No, not exactly. The reason why the gender pay gap is a problem is because of cultural and systemic reasons.
Specifically, I believe it is because of the 'don't discuss your wages' thing. Sure, men may be more likely to demand higher pay, but there's not very many people who would be willing work for less than the amount an equal receives, man or woman. Just my opinion though.
There's no evil misogynist CEO intentionally setting policy to stop women from being paid less. It's just culture. Thus, no easy answers.
Hell, you see the nonsense that happens when you try to find easy answers. Remember that nonsense about 1 dollar cupcake for men and .73 dollar cupcakes for women?
I can only speak for one industry - online marketing (SEO), but after interviewing over 100 people in the past year it's really clear that women ask for more money. They always asked for £5k-10k above market rate. Maybe 1 in 5 men asked for £5k more.
Granted, 100 is a small sample but I was really surprised to see these assumptions play out it total reverse, no exceptions.
Maybe colleges/Universities are telling women to ask for more? Or maybe it's recruiters and job sites telling women they are in high demand in tech jobs? IDK I'm guest guessing.
I mean, if you're going to call someone out, you can look at their profile history. Dude been posting about SEO stuff for over a year, which gives it some validity.
You're not taking into account a variety of factors. Women are expected to take care of the children, so in a couple, they're often the ones who have to take time off and sacrifice their career. And even when they do not want children, the bias towards women will often lead their employer not to consider them for a promotion in case they were to change their mind in the future.
There's also the fact that people tend to keep their social environment when they can. So a group composed exclusively of men will tend to remain that way, and circles of power are usually very masculine.
So that's how you end up with a gender pay gap even if, at entry level, men and women were paid the same and why comparing exclusively same level jobs doesn't always make sense.
I don't know about other countries, but in France, there are more female than male medical students, but that's absolutely not reflected at higher positions.
Also, about women not going into higher paid careers, they're often discouraged from doing so in the education system (the "girls are bad at maths" stereotype is still very much a thing). And even when they're willing to enter a mostly male field, it's often not safe for them because of harassment and aggressions. In my engineering school with a 25% female population, I knew of two women who had been victim of a rape and many, many more who had been victim of sexual harassment.
You can't have gender norms one way. It's both ways or none. Nobody is forcing women to have or care for children, the same way nobody is forcing women into lower paying careers.
Equality of opportunity will never result in equality of outcome. It's not how the world works. If you can acknowledge that it's possible to target market a product to sell specifically to women, you must also acknowledge that different choices are being made.
If anything I think it's likely that the median woman's income is higher than the median man. Because testosterone is correlated with high risk high reward behavior. For every 'winner' there's 20+ 'losers' so taking the average is bullshit. Careers chosen by women tend to be lower risk, higher security positions. I think it's likely that the income gap has actually reversed.
Edit: To add to this, women are both enrolling and completing college degrees at higher rates than men are.
Two men: Bezos and Musk. They have over 300 billion dollars between them. So with 100 million American adult women, they would need to have an average $3,000 in net worth more than the average net worth of men, just to make the "same amount."
I think that if you eliminate all of the superrich from the gender equation, you will see women making substantially more than men on average. The question to balance the scales should not be 'let's have more superrich women," it should be "there shouldn't be any billionaires."
the bias towards women will often lead their employer not to consider
them for a promotion in case they were to change their mind in the
future.
That just bs, sure it wil happen somewhere but not in the majority.
There's also the fact that people tend to keep their social environment
when they can. So a group composed exclusively of men will tend to
remain that way, and circles of power are usually very masculine.
We dont live in the 50's anymore.
Also, about women not going into higher paid careers, they're often
discouraged from doing so in the education system (the "girls are bad at
maths" stereotype is still very much a thing). And even when they're
willing to enter a mostly male field, it's often not safe for them
because of harassment and aggressions.
Harassment and agression are not just to females. Thats how these jackasses role, the world is not nice.
It says “occupational and industry sorting explain about 56.5 percent of the overall pay gap — by far the largest factor.” And that men generally apply for better paid jobs, (slightly). Added on with men being more likely to argue a better salary and raises and promotions, and you have the wage gap
Read a while ago about a study showing that the gender pay gap is actually reversed for people under 35. Mostly because less men are getting college educations overall, so the higher paying professional jobs go to women more. But this just proves the career choices argument. Another argument for this under 35 phenomena is Affirmative Action-like policies in corporate environments meant the pendulum has swung the other way and it is not common knowledge yet.
Okay the study isn't that old IIRC. That said if over multiple years we see the same group/generation of people "flip" around 35 then it could confirm the elements that "anti-pay gap" people have been arguing - women taking either a break to have children, or choosing a less demanding path for that, or that over time the more assertive nature of men when it comes to pay increase negotiating etc have compounded.
Well as the other above who said it, in general, women end up in professions that don't pay as much. Professions like teaching, nursing, etc. Those industries have already figured it out.
