If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   The claim that women make 81 cents to the dollar than men earn doing the same job? It's apparently not only bogus, but also crude and misleading. Like most men   (forbes.com) divider line 196
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

14026 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2012 at 12:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-22 08:22:30 AM  
FTA: "If we examine all of the occupations for which a wage gap can be computed based on available BLS data and weight them according to the number of women in each occupation, we find that the weighted median wage gap, by occupation, is about 86.5:100."

Well, I guess that settles the issue then.
 
2012-05-22 08:45:13 AM  
Forbes runs this article or a version of it at least once a week. How threatened do its editors feel by women? Pretty farking threatened.
 
2012-05-22 08:45:52 AM  
Keep polishing that turd.
 
2012-05-22 10:00:24 AM  
Not quite, Subby. See, "crude" in this instance doesn't mean "wrong", but "coarse," in contradistinction to "fine".
See, the statement "the median female wage in the U.S. is only 81% of the median male wage" is absolutely correct. But it doesn't say much about why that is. That's why it's "crude".
 
2012-05-22 10:10:31 AM  
All and all a 19% differential is surprisingly low given the fact that 80% of women will be leaving the work force for a considerable amount of time before the age of 40. With many never returning.
 
2012-05-22 10:18:20 AM  
Doesn't the gap increase when the factors that you can control for, such as hours worked, occupation, and maternity leave are taken into consideration down to 77% or something? Yeah, the median wage is lower, but so is the adjusted mean when controlling for all of the factors that the loud squad complains about.
 
2012-05-22 10:18:52 AM  

MorrisBird: Forbes runs this article or a version of it at least once a week. How threatened do its editors feel by women? Pretty farking threatened.


I trust Forbes for its video game coverage and essentially nothing else.
 
2012-05-22 10:23:08 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: All and all a 19% differential is surprisingly low given the fact that 80% of women will be leaving the work force for a considerable amount of time before the age of 40. With many never returning.


That would explain it, if there were no gender wage gap for young women who have never left the work force, and the gender wage gap only appears in cohorts of women who do leave the work force. But, no, there's still a gap of up to 13%.

One potential explanation is that employers, believing that women will "be leaving the work force for a considerable amount of time," assign them only to easily-replaceable lower grade positions with higher turnover rates. If you believe your worker is going to leave in 3 years, you don't want to spend 2 training them.

The problem, of course, is that this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if women tend to get assigned to lower paying, less fulfilling positions, then when a couple decides to have a kid and figures out which one should stay home, it becomes an easy economic decision: the one earning less.

As a result, fathers end up being discouraged from being stay-at-home dads, end up faring worse in child custody hearings (because they're not the 'primary caretaker'), end up responsible for paying rehabilitative alimony in divorce, have less intense connections with their children, etc. As a result, the pay gap strongly hurts both genders.
 
2012-05-22 10:42:50 AM  

Theaetetus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: All and all a 19% differential is surprisingly low given the fact that 80% of women will be leaving the work force for a considerable amount of time before the age of 40. With many never returning.

That would explain it, if there were no gender wage gap for young women who have never left the work force, and the gender wage gap only appears in cohorts of women who do leave the work force. But, no, there's still a gap of up to 13%.

One potential explanation is that employers, believing that women will "be leaving the work force for a considerable amount of time," assign them only to easily-replaceable lower grade positions with higher turnover rates. If you believe your worker is going to leave in 3 years, you don't want to spend 2 training them.

The problem, of course, is that this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if women tend to get assigned to lower paying, less fulfilling positions, then when a couple decides to have a kid and figures out which one should stay home, it becomes an easy economic decision: the one earning less.

As a result, fathers end up being discouraged from being stay-at-home dads, end up faring worse in child custody hearings (because they're not the 'primary caretaker'), end up responsible for paying rehabilitative alimony in divorce, have less intense connections with their children, etc. As a result, the pay gap strongly hurts both genders.


There is also the fact that men are more likely to travel for work, work 60 hours a week, and tend to negotiate their starting salary and ask for raises far more than women.
 
