Society/Culture The Gender Pay Gap

[pugsville]

Exactly and if it were true (which is isn't) the workforce would be on it's way to being almost entirely female, why would a company who are interested in profits hire a man to do the same job when they could get a woman at a significant discount. The pay gap has been well and truly debunked, no serious economist believes in it.

your assumption here is that people are 100% rational and that simply is not true. see all of human history.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

All of which contribute, but don't account for the entire difference.

There is still 10%+ unaccounted for, and as we know the feminised industries like nursing and child care pay less.

Got a source for that Chief? Every source I've seen has said absolute maximum of about 5-7%, but most say 2-5%. The article posted a few pages ago had it at 3.9% for Australians.

 

[bad setanta]

"If that were true everyone would hire only women!"

If you are going to quote someone at least actually quote what they said FFS.

It isn't even close to a valid argument

It wasn't the argument it was merely a point. But you already knew that. You can call me stupid that's fine. I'll call you a prick and it will be closer to the mark than your slur.

 

[Chief]

If you are going to quote someone at least actually quote what they said FFS.

You know about "paraphrasing"?

 

[Leeda]

and where are we now? still questioning feminists as to whether they are relevant or not?

people are just a little bit more sophisticated than that and well I can't help but make jokes at everything...

not just here but in every forum here.

no one believes that it is true but us 'women' have to fight hard for equality in even just the small things we say.

 

[BORK]

You know about "paraphrasing"?

You placed the phrase inside quotation marks.

 

[Chief]

You placed the phrase inside quotation marks.

Oh FFS.

 

[BORK]

All of which contribute, but don't account for the entire difference.

There is still 10%+ unaccounted for, and as we know the feminised industries like nursing and child care pay less.

Got a source for that Chief? Every source I've seen has said absolute maximum of about 5-7%, but most say 2-5%. The article posted a few pages ago had it at 3.9% for Australians.

Plan on providing evidence for your statement as requested by this poster Chief? Or have you been caught out dribbling made up figures from inside your own head again.

 

[Chief]

It wasn't the argument it was merely a point. But you already knew that. You can call me stupid that's fine. I'll call you a prick and it will be closer to the mark than your slur.

WTF?

Am I amongst adult humans here? Or AI pedant-o-bots designed to destroy humanity through sheer tedium?

Argument.

Point.

A statement given to convince a person of the validity of your conclusion.

It was not valid. It was bad. Easily rebutted.

 

[BORK]

WTF?

Am I amongst adult humans here? Or AI pedant-o-bots designed to destroy humanity through sheer tedium?

Argument.

Point.

A statement given to convince a person of the validity of your conclusion.

It was not valid. It was bad. Easily rebutted.

You must be trolling right now. The post you started shitting on them for was a response to this post.

The problem is that the phrase (78 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work*) gets thrown around regularly to suggest sexism when it has no place in reasonable debate.

The context for their comment was based on 78 cents in the dollar for the same work. Heck even you know the 78 cents in the dollar for the same work is not correct based on your own posting.

All of which contribute, but don't account for the entire difference.

There is still 10%+ unaccounted for, and as we know the feminised industries like nursing and child care pay less.

You bloody agree with him on the "78 cents in the dollar for the same work" being incorrect.

 

[CM86]

You must be trolling right now. The post you started shitting on them for was a response to this post.

The context for their comment was based on 78 cents in the dollar for the same work. Heck even you know the 78 cents in the dollar for the same work is not correct based on your own posting.

You bloody agree with him on the "78 cents in the dollar for the same work" being incorrect.

I think he was responding to the point Bad Setanta made, which was that if women really were paid less, the entire workforce would be women, and "The reason why on average they earn less is because they take more time off, they take less risky jobs, they don't do as much overtime"

It wasn't a reply to Barry, I think he would have clicked reply, under Barry's post, if he was going to disagree with Barry.

