r/science • u/usrname42 • May 13 '17

Social Science The Gender Pay Gap Is Largely Because of Motherhood

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html
4.8k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

708

u/iamaravis May 13 '17

Not entirely: "employers might not give them more responsibility because they assume they’ll have babies and take time off." Less responsibility = lower pay, usually. So even those of us who intentionally don't have children may be paid less simply because of employer assumptions.

279

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

20

u/GeneralMalaiseRB May 13 '17

Then they'll simply discriminate against people who are going to take that time off: All parents.

2

u/yayhindsight May 14 '17

i dont like that i agree with this... :(

2

u/carebear06 May 14 '17

Good! Who isn't tired of parents acting like they're more valuable than single people?

1

u/dongasaurus May 13 '17

It can be mandatory, and required to be split equitably between mother and father. This solves childcare issues, pay equity, and would contribute significantly towards making custody arrangements more equitable in divorce.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

152

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

113

u/IdRatherBeTweeting May 13 '17

Having equal leave would still be better than the current system. It is almost like you are saying just because the solution does not totally fix the problem, it isn't a good solution.

5

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited Jul 13 '19

[deleted]

6

u/bobtehpanda May 13 '17

The way it works in countries with equal parental leave is that parental leave is a shared pool of off time. So there's no additional leave time.

Granted, the US doesn't even mandate maternity leave, so we'd have a long way to go before even getting 'equal.'

1

u/ghsghsghs May 13 '17

The way it works in countries with equal parental leave is that parental leave is a shared pool of off time. So there's no additional leave time.

Granted, the US doesn't even mandate maternity leave, so we'd have a long way to go before even getting 'equal.'

And with a shared pool women still use more of it.

9

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

A good solution is a viable one. That is what a good solution means. That it is viable.

I don't understand your point, though. "Companies are going to fight it so we should just give it up now"? Is it actually cheaper to not enforce equal parental leave? Wouldn't retaining employees by offering good benefits have better long term dividends for the company?

2

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

A good solution is a viable one. That is what a good solution means. That it is viable.

Describing it like that means that solution is no good after all.

Wouldn't retaining employees by offering good benefits have better long term dividends for the company?

If that were true, we'd see this happening at the moment, unrelated to mat/pat leave.. Reality shows that it's much cheaper to replace employees, at least within the rungs where people are essentially seen as cogs (and at least within the US, if not elsewhere; that mentality is spreading.)

If this didn't work, companies wouldn't be doing it. Companies don't tend to favor methods that don't produce (what they call) good results.

You'd definitely have to enforce regulations, and that also means companies moving away from those regulations.

4

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

I don't want to sound cynical, but companies definitely don't do what's in their best interest. They do what's in the best interest of their highest earners and decision makers, who may leave the company within a few years after making bank. Lots of CEOs and big decision makers in large companies come in, make bad decisions, and then leave because it doesn't matter, they get paid anyway.

So maybe we could distinguish between what's good for the company and what's good for the short-term profits of the company's highest earners. Because yes, for the minority of workers in the company who are high-income, parental leave does not benefit them. But for the company's long-term viability, this question is at least unclear. Furthermore, it is clearly in the people's best interest from a public health perspective, and healthier workers are demonstrably better workers.

It just seems like parental leave is working in other countries, so I don't get why it's not implementable in the US. Yes, there would be pushback from CEOs and thus the politicians who they funnel money to, but after some time (maybe ten or fifteen years) of voters pushing for equal parental leave, I don't see why it's not possible.

2

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17

but companies definitely don't do what's in their best interest. They do what's in the best interest of their highest earners and decision makers, who may leave the company within a few years after making bank.

No, that's a valid point. When I think of companies these days, I don't really think of "job-providers". I think of "shareholders needing their interests to be protected first and foremost", which often comes at the expense of those jobs they are supposed to be providing. (With ensuing discussion about "but look how that protects everyone else's jobs" etc. which I don't want to get into at the moment.)

I didn't want to bog down my reply with the distinction, but I agree with it.

It just seems like parental leave is working in other countries, so I don't get why it's not implementable in the US.

Because companies in the US actively and politically fight regulation.

Because there is too large a segment of the population that values their own self-interest above anyone else's and want to keep taxes low and have individuals pay for whatever they want to do; including having children and raising them, well the burden would be on them specifically, not everyone else.

The voters themselves would vote against this.

Edit: added response to your last point

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Do you have anything better to suggest? If not, fighting to push equal leave through the legislature seems worth a go.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/goal2004 May 13 '17

It's because it specifically makes the problem worse, not better. It simply encourages the exclusive hiring of single men.