2012-05-22 11:30:24 AM  

ArkAngel: There is also the fact that men are more likely to travel for work, work 60 hours a week, and tend to negotiate their starting salary and ask for raises far more than women.


Men are more likely to be in a stronger position to negotiate than women. Bosses respond better to negotiation and salary requests from men because they expect men to make those requests and negotiations. When women do make requests and negotiate, the result tends to be that the boss declines to budge because the boss "knows" the woman will just take what is offered anyway.

This is my experience when getting a great review and going in prepped with a positive negotiating strategy. Now, I understand that sometimes guys get knocked back when negotiating, too. And what you do when you're knocked back, if you're really behind the curve for your salary advancement in your field, is change jobs. BTDT.

And it works. But where guys do get an edge---or used to before the "Great Recession"---was that negotiating in the intervening years while they were still at a job would not infrequently get them some traction on a raise or a bonus if they'd pulled off some exceptional performance they could point to. If they'd had a so-so year, no dice, but if they could point to unusual and specific accomplishments, well, traction.

I think the point for learning here isn't to turn this into a whinable moment. "Wah. Men bad. Women victimized. Wah wah wah."

I think it's more useful to break the causes of the wage differential down into pieces and look at why those pieces happen.

For example, when you look at number of hours worked---is the guy putting in more hours...while she's picking up his socks and underwear off the floor and clock-watching, herself, to do it? This isn't a whinable moment for her--but it might be a moment to think about. (One of those moments where sometimes women do things to "take care of" men that they didn't ask us to do, don't necessarily want, and maybe we should step back, take a deep breath, and just...not.)

Or is she doing stuff he asked her to do and maybe he needs to pull his own weight or pay someone to take care of whatever it is? Yes, you do have to pay someone to walk your dog so she's not always rushing out the door at the end of the day at work. Sometimes the "discrimination" is a spouse that hurts your career in subtle or not so subtle ways--men have had career-killer wives, too.

It's useful to break down the different places in the system where it's happening and what's causing it. I'm not surprised that it's got multiple causes. I'm not surprised to find that for part of the societal stew that makes the problem, women ourselves are tossing in the ingredients.

It takes finding out what those ingredients are to fix the problems.

And it takes fixing the problems to liberate men from some of the particular hassles they suffer in divorces. Divorce will never be easy, but it will be much less difficult if both parties are capable of supporting themselves and the children after the split.

I don't think men mean to be villains about housework. Too many women come into relationships with the attitude of, "There is only one right way to do each household task, and that is the way I learned to do it from Mama. If you do it any other way, you are WRONG."

(This attitude is not confined to women. There are plenty of men who bring into a relationship the One True and Right Way to do everything from folding a shirt to stuffing a turkey.)

Anyway. However you slice it, women work more hours of housework at home, which I would suspect is part of fewer hours at the office.

Knowing how the numbers break down is key to finding better ways to deal with the issues (rather than simply sitting and whining about them).
 
2012-05-22 11:34:20 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-22 12:10:34 PM  
The best thing about having a female boss?
You make more than she does.

/Bonus: Women will actually believe this article.
 
2012-05-22 12:14:17 PM  
I'm going to fire all my male employees and only hire women from now on.
I'll save at least 15% in salary, and the work that gets done will be exactly the same.
 
2012-05-22 12:15:54 PM  

Julie Cochrane: Anyway. However you slice it, women work more hours of housework at home, which I would suspect is part of fewer hours at the office.


Wong....when you include mowing the lawn changing the oil in your vehicles and all that "Man stuff" then men wind up doing slightly more than women.
 
2012-05-22 12:19:10 PM  
Men dont take ovulation breaks.

Also where is the gender gap in porn and stripping?
 
2012-05-22 12:20:53 PM  

WhippingBoy: I'm going to fire all my male employees and only hire women from now on.
I'll save at least 15% in salary, and the work that gets done will be exactly the same.


Have you ever worked in an all-female environment?
 
2012-05-22 12:21:24 PM  

MorrisBird: Forbes runs this article or a version of it at least once a week.