His point, to my understanding, is that the claim 'Women aren't paid less, if they were every business would only hire women', is a fallacy. And I think he has provided reason for that claim.
As shown in the quote below.

All of which contribute, but don't account for the entire difference.

There is still 10%+ unaccounted for, and as we know the feminised industries like nursing and child care pay less.

It is still an underlying, if unspoken, assumption in a number of industries that females have a male to subsidise their wages. This was in fact policy for decades - a base wage for a man was deemed to be enough to keep a wife and two children. Women were assumed not to need as much pay.

"If women are cheaper..." argument is either obtuse or ignorant.

You would know that businesses are not run entirely rationally. People do things they think will make their workplace good for them, not necessarily the business. Owners of large businesses do not do all of the hiring. Some businesses are subsidised by others to keep the owner's kids busy.

Bad businesses who don't operate efficiently or rationally do survive.

Of which, that entire post has been ignored, except to call him out for "If women are cheaper...".
That is what has caused him to question if he is having a discussion with adults.

So I don't understand why you've now connected a post that he hasn't replied to, to a post he has made in a very different context.

It all seems like a point scoring exercise rather than an attempt at a discussion.
Is it really worth your time?

 

[Chief]

BORK, CM is right. You have the wrong idea about who I was responding to.

Now - 10% or so was the info i had at Uni a few years ago. If you think it is lower, that's fine. It could be.

Point is: there is a % of pay that women forfeit just because they are women.

I don't recall it being said that women get 78% of the rate men do for the same work.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

BORK, CM is right. You have the wrong idea about who I was responding to.

Now - 10% or so was the info i had at Uni a few years ago. If you think it is lower, that's fine. It could be.

Point is: there is a % of pay that women forfeit just because they are women.

I don't recall it being said that women get 78% of the rate men do for the same work.

"The info I had at uni a few years ago" isn't exactly reliable data. Find me a source that suggests there is an unexplained gap of 10% or more and I'll sign up for bigfooty membership for life.

Also, your suggestion that an unexplained pay gap must be due to sexism is also failed logic. You're assuming that every factor is accounted for when making like-for-like comparisons.

 

[Chief]

"The info I had at uni a few years ago" isn't exactly reliable data. Find me a source that suggests there is an unexplained gap of 10% or more and I'll sign up for bigfooty membership for life.

Also, your suggestion that an unexplained pay gap must be due to sexism is also failed logic. You're assuming that every factor is accounted for when making like-for-like comparisons.

No, I'm assuming that the people who did the study couldn't find any other reason for the gap, and that they said so in their report, and that as scientists the language they used was appropriately conservative.

But when you have people whose lives are spent trying to find these sorts of answers not being able to come up with an alternative, you have to be humble enough to at least admit it is a possibility that their conclusion is as close to the mark as the evidence allows. When you see the general attitude in many workplaces aligning with the idea that women are generally valued a bit less (sometimes a lot less) than men, that's more evidence that colours your view of the conclusion.

As for the actual link, it was a while ago and I don't have it now. If you believe I am lying then that is up to you. You don't have to change your opinion based on what I have said.

 

[BORK]

As for the actual link, it was a while ago and I don't have it now. If you believe I am lying then that is up to you. You don't have to change your opinion based on what I have said.

When you constantly take smug shots at people whose opinion you disagree with and use a superior tone with them we expect a higher standard from you when you make your own claims. Instead you seem to often push something as fact and when called on it are found wanting when it comes time to provide some evidence.

 

[Chief]

When you constantly take smug shots at people whose opinion you disagree with and use a superior tone with them we expect a higher standard from you when you make your own claims. Instead you seem to often push something as fact and when called on it are found wanting when it comes time to provide some evidence.

It would help if you didn't get so defensive when people challenge your own assumptions.

It becomes "smug", or "attack, or "shouting down".

Right now I am happy if people want to believe the gap is only 3% or 5% or 7%.

Because it is still a gap that stubbornly refuses to disappear and there is still plenty of evidence day to day that it isn't some rounding error.