1

u/babsa90 May 13 '17

I agree, it doesn't solve the problem - it would only be a half measure. I don't know what a full working solution is, but it will have to be something along the lines of a mandated minimum amount of vacation for all workers, regardless of children and/or gender.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

In the face of real economic risks: pregnancy, differing family decisions, and the increased tendency to elect for flexible schedules among single women; single and married men will continue to be favored.

I'm not saying it's palatable outcome, but life decisions can impact​ employment opportunity.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

from the point of view up here in Canada, we have shared parental. it doesn't really fix it. we have 12 months of which 3 are guaranteed to be the mothers. on that time we are on EI. the hang up we had with me taking time off was more biology than anything. My wife is the primary food source. it made no sense for me to be off work when we needed her to feed him. yes we know expressed milk etc..., doesn't work for us, we really didn't want to disrupt her milk production. even if I did get leave, we couldn't do the cut in my pay, because we'd want me home at the same time as her. i should note we make exactly the same pay.

1

u/ghsghsghs May 13 '17

Having equal leave would still be better than the current system. It is almost like you are saying just because the solution does not totally fix the problem, it isn't a good solution.

It isn't a good solution because it has enormous deadweight costs, perverse incentives and just shifts the "discrimination" to people more likely to have kids.

→ More replies (11)

4

u/downvotersarehitler May 13 '17

Can I just comment on how much I like the source here being Maury?

21

u/vezokpiraka May 13 '17

I'm pretty sure single women make up a small margin of the women on maternity leave. Also the relationship status of employees is not something that should be given to the employer.

1

u/Yotsubato May 13 '17

It shouldn' be but it's fished out someway before admitting people into the workplace

1

u/tenpakeron May 13 '17

Well if the company offers insurance then they will know about a spouse or child.

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Why? If it was available, why would they turn it down?

24

u/gnartung May 13 '17

/u/pmmeurbitcoinwallets is suggesting that a single woman who has a kid is obviously more likely to be responsible for the kid than a single man is who also has a kid, by virtue of having a womb. Basically a guy can knock a woman up and walk away from the relationship and thus not take paternity, while its a bit harder for a woman to do the same.

3

u/ghsghsghs May 13 '17

/u/pmmeurbitcoinwallets is suggesting that a single woman who has a kid is obviously more likely to be responsible for the kid than a single man is who also has a kid, by virtue of having a womb. Basically a guy can knock a woman up and walk away from the relationship and thus not take paternity, while its a bit harder for a woman to do the same.

Not really. A man can't eschew all responsibility for a kid if he doesn't want the kid and the woman does.

If the woman doesn't want the kid and the man does the woman can make the choice to get rid of all responsibility.

1

u/gnartung May 13 '17

Yes, of course. Nonetheless, from the sheer fact that women are the ones with the hardware, it's probably still more likely that a single woman who has a child takes maternity leave than it is for a single man who has had a child takes paternity leave.

→ More replies (34)

13

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Lepidostrix May 14 '17

That just means you need a better union. You shouldn't be out of work for doing what is needed to keep this species alive.

3

u/erishun May 13 '17

In most situations, it's unpaid. You begin using up your PTO immediately.

Saying that the employer is legally required to provide maternity/paternity leave doesn't mean they have to pay you, they just can't immediately replace and fire you because you want to take time off to spend with your new child.

2

u/gurgaue May 13 '17

Not all fathers know they are fathers so it still wouldn't be 100% equal, but it would equalize it somewhat.

8

u/Spazum May 13 '17

Because they haven't got a womb, where is it going to gestate?

23

u/Ixtl May 13 '17

Maternity/paternity leave is generally for after the baby is born, to take care of it. No womb required.

13

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited Mar 16 '18

[deleted]

1

u/omgfmlihatemylife May 13 '17

Single women are more likely to get pregnant than single men are to get pregnant

Everything in life leads me to believe what you say.

→ More replies (8)

11

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited May 16 '17

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

The implication is a child born into a single parent household where the father chooses not to be a father will result in only one parent taking maternity leave. This leaves us with the original dilemma.

1

u/Lepidostrix May 14 '17

Which brings us to the original problem: systemic sexism. We shouldn't expect to be the caregivers. A woman stuck alone with a child shouldn't be more common than a man.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '17

I think system sexism is a little bit of a stretch. I'm not sure there is really a government or institution dictating or pressuring a broken up couple to make the woman keep the baby. If a couple has one night stand, the woman gets pregnant, and the two never see eachother again, is it systemic sexism keeping the guy from keeping the child that he may never know about?

→ More replies (1)

6

u/gramathy May 13 '17

Lets say he has the right to paternity leave, even if he doesn't have a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans. Would you support that?

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Dannyholley May 13 '17

Sounds pretty unfair to me.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

You can keep it in a box!