That's fewer times than I hear this bogus stat misused to try to justify some new law of policy.
 
2012-05-22 12:21:27 PM  

WhippingBoy: I'm going to fire all my male employees and only hire women from now on.
I'll save at least 15% in salary, and the work that gets done will be exactly the same.


Except three days a month, when your office will go batshiat crazy.
 
2012-05-22 12:22:48 PM  
Women hookers and strippers make considerably more than then their male counterparts, so it all evens out.
 
2012-05-22 12:23:22 PM  
I say this as someone who believes that gender discrimination is a real problem in workplaces in the U.S., and who believes that no one should be paid less simply because of their sex.

I say this as someone who supports legislation to prohibit employers from retaliating against workers who divulge their salaries (which can help root out gender discrimination by allowing women to compare salaries with their male colleagues).

In short, I say this as someone who shares the goal of eliminating unjust discrimination against women in the workplace ... but who is concerned that the inaccuracies and unfounded inferences made by movements like Narrow the Gapp and the NWLC ultimately undermine the credibility of the cause.


Well this guy is clearly a misogynist.
 
2012-05-22 12:24:05 PM  
They have multiple orgasms, and now they want equal pay, too?!

Never satisfied Women...sheesh.
 
2012-05-22 12:25:40 PM  
If they would just get in the kitchen and make me a samich none of this would be a problem.
 
2012-05-22 12:25:47 PM  
DAT GAP
 
2012-05-22 12:25:47 PM  

meat0918: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 530x609]


I'm surprised "Teaching assistants" didn't throw off the curve. Being infinity% more than men, after all.
 
2012-05-22 12:27:20 PM  
This is what women actually believe...
 
2012-05-22 12:27:45 PM  
ftfa: can be attributed to factors other than gender discrimination, such as choice of industry, choice of occupation, years of work experience, and union status.

Laffo. And if past discrimination has surreptitiously barred women from certain industries and unions, causing them to have less experience, and therefor held certain occupations to be unobtainable? Never mind the good old boys club of the finance "industry" which probably accounts for the skewing of the raw overall ratio.

More conservative bullshiat from Forbes, nothing new here.
 
2012-05-22 12:28:52 PM  
Until more women are willing to support stay at home males, I don't give a shiat.

/kidding
 
2012-05-22 12:29:38 PM  
I love how people are taking the article as saying there is no discrimination, when it says exactly the opposite.

It is true that the commonly cited statistics are misrepresented on a regular basis. Women work in different careers than men (and this is an issue, but a separate one that needs to be dealt with separately, as the article says). They also tend to have less work experience (as many leave for maternity and/or parental leave), again there are likely issues here, but they are different issues and should be dealt with separately. Companies shouldn't just start paying a less experienced woman the same as a more experienced man but actions should be taken separately (the US, for example, needs better and more protected maternity and parental leaves).

The end point of the article is that using appropriate figures is preferable as they show the same thing, if to a lesser degree. And that not doing so only opens them up to arguments based on the misleading figures they are using.
 
2012-05-22 12:30:31 PM  
Eh, there's a point in TFA and it's been made many times before. You have to factor in other criteria that could effect the wages of men versus women. Just citing the base comparison isn't good enough.

I believe there is a gender based wage gap and that it's wrong. I do not believe that it serves the side of gender equality in the work place to exaggerate that gap though.
 
2012-05-22 12:30:44 PM  

MorrisBird: Forbes runs this article or a version of it at least once a week. How threatened do its editors feel by women? Pretty farking threatened.


"In short, I say this as someone who shares the goal of eliminating unjust discrimination against women in the workplace ... (sic) but who is concerned that the inaccuracies and unfounded inferences made by movements like Narrow the Gapp and the NWLC ultimately undermine the credibility of the cause."

How is that "threatened"?
 
2012-05-22 12:30:53 PM  
In my experience in office jobs, the same women whining about less pay do less work. They sit around gabbing and gossiping all day. If you are lazy and shiftless, you have earned less, so you will get less.
 
2012-05-22 12:33:51 PM  

rmoody: ftfa: can be attributed to factors other than gender discrimination, such as choice of industry, choice of occupation, years of work experience, and union status.

