that we already see with dealing the analogous disproportionate representation of race in crime. We make simplistic assumptions about the cause (often without data at all, or trying to shoehorn the data to match the assumption) and then wonder why all the money and time spent on the problem doesn't change the outcome. Then people get frustrated against the wasted money and start to vocalise the "maybe it is just biology" arguments and end up going further backwards.

 

[the_interloper]

It's interesting. And my experience is much the same. People of my vintage (Gen X) are quite guarded. Nobody but my boss, my HR department any I know what I earn. However, I recently hired somebody out of our company's grad program and he knew what the other grads were being offered for roles, not only in our business but across his peer group in other similar organisations. Say what you like about the youngsters these days, but they are very well researched when it comes to who is being paid what and why.

Slightly off topic but I really try to not bash "the younger generation" for a lot of reasons, but one will be I'll work with a lot of them in the years to come, better off not to have some sort of thing against them.

 

[burge13]

I work with organisations at the top end of town, and they are all starting to accurately capture the various gender identities of their employees - because it is in their interests to do so (evidence of diversity, fear of backlash when the gender identity of a new employee is not available to select, etc.).

If the WGEA were serious about pay equality for all genders, they would be at the forefront of this and driving this. But they don't appear to be, which suggests to me that their primary interests revolve around one primary gender...

Shits me no end how much time is wasted on shit that doesn't matter at work.

'evidence of diversity'. If I was CEO or a shareholder of that company I'd want to know all their effort is on 'evidence of economic sustainability and profitability' ffs.

That's an aside to what was discussed though. If they're only just 'starting to' capture there's still nothing meaningful to report on yet

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Slightly off topic but I really try to not bash "the younger generation" for a lot of reasons, but one will be I'll work with a lot of them in the years to come, better off not to have some sort of thing against them.

It's good advice. They'll likely be our bosses* at some point.

*And these little bastards have long memories.

 

[Fadge]

Shits me no end how much time is wasted on s**t that doesn't matter at work.

'evidence of diversity'. If I was CEO or a shareholder of that company I'd want to know all their effort is on 'evidence of economic sustainability and profitability' ffs.

Can't say I disagree with you, but that's the world we live in....

 

[faible]

'evidence of diversity'. If I was CEO or a shareholder of that company I'd want to know all their effort is on 'evidence of economic sustainability and profitability' ffs.

This is why there's government regulation, because without any regulation the only thing companies would do is make profits at any expense. And that expense is most likely a bad thing for society.

Slave labour would be back in a heartbeat if it was legalised. Why does so much manufacturing get done off-shore?

 

[burge13]

This is why there's government regulation, because without any regulation the only thing companies would do is make profits at any expense. And that expense is most likely a bad thing for society.

Slave labour would be back in a heartbeat if it was legalised. Why does so much manufacturing get done off-shore?

My point above is focus on profitability within reason*. Oversight is good, we're rapidly moving toward doing away with meritocracy in favour of diversity which is ridiculous. I think FAR too much focus is on getting some boxes ticked rather than actual work/development etc. Free market will sort out bad business practice anyway when good people leave. A company needs to focus on high morale in order to keep good people happy so it's in their interest to do so. I think we're going beyond that with what's being discussed

Manufacturing has to be done overseas at this point, partly because we have too much regulation. If we made things here it'd cost 5x more. Yes that's because of slave labour overseas but also the amount of BS red tape business here needs to cover which drives prices up. We are our own worst enemy in that regard. A car costs way more here even when we import cheaply from overseas, why? Taxed up the arse/fees etc, government regulation is good within reason*

 

[faible]

we're rapidly moving toward doing away with meritocracy in favour of diversity which is ridiculous.

I don't agree with this idea that we've been living in a meritocracy up until the current diversity push. We've had 'jobs for the boys' for a long time, where who you know matters more than what you know in a lot of industries. That's why you end up with organisations that look homogenous, because they keep employing staff like look like the rest of the organisation.

If the pendulum has swung too far the other way (and I'm not sure I agree that it has in reality, much as certain sources will tell you it has) then that doesn't mean what came before was better. If you were white and male it just meant you were the one most likely to benefit from it.

Free market will sort out bad business practice

This hasn't really been accurate for decades, and won't change anytime soon. Amazon is noted for having horrendous working conditions yet tens of thousands of people work there because they don't really have any other choice.

Australia enjoys some of the best working conditions on the planet because of regulation and oversight. This means you get ~ 4 weeks a year of annual leave. This means you get sick leave. This means employers have to maintain the equipment they ask you to use. This means being paid a living wage.

The idea that the free market is the solution to everything isn't reality. It has some positives, but plenty of negatives. The regulation is intended to limit the negatives whilst still encouraging the positives.

Manufacturing has to be done overseas at this point, partly because we have too much regulation.

Why?

If there was some kind of global regulation that meant every worker in the world enjoyed the same minimum standards as Australian workers do, would that be a bad thing?

Sure fast fashion might disappear if they can't make your t-shirts in sweatshops, but again, would that be a bad thing? The world certainly did OK for a long time without any of those things.

If we made things here it'd cost 5x more. Yes that's because of slave labour overseas but also the amount of BS red tape business here needs to cover which drives prices up.

The bolded is a big problem. No requirement for minimum wages or working conditions (that blasted red tape) means businesses overseas exploit the hell out of desperate people, who never really get to enjoy any kind of reasonable standard of living for their labour.

 

[burge13]

1) Why?


2) The bolded is a big problem. No requirement for minimum wages or working conditions (that blasted red tape) means businesses overseas exploit the hell out of desperate people, who never really get to enjoy any kind of reasonable standard of living for their labour.

1) because prices would go up even more than they already are, which is already 'too much'. I say manufacturing 'has' to be done overseas now because there's no viable way to wind it back. Not that it 'should' be done overseas, it shouldn't.

2) would never happen or work to have a global minimum agreed standards but how much are you willing to pay for things? because the world you're describing means mobile phones are 5k each, TV's go up astronomically, cars way more expensive etc. It simply wouldn't work.

Fair point on Amazon, I'm talking about here where I don't think the same shit would fly. Certainly not to that degree but who knows, I'm guessing there.

 

[faible]

1) because prices would go up even more than they already are, which is already 'too much'. I say manufacturing 'has' to be done overseas now because there's no viable way to wind it back. Not that it 'should' be done overseas, it shouldn't.

2) would never happen or work to have a global minimum agreed standards but how much are you willing to pay for things? because the world you're describing means mobile phones are 5k each, TV's go up astronomically, cars way more expensive etc. It simply wouldn't work.

Fair point on Amazon, I'm talking about here where I don't think the same s**t would fly. Certainly not to that degree but who knows, I'm guessing there.

Who decides what is 'too much'?

Things cost more today than they did yesterday, and before that, and before that.

We've got drastically more wealth disparity than we did in the past few decades, where the richest few in society are gaining wealth at a staggering pace, drastically outstripping that of workers. If even a small portion of that wealth was going to the workers would we be any worse off than today, or better?

If things cost more, because workers get paid more and work under better conditions, and we have less consumption, is that a bad thing? Instead of buying a new iphone every 2 years for ~ $2500 a pop, maybe they'll make them better and build them to last 5 years at $5000 each. Electronics used to be replaced at a much slower rate and would be repaired instead because the relative cost was much higher and they weren't built with planned obsolescence in mind.

IMO the only thing stopping stuff like Amazon's working conditions happening here is the government regulation. The US is much looser and the workers much more exploited.

 

[carloss]