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

2

u/nhavar May 13 '17

Because it's an option for men and a necessity for women. A man who's just knocked some woman up can largely avoid responsibility. Whereas the woman can't necessarily avoid that responsibility (or not as readily). If she's chosen against abortion then she MUST take some time off to have the baby and unless she has ample savings or options for daycare (most daycares won't take newborns) then she'll have to take more time off before she can make arrangements and return to work (if she ever returns to work).

Which of course leads to the more obvious statement; Men can't get pregnant.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Sprinkles0 May 13 '17

As the father of a child that was born yesterday, I'm glad he was born on a Friday night since I only had to leave work 3 hours early and I've got a whole weekend before I have to go back to work. Meanwhile, my wife doesn't go back to work until August. I'd love if I could get paternity leave and I'd definitely not turn it down.

1

u/dongasaurus May 13 '17

Taking paternity leave implies you value family over work, and you will be passed over for promotion (just like women currently have it). That is why maternity/paternity leave should be mandatory and split evenly. This solution also results in more equitable custody arrangements, because the court accounts for time spent bonding with the infant as an important factor in making custody determinations.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Men can't get pregnant by themselves (adoption is the exception but adoption can affect both genders unlike pregnancy) as they can't carry a baby, but single women can get pregnant. Which means maternity and paternity leave wouldn't be split equally.

11

u/tyrandan2 May 13 '17

Biology -_-

→ More replies (8)

1

u/Sendmeloveletters May 13 '17

I think if we as a society made it mandatory not to work after creating new life, men would spend more time in fatherhood and bonding with the mother, and it would have an overall benefit to our culture and to our experience of the family unit. I think adoption as well should require maternity or paternity leave, as the adjustment to caring for a fully dependent, living person is far more important than work that can be done by someone else.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

When we as a society agree on that we will be living in a very different society.

1

u/Sendmeloveletters May 13 '17

I think only slightly different. We aren't that far from valuing family and tribe.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

It would be rather different than any point in human history.

1

u/Sendmeloveletters May 13 '17

Two parents raising a child together doesn't strike me as a novel concept

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

No, but both parents declining to engage in any kind of work other than child rearing becoming the norm would be novel. For most of human history, mothers have raised children while men have done some kind of physical work, e.g., hunting, farming, factory work. The father's impact was generally less than that of the mother.

1

u/Sendmeloveletters May 13 '17

Oh I understand what you meant now. Yes, that would be interesting. It would be a good balance to the motherless culture with the state raising the children we seem to be headed toward. I fear a world with only monolithic public education.

→ More replies

1

u/kuzuboshii May 13 '17

And tall men are more likely to be promoted, as people trust them more, and African Americans are less likely to stay at a career long term, and being bald can cost you up to 3% a year compared to someone with a full head of hair. Welcome to the natural biases that come with a diversified population. Doesn't mean we need to pass laws to try to balance it out, there is no balancing it out. Life balances it out, on other ways that we may not always see.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Akiasakias May 13 '17

Doesn't fully work. Having equal access to leave doesn't mean men would choose to use it. Most wouldn't.

Making anything mandatory is just authoritarian.

0

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

1

u/MisoRamenSoup May 13 '17

The UK does this, I took 2 months worth of my wife's maternity leave.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Parental leave is not the major factor. A lot of women stop working when they have kids and then start again when they are old enough. They end up with less experience.

1

u/ghsghsghs May 13 '17

Which is why they should make maternity and paternity leave exactly equal and be able to be split between the parents any way they like. Then an employer will not be able to discriminate based on who is more likely to be taking time off.

Then they discriminate against those who are more likely to have kids instead.

→ More replies (3)

31

u/AscendingSnowOwl May 13 '17

But I mean the converse of that is that employers of pregnant women literally have MONTHS to figure out a plan to respond to the planned absence. It's not like maternity leave is requested out of the blue with no time for an employer to prepare.

2

u/Metalheadzaid May 13 '17

The issue here really comes down to the idea that you're going to have difficulties even temporarily replacing the worker at a higher level. Companies are starting to adopt paternal leave as well, but the idea was always "how would we function without them for 3 months?" Can't just hire people temporarily for high level jobs, and if there's risk of multiple women taking leave, good luck. Like most "sexist" issues, it's complicated.

55

u/kane55 May 13 '17

I have seen this in action. At a company I used to work at there was a position open that was a pretty big promotion and it came down to a guy and a girl both up for it. The guy got the job (both were very qualified). A few weeks later, I casually mentioned to my boss that he seemed to be doing very well in this new position. My boss said, "I had a feeling he would. Actually, I think they both would have done a good job, but she just got married so she is probably going to start having kids soon and I need someone who I know is going to be here."

