women's pay

[Slippery Pete]

Sexism and misogyny aren't confined to history. Women might have equal rights now but that doesn't mean they're not subject to some degree of prejudice in Australian society.

Yeah, all those female Australian soldiers dying and getting maimed in Afghanistan...If only they were white privileged males hey.

 

[MarcusP2]

If you look deeper into the numbers there isnt really wage disparity. A male and a female doing the same role get the same wage. There may be some discrimination when it comes to promotion etc. but I would say this has diminished in recent history.

Plus I do not believe anyone with half a brain in this country blames victims of rape.

Agree regarding the guernsey.

On awards and entry level job etc this is true. The disparities come in when you get to higher management roles etc. Women get promoted less and when they do they don't earn as much.

 

[Slippery Pete]

On awards and entry level job etc this is true. The disparities come in when you get to higher management roles etc. Women get promoted less and when they do they don't earn as much.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Yeah, all those female Australian soldiers dying and getting maimed in Afghanistan...If only they were white privileged males hey.

Yeah we don't have conscription anymore. Those guys aren't there because they were born white dudes. And try being a woman who wants to rise up the ranks in the military. Hilariously stupid point.

 

[Dandy_GO]

On awards and entry level job etc this is true. The disparities come in when you get to higher management roles etc. Women get promoted less and when they do they don't earn as much.

Bingo. National income disparity for full time workers sits at 17% between men and women. There are many reasons for this, and it's impossible to quantify most of them, but pretty much every study agrees that discrimination is the major factor.

And for Pete, and other folks who don't seem to get the point, nobody is attacking you or saying you should have less by pointing this out. Nor are we suggesting Australia isn't doing well here - we've clearly come a loooong way since Federation. We're just saying this is one of the reasons why things like Womens round and Indigenous round exist, while white guy round does not, and has no reason to.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Bingo. National income disparity for full time workers sits at 17% between men and women. There are many reasons for this

Damn right there are, and most of them are big fat elephants in the room that people like you won't go anywhere near.

Like -
Hours worked, time away from career for family, occupational choice (service sector and people person jobs that women innately prefer and freely choose - nothing wrong with that).

and it's impossible to quantify most of them,

Julia couldn't have said it better herself...

Did somebody say Elephant??

 

[Dandy_GO]

More irrelevant nonsense. As I said, while it is impossible to completely accurately quantify this stuff, studies with the best modelling we can come up with suggest that discrimination is the major factor. The existence of other factors, which I don't deny, does nothing to diminish this. Heck, you even listed one which is already taken into account in the figure I posted! The other two factors you listed are potentially, in some cases, born from attitudes arising from gender discrimination anyway. So well done on that point.

There is pretty much no point debating that subject with people like you, and it's off topic anyway, so I'm done here. Charlie Sheen is an appropriate avatar, by the way.

 

[Slippery Pete]

The other two factors you listed are potentially, in some cases, born from attitudes arising from gender discrimination anyway. So well done on that point..

Now we're getting somewhere. So you concede the studies don't take into account two of the factors I have listed. Then, you hide behind an arbitrary definition of "gender discrimination." C'mon Dandy - address the two points that aren't included in the study.

Don't go away now - it's just starting to get interesting.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Now we're getting somewhere. So you concede the studies don't take into account two of the factors I have listed. Then, you hide behind an arbitrary definition of "gender discrimination." C'mon Dandy - address the two points that aren't included in the study.

Don't go away now - it's just starting to get interesting.

No. That isn't even what I wrote. Studies which seek to discover why the 17% difference exists DO address those factors, but the figure of 17% ITSELF does not, as it's an overall national percentage figure. Why would it? It would be measuring something else, if it did. As it measures the full time wage of women vs men, the figure does, of course, already account for hours worked.

So yes, those things are covered in the studies I've read. You've mentioned industrial/occupational segregation, for example, which happens to be something we CAN quantify, and is indeed a large reason for the split, but not the largest. The fact that such segregation exists, however, is, as I mentioned, sometimes an indirect result of forms of discrimination anyway - as is your other point about women spending more time with their families. Women have traditionally had greater societal pressures placed upon them to spend more time with their children/elderly relatives than their male counterparts, and those pressures do still exist, to some degree, in Australian society. It's a different, perhaps smaller, form of discrimination than "WE DON'T EMPLOY WOMEN BECAUSE THEY'RE INFERIOR" but it's a differing, and antiquated, view towards women that can lead to employment disadvantage, and does not exist for men to the same degree.