 

[BORK]

There are systemic inequalities. The pay gap slightly favours men (and taller people)

So you are minimising and even trying to explain away the gender pay gap as just one of many similar gaps? Men being on average taller than women explains it?

and the sentencing gap favours women.

In every case I have seen given as an example, the facts of the cases were different. There were a couple of child abuse cases brought up that you would think - she must have had a good lawyer and he must have had a bad one.

But that is an aside to the thread topic of extremist ideals more readily taking root in a mind amidst turmoil, change, and resulting uncertainty and search for a solid mental footing.

Have to ask why you are able to provide a much more critical analysis to the sentencing gap than the pay gap.

 

[BORK]

It would help if you didn't get so defensive when people challenge your own assumptions.

It becomes "smug", or "attack, or "shouting down".

Right now I am happy if people want to believe the gap is only 3% or 5% or 7%.

Because it is still a gap that stubbornly refuses to disappear and there is still plenty of evidence day to day that it isn't some rounding error.

Hey I will throw you a compliment Chief. At least you do not delete and block people from threads because you disagree with them.

 

[Chief]

Have to ask why you are able to provide a much more critical analysis to the sentencing gap than the pay gap.

Because when I studied law at Uni we had a couple of subjects that covered these issues?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

No, I'm assuming that the people who did the study couldn't find any other reason for the gap, and that they said so in their report, and that as scientists the language they used was appropriately conservative.

But when you have people whose lives are spent trying to find these sorts of answers not being able to come up with an alternative, you have to be humble enough to at least admit it is a possibility that their conclusion is as close to the mark as the evidence allows. When you see the general attitude in many workplaces aligning with the idea that women are generally valued a bit less (sometimes a lot less) than men, that's more evidence that colours your view of the conclusion.

As for the actual link, it was a while ago and I don't have it now. If you believe I am lying then that is up to you. You don't have to change your opinion based on what I have said.

Ok. If you don't want to back up your statements that's fine, just don't be surprised when people question your data when you make accusations of sexism. Pretty much every study I've seen has suggested the opposite of what you are claiming, so forgive me if I find your (admittedly dated) information to be little hard to believe.

 

[CM86]

https://www.wgea.gov.au/addressing-pay-equity/what-gender-pay-gap

Pay gaps within industries

In every single industry there is a pay gap favouring men. Some of the highest gender pay gaps are found in female dominated industries including health care and social assistance and finance and insurance services. Occupational segregation, a lack of women in leadership and a lack of part-time or flexible senior roles contribute to pay gaps within industries. Gender pay gaps tend to be lower in industries where pay rates are determined by an industry-wide award, as opposed to industries where pay rates are determined at the organisation-level through an enterprise bargaining agreement, or individual contractual arrangements. Overall, the gender pay gap in the private sector is considerably larger than the public sector.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/gender-pay-gap-among-managers-wa/7215784

New research has found female top tier managers in Australia are paid on average $100,000 a year less than their male counterparts.

Key points:

• Male managers paid annual average $343,269, females $244,569
• Data from survey of 12,000 companies and 4 million employees
• Men getting more pay and much higher bonuses
• Pay gap worse in female-dominated industries

The 2016 Gender Equity Insights report out of Western Australia also revealed after 10 years of moving through full-time managerial positions at the same pace, men can expect to earn $600,000 more than women by the time they reach an executive role.

Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) and analysed by the Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre (BCEC) found women in key management roles working full-time earned an annual average of $244,569 while men earned $343,269.