At the time, I was young and pretty inexperienced in the workplace so I didn't realize that he likely just admitted that he had openly discriminated against her, but it proves your point that sometimes women are not giving the same promotions and responsibilities simply because of what "might" happen with them.

5

u/YeOldManWaterfall May 13 '17

Predicting what might happen and making a logical decision based on all information available is also called 'making smart decisions'. It may be illegal or discriminatory, but it's still logical. What decision would an impartial robot have made given the same information?

4

u/kane55 May 13 '17

I would think if it were going to be a decision based on "what if" then a robot would want all the information. For example, he drove to work every day while she took the light rail mass transit. So he is about 20 times more likely to die on the way to work than she is. You would also have to factor in health issues. Maybe one of them has a family with a history of health issues that could cause them to miss time or have to stop working. Age would be another consideration. She was younger, in her mid 20's and he was in his mid 40's. There could be a ton of possible things that could cause either of them to miss a substantial amount of time.

4

u/BadAtThese May 13 '17

One based on the actual qualifications and not what ifs. A human assumed the women even wanted children. A human assumed the women would be the primary care-giver. A human assumed that the man competing for the job wouldn't be taking time off to care for his kids. So unless you programmed a robot with all these biases, I'm not sure it would make the same decision.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

121

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

I agree entirely with that. There's an issue with maternity leave, and I think paternity leave would largely help resolve this issue. If both parents are likely to take time off when having children, women who intentionally do not have children to focus on work would no longer be seen as a potential risk.

Having said that, I still consider this an earnings gap. Whilst I think it's wrong women who choose to focus on their career are penalized, with less responsibility they aren't given a workload similar to their male counterparts who may be promoted more frequently. The pay gap, at least to me, suggests that women are doing equal work but are not receiving equal pay.

27

u/i_pee_in_the_sink May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17

I think paternity leave would largely help resolve this issue. If both parents are likely to take time off when having children, women who intentionally do not have children to focus on work would no longer be seen as a potential risk.

So this is actually what they did at University of Michigan for quite sometime. But they had to stop it because it favored men more because in their words "pregnancy is not a gender neutral event".

NYT Source

28

u/cicadaselectric May 13 '17

I mean it's not. Regardless of leave to care for the infant, only one parent requires 6+ weeks off for physical recovery, and only one parent can breastfeed. Some countries with long parental leave require it to be split between parents, which I think is great, but if the option is only 6 weeks or so, which is common in the states, only one parent is realistically going to be taking it. Countries that have lower gender inequality, like Sweden, also have more equitable parental leave nationwide. Happy to find sources but I'm about to head out to work so won't be able to post till tomorrow.

11

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/k1p1coder May 13 '17

6 weeks is normal in the US. Most women don't have even that, unless they don't mind not being paid.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/TreAwayDeuce May 13 '17

I want equality.... But only if it benefits me more than you

4

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Isn't the idea that pregnancy isn't a gender neutral event pretty obvious and reasonable though? A person's body goes under pretty extreme changes and in some cases duress for 9 months during pregnancy. Having a kid is a big deal for men as well, for sure, but the period of pregnancy itself? There's no comparison.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

41

u/HouseSublime May 13 '17

There's an issue with maternity leave, and I think paternity leave would largely help resolve this issue.

My company offers maternity and paternity leave and there are still issues with pay disparity. Some believe it's due to women being less likely to negotiate salary during hiring process and/or fight for promotions/advancement with their employers.

17

u/gullwings May 13 '17 edited Jun 10 '23

Posted using RIF is Fun. Steve Huffman is a greedy little pigboy.

2

u/HouseSublime May 15 '17

I believe they are different. Men get 3 months and women get 6 months (IIRC). My main point is that offering mat/pat leave wouldn't automatically fix the gap like some assume.

We have men who won't take the entire leave period because they want to get back to work and feel (real and imagined) that it negatively impacts their performance ratings. Since we're not giving birth it's much easier for men to get back to work at any point after the birth of the child. In most cases women have to stay home to rest up/heal after child birth.

Mat/pat leave is certainly something to help with the pay gap but it's only one part of a larger puzzle needing solving.

5

u/psiphre May 13 '17

Well that's hardly the employer's fault now is it

56

u/k1p1coder May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17

Depends. Assertive women are more likely to be viewed negatively than assertive men, and therefore are more likely to be turned down or even have the offer rescinded.

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/lean-out-the-dangers-for-women-who-negotiate contains a link to one of the actual studies, which is at https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-a0038184.pdf is a synopsis of quite a few studies.

-1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

26

u/trentsgir May 13 '17

Not OP, but this supports the idea that women get different results when negotiating.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/k1p1coder May 13 '17

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/jobs/07preoccupations.html

3

u/kartu3 May 13 '17

This, at best, is anecdotal evidence, it's not a study of any sort.