Laffo. And if past discrimination has surreptitiously barred women from certain industries and unions, causing them to have less experience, and therefor held certain occupations to be unobtainable? Never mind the good old boys club of the finance "industry" which probably accounts for the skewing of the raw overall ratio.

More conservative bullshiat from Forbes, nothing new here.


Remember, when a moderate conservative says "I agree with your aims but stop exaggerating the problem of (global warming, discrimination against women, whatever) because the exaggeration DOES NOT HELP THE CAUSE" it's "conservative bullshiat".
 
2012-05-22 12:34:20 PM  
That sounds about right. Broads can't keep up with men when it counts
 
2012-05-22 12:35:21 PM  

dywed88: I love how people are taking the article as saying there is no discrimination, when it says exactly the opposite.

It is true that the commonly cited statistics are misrepresented on a regular basis. Women work in different careers than men (and this is an issue, but a separate one that needs to be dealt with separately, as the article says). They also tend to have less work experience (as many leave for maternity and/or parental leave), again there are likely issues here, but they are different issues and should be dealt with separately. Companies shouldn't just start paying a less experienced woman the same as a more experienced man but actions should be taken separately (the US, for example, needs better and more protected maternity and parental leaves).

The end point of the article is that using appropriate figures is preferable as they show the same thing, if to a lesser degree. And that not doing so only opens them up to arguments based on the misleading figures they are using.


And just as with global warming, the exaggeration and deliberately misleading attempts to shock people into support has caused way more people to turn against the cause than it ever turned into supporters.
 
2012-05-22 12:36:17 PM  

patrick767: Eh, there's a point in TFA and it's been made many times before. You have to factor in other criteria that could effect the wages of men versus women. Just citing the base comparison isn't good enough.

I believe there is a gender based wage gap and that it's wrong. I do not believe that it serves the side of gender equality in the work place to exaggerate that gap though.


Well, then, obviously you're spewing MORE CONSERVATIVE BULLshiat.
 
2012-05-22 12:36:59 PM  
"...we find that the weighted median wage gap, by occupation, is about 86.5:100. That's 5.5 percentage points different than the 81:100 estimate"

$.05 more than the gubberment says so they lie

www.cartoonwork.com
 
2012-05-22 12:37:37 PM  
"Why Men Earn More"

Link

Basically the same info, but presented in better detail then forbes readers digest version.
 
2012-05-22 12:37:38 PM  
A woman wrote the article and got the math wrong? Then a man came along and fixed it for her? I hope he was compensated better.
 
2012-05-22 12:38:01 PM  
Good to see more people taking a closer look at what's behind the numbers. It used to be pretty much everyone looked at the numbers and said either "total BS fabrication" or "100% true, this is proof of women-hate".

To the points brought up by Theaetetus, ArkAngel, Julie Cochrane... it would be interesting to see a breakdown of those numbers among men and women in similar life circumstances. So including age, marital and head-of-household status, etc. And that needs to be in addition to better breakdowns within career categories and the types of organizations where they work. Simply saying "accountants" or "high-school teachers" isn't enough.

I remember seeing an article a while back which said that single professional women make more than their male counterparts. Of course that was for yet another cherry-picked set of particular criteria, but that's kind of the point... context always matters. And at what point do we differentiate between "we need to do something about this" versus "something people should just take note of when making life and career decisions".
 
2012-05-22 12:38:33 PM  

meanmutton: And just as with global warming, the exaggeration and deliberately misleading attempts to shock people into support has caused way more people to turn against the cause than it ever turned into supporters.


And the people that argue based on misleading facts are every bit as wrong as those in denial and open up avenues of continuous attack that strengthen the opposition.
 
2012-05-22 12:47:18 PM  
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, and that I think is relevant, is the tendency for men to be more likely to work dangerous or physically-challenging jobs. Those type of jobs often pay a bit more than "normal" jobs for a similar level of skill and experience. In the same way that it can be argued that women are discouraged by society from taking certain higher-paying jobs in male-dominated field, I think that it can be argued that men are encouraged by society to take certain types of jobs if the pay is right.