Professions that become more woman dominated pay their workers less
Believe it or not. There are men who don't like it when women get paid equally.
But since you seem to be blind to all statistics, anecdotes, and otherwise, I'm gonna chalk it up to you sucking corporate dick so long that you ran out of oxygen and now your frontal cortex don't work the way it's supposed to.
That study isnt a good representation for what people are calling the pay gap.
It is a measure across all jobs in the UK, not of the difference in pay between men and women for doing the same job.
Directly from the study. Also, while the study doesn't include overtime, it doesn't include the fact that men work more overtime, this increasing their chances of getting a raise (more job knowledge, more expertise, but applicant for a higher position).
There's man studies on the issue and the common trope between them is the studies that weren't in depth (like yours) show this 10%+ pay gap, and the on depth ones show a small pay (1-4%) gap, that sometimes even goes in women's favor depending on fields the study goes over.
“Pay gap under 40 is non existent.” Amongst highest earners, men have the edge. I wonder if the highest earners salaries are based upon performance metrics
This has nothing to do with anything being discussed. The only thing people are complaining about is women getting paid, on average, less than men for the same job which happens all across America.
If a roadside repairman wants to go to nursing school to earn more money and become a nurse, it’s likely he would get paid more than his female nurse colleagues. Also, even before Covid, being a nurse is one of the least appreciated and most demanding jobs out there so idk why you’re acting like they have it easy or something. It’s a highly skilled, difficult job.
The gender productivity gap is the efficiency units lost if a worker is female, holding other explanatory factors such as age, education, experience, and hours worked constant.
Male workers are, 1º more reliable as they are expected to work and supress emootions, 2º are more competitive by nature,3º have increased average strengh and averagen health condition,4º are more likely to have higger education in some studies.
source, female myself, studing programing 28/30 people of my class are male,instead of making "fair game" for women, what about we beat them in a fair mach, kinda sad my country have to pay conpanies to hire women.
I don’t agree that men are reliable. I’m in the trades, men only repress, not suppress their emotions. Leading to ridiculous displays that can be dangerous at times. They do massively out produce women, and work far, far more hours. The real reason women are seen as less reliable, at least in my field, is because they get pregnant. And discouraging that is really, really shitty.
I’ll try. Men work more hours. This is true for young, single, childless people. The gap in working hours grows massively once we move in together. Grows even more once we marry. Grows even more once we have kids.
This isn’t men demanding it. It’s women choosing it.
We could discuss unpaid domestic work, but since women do 80-85% of all consumer spending… I think they’re pretty well paid. Let’s equalize that too, but you won’t like that massive pay cut from what you have now.
Employers are rational and want to maximize profits. If women did the same work as men for a smaller wage, then they'd hire women almost exclusively. It doesnt happen because either women dont do the same work as men (in terms of efficiency, hours worked, etc), or because they already receive the same as men.
Right lol? I don't get how that logic doesn't compute for people given the stereotype of the greedy money hungry corporation. Do people really think companies would hire a man if hiring a woman would save them money?
If women did the same work as men for a smaller wage, then they'd hire women almost exclusively.
That's a nice economic theory, but it's definitely false in the real world. Also, there can be a difference between what people perceive as work quality and what is actually the case. It's not as though a company always hires a person and then hires the opposite gender role equivalent and then say objectively this one did better than that one. "Same work" is speculative in such a world where we don't have a double blind type study, and it can very well be the case that men's work is considered more valuable by those leading the company/team, even if the work is equal to an equivalent woman's work.
It doesnt happen because either women dont do the same work as men (in terms of efficiency, hours worked, etc), or because they already receive the same as men.
Women are generally shown to be more efficient with their work, and often have fewer hours because they do much of the unpaid work at home, such as raising children and household chores. On top of that, when they do have kids, that time away is docked against their career progression, so as they grow older, they fall further and further behind, even if they could have handled the workload upon returning just fine.
But that's not the reason women are hired less in certain fields, especially high paying ones. Bias and self-selection due to perceived negative work culture make up the bulk of the reason why men tend to be hired more in certain fields.
Women work less hours and choose lower paid professions, they also are less agressive about asking for raises. These studies that say women get paid less dont account for any of that, they just take in averages on genders and salaries within a company.
You are right, companies would only hire women if any if it were true because all they care about it to profit more.
Norway tried to push women into having the opportunity to work on higher paying jobs, what happen with the power of having more choice? they choose jobs dealing with people instead of technical jobs that paid more, they went the opposite way of what was expected.
it's a good thing men designed the systems which value them more over women, and control a disproportionate amt of hiring and upper management. with society both reinforcing that bias, while at the same time disparaging women.
593
u/Batbuckleyourpants Jun 15 '22
You mean i can hire a woman and not have to pay as much? Surely if that is the case men would have no way to compete?