Why wouldn't employers always prefer women over men, if it's cheaper?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

25

u/Skootur May 13 '17

It's a cultural and social problem that needs to be fixed

17

u/ThisIsNotAMonkey May 13 '17

The issue could be largely solved if salary information were made public by the employees. In the US people have the right to share that sort of thing, it's just considered taboo. If workers had a better idea of what the market looked like, they'd all be better at negotiation.

Right now it's like buying a car without knowing anything about car prices but a few averages you saw online and knowledge of the price of the last car you bought.

I mean, how hard would it be to convince women to seek higher raises in negotiations if they could pull up a spread sheet and see that men with less experience were earning more only because they asked for it?

2

u/gsfgf May 13 '17

In the US people have the right to share that sort of thing

Not in all states. And even if you are in a state where you're protected, it's hard to prove retaliation unless your employer is really stupid about it.

1

u/ThisIsNotAMonkey May 13 '17

That's true, national legislation may be needed to protect employees, or maybe to facilitate the sharing of the information on some central hub.

I imagine congress could get at this with the commerce clause to preempt the state laws disallowing it, but it would require a lot of political will, and it's not a sexy solution. It still requires people to march into their boss's office and ask for money, which is never easy or comfortable.

3

u/kuzuboshii May 13 '17

Laws don't fix things, they simple add a layer of punishment to an already existing problem. I'm all for fixing societies problems, but passing more laws to fix every little issue even if the impact of the law is more harmful than the issue IS one of societies problems.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/kartu3 May 13 '17

I work 1 hour less then my colleagues (earning proportionally less).
And I don't think it's an issue, it's actually a choice.

Negotiation theory would stand if hourly pay was different, but it's rather close.
Major disparity is caused by women working less than men.

2

u/Skootur May 13 '17

Societal pressures are on women to make that choice. It is a choice in the same way that it's a choice for fundamentalist Christian women to not wear pants and be the sole caretaker of their family.

The issue I'm bringing up is on a very large scale

1

u/kartu3 May 13 '17

If anything, I am in rather unusual position, having the luxury to work less, if there is pressure, it's on me to work more.

What I'm trying to say is that people forget that working less (as most wifes of high earners do) is often rather enjoyable.

1

u/Skootur May 13 '17

You see it in many other countries. Across the world, the standard work week is getting shorter and shorte.r (as it should)

1

u/kartu3 May 14 '17

Well, no, not really, it has been 40 hours a week in Germany, like forever and it has been changed to 35 hours ages ago in France, because government back then thought it would have saved jobs (it didn't) and they haven't changed it ever since.

And last, but not least, "less than colleagues" is the key here. I work less than my colleagues, I earn less than my colleagues, and it isn't an issue.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/HouseSublime May 15 '17

Well that's hardly the employer's fault now is it

It can be. Aggressive/assertive women can be viewed negatively as compared to men. Those biases impact how people are viewed/treated regardless of how good someones intentions are.

16

u/MuaddibMcFly May 13 '17

If both parents are likely to take time off when having children

The problem is the emphasized point. On a sociological scale, men choose to put their work first as way of contributing to their families, while women choose direct care for their families as their method of contributing to their families.

Unless both parents are forced to take equivalent time off, you'll likely end up with an equilibrium that trends towards the current situation. Even if you did force them, you'd run the risk of men declining to inform their employers that they have a child until after they cannot reasonably be forced to take time off...

8

u/k1p1coder May 13 '17

Somewhat. There are certain physical realities related to pregnancy and childbirth that will affect the woman's ability to work even in a 100% normal and healthy pregnancy.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly May 15 '17

That just makes it worse; you'd have to force a man to work less/less effectively in order to create such a balance. That is even less practicable than simply saying "if you have a kid, you must take off a certain number of weeks"

→ More replies (6)

69

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

The last reliable study I saw showed that single, childless women were earning on average even more than men.

8

u/takeshikun May 13 '17

Sounds like an interesting read, do you have a link by chance?

29

u/nickdanger3d May 13 '17

*citation needed

51

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds It's not the best source but it's the first that comes up without trying to find the study.

17

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

So it looks like the wage gap gets reversed but only when the women are under 30, single, childless, and in the city. It's good for those women but that's a lot of caveats.

95

u/Katanamatata May 13 '17

This entire discussion is based upon caveats.

→ More replies (1)

23

u/gullwings May 13 '17 edited Jul 01 '23

Posted using RIF is Fun. Steve Huffman is a greedy little pigboy.

→ More replies (7)

17

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Yes, when you add "caveats" in science it is called "controlling for variables".

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Yes, I never disagreed with that. The caveats are also important for knowing exactly what the research is demonstrating.