The report used data from more than 12,000 employers and captured approximately 4 million employees, or approximately 40 per cent of all Australian workers.

https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/BCEC_WGEA_Gender_Pay_Equity_Insights_2016_Report.pdf

Career-long penalty for women Gender pay gaps lead to significant earnings shortfalls for women across their careers. Our analysis shows that if women and men move through managerial positions at the same pace, working full-time and reaching a KMP role in their tenth year, men can expect to earn $2.3 million and women $1.7 million in base salary over EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GENDER EQUITY INSIGHTS 2016: INSIDE AUSTRALIA’S GENDER PAY GAP 6 this period – a difference of $600,000. Even in a scenario where women move towards a KMP role at a rate twice as fast as men their accumulated earnings would will still be lower than men’s – $1.6 million compared to $1.7 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_Australia

Australia has a persistent gender pay gap. Since 1990, the gender pay gap remained within a narrow range of between 15 and 18%.[1] In November 2015, the Australian gender pay gap was 17.21%.[2] However, it has been noted that some of this gap could be down to differing career choices between the genders, as this is an aggregate figure, with some sources citing an actual pay gap (for equal work) of below 3%.[3]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/gender-pay-gap-20160322-gnp0vy.html

Overall, there is a 17.3 per cent gap in base pay between males and females, and a 17.8 per cent gender pay gap in total compensation.

But several factors made a difference in the level of the gap. "Applying controls for age, education and years of experience, the gender pay gap shrinks to 12 per cent for base pay and 12.6 per cent for total compensation," the report said.

"Finally adding in a rich set of controls for company and job title, we find an "adjusted" gender pay gap of 3.9 per cent for base pay and 5.4 per cent for total compensation."

The report said 59 per cent of the Australian sample had bachelor's degrees, 27 per cent had master's degrees, and 8 per cent had a high school diploma.

Although about 61 per cent of the overall Australia gender pay gap in base pay was explained by unique worker characteristics, this still left 39 per cent unexplained and due to differences in the way the labor market rewards men and women with the same characteristics.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/austr...-gender-pay-gap-revealed-20160608-gpezg8.html



So, I think we now all accept that there is a gender pay gap, right? And that the gap is not only due to women having children, or doing different jobs, etc?

I'm glad that now we are at least talking about the size of the pay gap, rather than if it exists or not.

Now, the problem seems to be asking for proof that it is sexism that is causing this gap.
This is harder to do. But as shown in these links, even when everything is taken into account, there is still a gap of 3.9%.
So, if everything has been taken into account, and all that's left that distinguishes each set of numbers, is that one represents men and the other represents women, what else could it be but a gender issue?

 

[bad setanta]

which was that if women really were paid less, the entire workforce would be women,

No that's not what I said either, I believe I said it would be on it's way to being entirely female.

I'll back Time magazine, Breitbart and Christina Hoff Sommers till someone proves otherwise. Nobody has so far, all I've seen is yet another example of just how welcome conservative views are.

It wasn't a reply to Barry, I think he would have clicked reply, under Barry's post, if he was going to disagree with Barry.

It was in reply to Barry go back and look. I was agreeing with one his posts.

 

[bad setanta]

3.9%.

Sweet vindication, and it's about 1% in the U.S I'm led to believe and that's why the economists don't even acknowledge it anymore.

 

[Chief]

No that's not what I said either, I believe I said it would be on it's way to being entirely female.

"On its way" / "Full of women" - really in this setting is that the point you REALLY want to argue about?

Whether you said "heading towards", "on its way to" or "is full of", the variation is basically inconsequential, but you are tying it to the validity of the response.

I'll back Time magazine, Breitbart and Christina Hoff Sommers till someone proves otherwise. Nobody has so far, all I've seen is yet another example of just how welcome conservative views are.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/feminism-2016-thread.1141612/page-102#post-46099808

It was in reply to Barry go back and look. I was agreeing with one his posts.

*stabs eyes out*

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

In every single industry there is a pay gap favouring men. Some of the highest gender pay gaps are found in female dominated industries including health care and social assistance and finance and insurance services. Occupational segregation, a lack of women in leadership and a lack of part-time or flexible senior roles contribute to pay gaps within industries. Gender pay gaps tend to be lower in industries where pay rates are determined by an industry-wide award, as opposed to industries where pay rates are determined at the organisation-level through an enterprise bargaining agreement, or individual contractual arrangements. Overall, the gender pay gap in the private sector is considerably larger than the public sector.