If you'd like to make a thread in the bay about this, we can continue. You failed to properly comprehend my previous post, so I'm not going to get suckered into another after this.

 

[MarcusP2]

Now we're getting somewhere. So you concede the studies don't take into account two of the factors I have listed. Then, you hide behind an arbitrary definition of "gender discrimination." C'mon Dandy - address the two points that aren't included in the study.

Don't go away now - it's just starting to get interesting.

Using robust microeconomic modelling techniques, based on a comprehensive and critical evaluation of several methodologies, we found that simply being a woman is the major contributing factor to the gap in Australia, accounting for 60 per cent of the difference between women’s and men’s earnings, a finding which reflects other Australian research in this area. Indeed, the results showed that if the effects of being a woman were removed, the average wage of an Australian woman would increase by $1.87 per hour, equating to an additional $65 per week or $3,394 annually, based on a 35 hour week." (The second most important factor in explaining the pay gap was industrial segregation.)

-National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling. The impact of a sustained gender wage gap on the economy.


"WGEA has done us a great service in compiling and publishing these figures. In the past, we only knew of these discrepancies when individual professions publicised them. For instance, a few years ago the Law Council of Australia revealed that in NSW male law graduates were paid $70,300 in 2007 while women received only $63,500.
Now we know that law is one of the better professions when it comes to pay equity. As reported this week by WGEA, female law graduates suffer only a 7.8 per cent gender penalty. Women architects face a 17.3 per cent discrepancy while dentists' pay lags behind men's by 15.7 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/gender-pay-gap-still-a-disgrace-20130104-2c8o6.html#ixzz2TRjRIULr"

But no, of course it's just because they have kids.

 

[Slippery Pete]

You've mentioned industrial/occupational segregation, for example, which happens to be something we CAN quantify, and is indeed a large reason for the split, but not the largest. The fact that such segregation exists, however, is, as I mentioned, sometimes an indirect result of forms of discrimination anyway - as is your other point about women spending more time with their families. Women have traditionally had greater societal pressures placed upon them to spend more time with their children/elderly relatives than their male counterparts, and those pressures do still exist, to some degree, in Australian society. It's a different, perhaps smaller, form of discrimination than "WE DON'T EMPLOY WOMEN BECAUSE THEY'RE INFERIOR" but it's a differing, and antiquated, view towards women that can lead to employment disadvantage, and does not exist for men to the same degree.

Blowhard, politically correct nonsense.

As i pointed out earlier, the pay gap you've quoted largely stems from choices made by women and men concerning the amount of time and energy devoted to a career, as reflected in years of work experience and other workplace and job characteristics. Now, you're suggesting some phantom form of arbitrary discrimination as the reason for industry segregation and family responsibilities. PC nonsense at its hamster- wheel spinning finest.

The point is no matter what kind of raw pay gap exists, it doesn’t show whether ANY gender discrimination occurs. The only way you can tell is if a man and a woman are doing the same job for the same hours at the same company for the same length of time and they have the same levels of experience and qualifications and neither of them get any overtime or bonuses at the end of the year and the job is not commission-based. If the wage rates are still different, then the law already punishes this type of discrimination.

If women represent a straight up, 17% better value to employers "just for being a woman," one has so wonder how men EVER get hired?

 

[Dandy_GO]

As i pointed out earlier, the pay gap you've quoted largely stems from choices made by women and men concerning the amount of time and energy devoted to a career, as reflected in years of work experience and other workplace and job characteristics.

If you can't even see the sexist generalisations in that, then you're really far too stubborn to understand the wider point.

Even when we break it down as much as we can, and look at individual positions in individual industries, women still, as a general rule, have lower wages. All the stuff you keep ranting about is accounted for. How many time do I have to say this? Yes, what you are saying accounts for SOME of the gap, and it's easy enough for us to work out approximately how much effect those factors have on the disparity. We know that they don't account for all, or even most of it. We KNOW this.

Another little fun fact for you, Pete: there are more women in Australia with tertiary qualifications than men.

And it's not as simple as "the law already punishes this type of discrimination" because you literally have to make an application to the sexual discrimination branch of the Fair Work commission, or whatever it's called now, for anyone to do anything about it. There isn't a government agency out there that is actively seeking out and punishing employers who don't pay equally. It's up to you, and, chances are, you don't have easy access to the information required to lodge such a complaint.

I'm not surprised you're the kind of person to rant against political correctness.

Since you posted a comedian for us, here's one for you.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Wouldn't the stuff contained in the 40% (not related to discrimination) be reasons to hire/promote a man instead of a women?

 

[lincsPJ]

haha. the WGEA.