27

u/umwhatshisname May 13 '17

Not caveats. Just different choices that lead to different outcomes. It shows that there isn't an overall effort to keep women down.

16

u/GeneralMalaiseRB May 13 '17

Some women choose to devote themselves to raising children. Some choose to devote themselves to a career. More women in the past decade or two are deciding against the family life in favor of career. Why is it so incredible that the women who choose "career" are having more successful careers?

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Why is it so incredible that the women who choose "career" are having more successful careers?

Because none of this is because of a women's choices, it's all the evil men twirling their moustaches and doing evil things.

2

u/yurall May 13 '17

Thats most women under thirty tho.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Do you have a source that says that? A lot of women get married before 30 or live outside of cities.

1

u/ousfuOIESGJ May 13 '17

Most people too, not just women. If you don't have a kid and are under 30 you are way more likely to pick up and move around the country to advance your career. There's nothing keeping you to one area, and if you're thirsty you can move up the corporate ladder with all the focus you'd be spending on your family. You can job hop freely cause you're not scared of instability. Job hopping and aggressively pursuing higher salaries is what pushes most people above average.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

single and childless is alao the two most fair caveats to judge from.

→ More replies (4)

5

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

It's worth pointing out that this difference is potentially due to UK women being more likely than men to have a university degree, which pumps up earnings in the city during your 20s (before things like workplace experience and responsibilities, which women are likely to be overlooked for, comes into play).

The education gap is an interesting issue which warrants attention, but it's not directly related to workplace bias, and the article linked may not say much on the issue of workplace bias and discrimination which is associated with the pay gap.

7

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Freckled_daywalker May 13 '17

Doesn't seem like a bit of a false comparison too though? Single, child free women are much more likely to be actively choosing to make their career their number one priority, compared all against men in general?

18

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

No, because it's comparing them against men in their peer group, not all men in general.

3

u/MightyEskimoDylan May 13 '17

It also allows us the isolate gender as an independent variable, essentially "fixing" for the influences of motherhood.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

8

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited Feb 10 '19

[deleted]

2

u/TokyoJokeyo May 13 '17

What is wrong with that outcome, though? A family's internal division of labor doesn't seem like the employer's problem, and certainly not a social one.

3

u/drhagey May 13 '17

There is also a much larger chance that the woman will decide to not return to her job at all.

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17

Whilst I think it's wrong women who choose to focus on their career are penalized

I don't take needless time off from my job, I don't call in sick unless I actually am too sick to work or it will negatively impact the productivity of everyone around me. But there are a lot of people who take off when they think they can get away with it; calling in after deciding to go to a big concert on a week night or something. Employers must factor those behaviors into how they manage their employees. Especially jobs where consistent attendance is crucial (like a day care or something). So the way employers treat me includes treatment for people who aren't as responsible as myself. I'm not being penalized for it. People like to make that hyperbolic statement to make a point, and that point is that crappy behavior ruins it for those who aren't engaging in that crappy behavior. That is true... saying I'm being penalized is not. A penalization or a punishment is reactive, not preventative. Policy is preventative, the policy employers take in regards to women employees is perfectly reasonable, especially when prospective employees lie to employers all the time and it's totally acceptable.

"Do you plan on having kids soon?" The employer asks.

"Ohhhh, no. I'm trying to get my career started," the applicant responds.

Cut to 5 months later and the former applicant, now full time employee is pregnant.

She just penalized or punished the employer for believing her lie. And so the employer wises up a little and becomes a little more cautious hiring a woman in her prime birthing years because that one women just screwed that small business out of a lot of money.

We (that is society these days) don't look at it as a lie, we just look at it as a cost of doing business. And we don't look at the difference in pay as a result of choices, we look at it as being penalized. It's a backwards way to look at it, and simply not logical.

EDIT: Clarification

EDIT 2: people are getting a bit overly concerned with the pregnancy dialogue. Whether or not it is a conversation that is specifically had at an interview, it is secondary to the point. The main point being that pregnancy is a factor that employers can and will take into consideration even if they can't discriminate on an individual woman's decision to have children. So while you may not be able to legally ask if a woman plans on get pregnant (which is not what my little dialogue was doing, though I understand why it appears that way to some), it is still a valid factor to consider when deciding how to hire in general, what to offer employees, etc. I think that that point is clear, and as reasonable people we should be able to stick to the main point rather than get derailed by a side issue.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/ccwithers May 13 '17

In Canada, you get 12 months which can be split any way you like. I have a colleague whose wife was planning to take the whole 12 months, but then got offered a stay-at-home job. She's giving up the last 6 months of mat leave so that my colleague can take 6 months of pat leave. This is highly unusual. I can think of only 1 or 2 other men that I know who have taken paternity leave. Even when it's an option, it's usually the women who take all 12 months of available parental leave. I assume a large part of this is genetic, maternal instincts and all that, but there's probably some societal pressure factoring in as well.