So in other words doing different jobs with different levels of leadership responsibilities causes a pay gap?

New research has found female top tier managers in Australia are paid on average $100,000 a year less than their male counterparts.

Key points:

• Male managers paid annual average $343,269, females $244,569
• Data from survey of 12,000 companies and 4 million employees
• Men getting more pay and much higher bonuses
• Pay gap worse in female-dominated industries

The 2016 Gender Equity Insights report out of Western Australia also revealed after 10 years of moving through full-time managerial positions at the same pace, men can expect to earn $600,000 more than women by the time they reach an executive role.

Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) and analysed by the Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre (BCEC) found women in key management roles working full-time earned an annual average of $244,569 while men earned $343,269.

The report used data from more than 12,000 employers and captured approximately 4 million employees, or approximately 40 per cent of all Australian workers

Career-long penalty for women Gender pay gaps lead to significant earnings shortfalls for women across their careers. Our analysis shows that if women and men move through managerial positions at the same pace, working full-time and reaching a KMP role in their tenth year, men can expect to earn $2.3 million and women $1.7 million in base salary over EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GENDER EQUITY INSIGHTS 2016: INSIDE AUSTRALIA’S GENDER PAY GAP 6 this period – a difference of $600,000. Even in a scenario where women move towards a KMP role at a rate twice as fast as men their accumulated earnings would will still be lower than men’s – $1.6 million compared to $1.7 million.

What sort of managers? Again this isn't a like for like comparison that considers industry or education. It's a broad comparison that compares managers from different industries, different education levels, different hours worked, etc. The report even says it itself:

The WGEA reporting data consists of 404,767 managers and 3,503,281 non-managers. The majority of
managers are men (63%) and most male and female managers work full-time (93%). A sizeable number of
female managers work in a part-time capacity (14% of all female managers)

So 14% of female managers work part-time, compared to 3% of male managers. It doesn't take into account seniority, which is going to be heavily skewed towards males given the lack of women entering the professions back in the 70s and 80s. And again, it's across all industries.

Australia has a persistent gender pay gap. Since 1990, the gender pay gap remained within a narrow range of between 15 and 18%.[1] In November 2015, the Australian gender pay gap was 17.21%.[2] However, it has been noted that some of this gap could be down to differing career choices between the genders, as this is an aggregate figure, with some sources citing an actual pay gap (for equal work) of below 3%.[3]

Do I even need to respond to this?

"Some" of it "could" be down to differing career choices?

Overall, there is a 17.3 per cent gap in base pay between males and females, and a 17.8 per cent gender pay gap in total compensation.

But several factors made a difference in the level of the gap. "Applying controls for age, education and years of experience, the gender pay gap shrinks to 12 per cent for base pay and 12.6 per cent for total compensation," the report said.

"Finally adding in a rich set of controls for company and job title, we find an "adjusted" gender pay gap of 3.9 per cent for base pay and 5.4 per cent for total compensation."

The report said 59 per cent of the Australian sample had bachelor's degrees, 27 per cent had master's degrees, and 8 per cent had a high school diploma.

Although about 61 per cent of the overall Australia gender pay gap in base pay was explained by unique worker characteristics, this still left 39 per cent unexplained and due to differences in the way the labor market rewards men and women with the same characteristics.

39% unexplained? You mean 39% of the 12% you mentioned? I guess that makes things sound worse than 3.9% unexplained. Like I said a few pages ago, unexplained doesn't automatically imply sexist. Studies can try to account for a number of different things, but they rarely account for everything. Women being less likely to negotiate is one factor that is rarely considered.

Example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html



So out of all of those links you posted we've got suggestions of a 3.9% gap and an "actual pay gap of below 3%". Again, you might be willing to automatically blame that entirely on sexism, but I'm not.