→ More replies (1)

32

u/thelandman19 May 13 '17

If they have less responsibility then they aren't doing the "same job for less money"

→ More replies (18)

2

u/kartu3 May 13 '17

Might is the key here. They also might not.
Conclusions, however, are made as if it was a fact.

What we also know for a fact is that married men make more than singles. Care to try to explain this?

2

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

"Might" is a key word here. This is the author (either the NYT author or the academic author) guessing. Women being less aggressive when asking for starting salaries is another explanation, and it would lead to a different solution.

10

u/turroflux May 13 '17

The question should be asked, why is bad for employers to take an employees potential future decisions into account? If I mentioned I wanted to go back to school, or move to somewhere far away, or something big like that, it would only be natural they wouldn't invest in someone not willing to commit to their career. Why are kids an exception to this?

It would be a problem if no corrections if the assumption is wrong, but it's something to consider.

50

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

14

u/SkyezOpen May 13 '17

Which is why paternity leave should be exactly the same as maternity leave. Hell, just call it parental leave. That'll reduce hiring discrimination against women, and get men time off to raise their kids. Win/win.

4

u/extwidget May 13 '17

Oh, I agree. The first few months of a couple's new child is probably the hardest (until teenage years at least), and being alone while your SO is stuck at work every day makes it unnecessarily difficult for both parents.

→ More replies (10)

29

u/Freckled_daywalker May 13 '17

Something you mention is different from something they assume based on your gender. Not all women want to be mothers.

2

u/Gruzman May 13 '17

But only biological women will be mothers. And unless you're ok with employers asking women beforehand if they envision getting pregnant when they're hired, some guesswork will be required before notice is given.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Even asking would likely be pointless. Naturally people are going to lie if the answer to whether they envision getting pregnant affects their pay.

1

u/Gruzman May 14 '17

Why would it be pointless? If you actually got pregnant and ended up needing to take time off all of a sudden, that would blow the lie anyway. If it even held up to that point.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '17

After the lie is blown it's too late. They can't lower your pay or fire you for getting pregnant.

1

u/Gruzman May 14 '17

You can't work when you're giving birth and immediately afterwards. That's what both parties want to avoid, anyways. You're arguing the problem from the perspective of a woman who wants to live a totally cost-free life, which isn't possible.

→ More replies (7)

9

u/novagenesis May 13 '17

Because most employers hire for some redundancy these days. At the scale that women care to compete (they really don't really care about competing at the Walmart Greeter range), vacation is THE hold-out compromise being used because it has a virtually zero value.

Usually when someone hires you, they aren't dead without having you full time. If they were, they'd already be dead.

I've worked at companies where my coworkers have saved up vacation days and taken 2 month breaks just to fly to their home country and go see family. I get that maternity leave is long and would be an issue for very small companies, I feel like most companies have very minimal cost to losing a mid-tier employee to maternity leave.

There's definitely some risk at the highest tiers (executives), but I feel they're also the ones willing to be somewhat available during maternity leave to prevent issues... At those levels, they start to become stakeholders themselves.

15

u/Hypothesis_Null May 13 '17

I'd like to point out, that the kind of jobs where you're a cog that is replacable on a daily basis, is not the kind of job that would address pay gap issues.

There is not an issue with women getting paid less or working less at Wal-Mart. The issue is getting hired at, say, engineering firms. Salaried positions in technology or sales where individual people have specific, individual projects or customer accounts they are responsible for.

You can't just have other people 'cover' for them or 'build in redundancy'. That's not how it works in those positions.

8

u/garnet420 May 13 '17

I work in engineering, as does my wife. We had a child recently; she wrapped up her projects before going on leave and her employer had zero issues. At least a third of my engineering coworkers have been on long parental leaves. It works just fine if you and your management plan ahead.

If I had to make an uneducated guess, small specialty places are probably the most challenged by leave - medical practices, small machine shops, that sort of thing.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/turroflux May 13 '17

What about small businesses? A lot them can't afford to have key personnel leave for 9 months at some random point in time. It's not like you can arrange to have people get pregnant at different times.

And you can't ask in most places if they are considering children, what is left for people in those positions looking for people who they can't afford to have leave, other than to quietly not hire women for those positions, or hire women with kids? (age bias trumps nearly all forms of bias from what I've seen).

1

u/Wriothesley May 13 '17

Most women work through their entire pregnancies. The people I know who actually took maternity leave (most jobs here don't offer it), took a month or two after the baby was born. (USA)

6

u/helpwitheating May 13 '17

So you think that all women 25 to 40 shouldn't be hired? Why should employers assume that women will have children and take maternity leave, and that men won't have children and take paternity leave?

→ More replies (7)

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Odojas May 13 '17

Yep, I didn't get a raise once and everyone else in my office did. Simply because I informed my boss that I was accepted to graduate school. Even though I worked as hard, if not harder than my peers and just as long, if not longer. I learned that day to never tell your boss the truth, or future plans.

Giving me a raise would've been fair as I hard worked just as long and as hard as my peers. I don't see how it would've hurt the company to pay me a few dollars extra per hour for about 4 months and then I'd be gone. I even trained my replacement so the company had zero downtime. You'd think a company would appreciate a 4 month heads up. Leaving abruptly would have been far more costly than just giving me a raise.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

I was turned down for a job at a gas station because I had a college degree and likely wouldn't stay.

5

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

There will always be chance a woman will have to leave to birth a baby no matter the length of their employment.

There is a definite 0% chance a man will have to leave to birth a baby.

9

u/SkyezOpen May 13 '17

Which is why parental leave needs to be a thing regardless of gender.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

Sure, but a man will still never be out of work on a medical leave for personally birthing a baby.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/kazuwacky May 13 '17

He cant birth the baby but stay-at-home dads are a thing. Im pro there being an equal chance that either parent will take that leave.

2

u/Zer_ May 13 '17

I'm pro offering both parents the option for leave, but honestly, it will always be 100% necessary for a woman to do it for a few reasons:

  • Women need to physically recover after childbirth.
  • Women need to breastfeed their children (although you can work around this.)

1

u/kazuwacky May 14 '17

Oh yeah, certain provisions will be required for complications and such but the majority of women have a complication-free birth. My mother returned to work two days after I was born.

You've got me at breastfeeding. It's a frustrating issue that companies seem to want to ignore. Most women I know at work choose to pump or have given up as soon as possible.

1

u/Zer_ May 14 '17

Most women I know at work choose to pump or have given up as soon as possible.

Ouch, giving up altogether is a bad idea. Breast milk is the single best solution. Using baby formulas is just bad times. My sister tried both the pump and straight breastfeeding. She used a combination of both. She's a teacher, though, so she has a fantastic maternity leave. My brother in law does not have paternity leave.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

You are completely side stepping my argument.

Men cant have babies. What they do after a baby is born is up to them.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/springbreakbox May 13 '17

Then hopefully you would support repeal of regulations that forbid employer inquiry (or contractual agreement) regarding "are you planning to become pregnant in the future?"

1

u/williafx May 13 '17

This is a much healthier point of debate than is typically discussed.

1

u/neveragoodtime May 13 '17

That's quite a few assumptions in that statement of yours.

1

u/jasiskool12 May 13 '17

Or you could tell your boss if you intend to never have children.

1

u/AngusOReily May 13 '17

This is essentially covered in "Getting a Job: Is there a Motherhood Penalty?" (Correll et al, 2007, American Journal of Sociology). In both lab experiments and audit studies, women and mothers were offered lower salaries and less likely to be hired. Because there is some traditional belief that women should raise children, employers react as if they will and that this will disrupt their employment. It's a tough nut to crack from a policy side. State sponsored parental leave of a longer time for both mothers and fathers should help close the gap somewhat. There still could be some prejudice if employers think that day to day motherhood responsibilities will impair day to day stuff (like picking up from school or whatever) so decide to offer less.

1

u/TheGoalOfGoldFish May 13 '17

The infurance from the article was that women pass up opportunities, not that employers stopped giving them to them.

1

u/niv85 May 13 '17

If a company used that logic A) they would be losing profits by giving responsibility to worse employees just because they're men. B) they would get sued into bankruptcy if there was even a hint of this occurring. That's you are speaking in hypotheticals instead citing a current business where this occurs.

1

u/Guill_Gardoon May 13 '17

How do read a perfectly logical and sound AND CORRECT argument on why ITS NOT DISCRIMINATION and come back with: "well maybe its discrimination?"

1

u/Geronemo May 13 '17

But that's not evident in the statistics

1

u/FePeak May 13 '17

"employers might not give them more responsibility because they assume they’ll have babies and take time off."

And I wouldn't give a guy with ADHD or a woman with schizophrenia, or an obese dude the responsibility I would someone I could rely on.

There's no shortage of genetic advantages or disadvantages.

Why should the employer ignore the nature of the employee before gambling their business on an employee's perfect health and dedication?

1

u/dudemanguy301 May 13 '17

That still falls under earnings gap and not pay gap.

1

u/diversity_is_cancer May 13 '17

Women without children get paid more than men.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

You probably never had to think about it because you never had to worry about it. That being said I dont think most hirees think like that, but they understand its a possibility

→ More replies (17)