/Come on dude, grow some balls. No one has lost a hand in that machine for a couple of years now.
//You'll get used to carrying around those 50lb buckets after a couple of weeks. Don't be a pussy.
 
2012-05-22 12:48:55 PM  
dywed88 2012-05-22 12:29:38 PM

I love how people are taking the article as saying there is no discrimination, when it says exactly the opposite.


Even if there is a disparity in pay, why does that mean discrimination? My last company had 4 vice presidents. They all did essentially the same job, but all four had different salaries. Discrimination? No. Some people are simply a little more ballsy when negotiating a salary. Like men, for instance.
 
2012-05-22 12:48:56 PM  
I think women have more complex scenarios going on that caused that median wage discrepancy. Such as a lot of women I know quit full-time jobs to work part-time at flexible jobs not within their field of study or stay at home until their youngest kid goes to kindergarten. That could be as few as 5 years, but usually 10-15 years. That is a LONG time to not be working on your field so of course when you come back you will be started at the salary you were pretty much at when you left, while all your male colleagues have continued working, earning raises, and gaining experience. Yet some of the women I know still expect that higher salary which is completely unreasonable.

Also, I've noticed my female colleagues are more willing to take unpaid vacation/sick time to take care of sick kids, go to school events, etc. then my male colleagues. Also they never volunteer to work over 40 hours a week because they need their family time. Therefore they aren't getting paid as much since they take unpaid time and it also makes them look poor in the eyes of management when promotions and raises come about. I know a couple doting fathers too and they are in the same position, less pay and haven't been promoted in years.

Then there is the issue of women not asking for raises or negotiating their salary. Then again with this job climate being able to negotiate for salary and raised might go by the wayside since employers know they don't have to with 100 other people waiting to take whatever they offer. Education can fix this though if it is still problems.

I'd be curious to see the wage discrepancy between childless woman or woman with full-time care for their children (so are able to work longer hours) compared to men's salary. I bet it would be pretty minor, maybe even a 2% difference. If that is the case then the only sexist thing keeping women from (on average) earning the same salary as a man are children which has always had more of a burden on women then men. No amount of legislation is going to change that unless you want to force employers to pay people for work they aren't doing.
 
2012-05-22 12:49:55 PM  

xip_80: One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, and that I think is relevant, is the tendency for men to be more likely to work dangerous or physically-challenging jobs. Those type of jobs often pay a bit more than "normal" jobs for a similar level of skill and experience. In the same way that it can be argued that women are discouraged by society from taking certain higher-paying jobs in male-dominated field, I think that it can be argued that men are encouraged by society to take certain types of jobs if the pay is right.


That doesn't really address the gap shown in the chart earlier in this thread. If women are taking different jobs, you'd expect some parity in those jobs. However, even in jobs that women are most likely to work, there is a significant pay gap.
 
2012-05-22 12:51:30 PM  

Virtue: Julie Cochrane: Anyway. However you slice it, women work more hours of housework at home, which I would suspect is part of fewer hours at the office.

Wong....when you include mowing the lawn changing the oil in your vehicles and all that "Man stuff" then men wind up doing slightly more than women.


Citation?

According to a number of studies I've read, when you include all the work (childcare, home maintenance, etc.), women still do more than men do around the house.
Here's a news story about one of these studies.
"The study looks at men and women in 29 of the world's more developed countries. And how much time they spent on chores, such as mowing the lawn or doing the dishes. . . . American men spend three hours a day on household chores, but that is one hour and 40 minutes less than American women."
 
2012-05-22 12:51:44 PM  

rmoody: ftfa: can be attributed to factors other than gender discrimination, such as choice of industry, choice of occupation, years of work experience, and union status.

Laffo. And if past discrimination has surreptitiously barred women from certain industries and unions, causing them to have less experience, and therefor held certain occupations to be unobtainable? Never mind the good old boys club of the finance "industry" which probably accounts for the skewing of the raw overall ratio.

More conservative bullshiat from Forbes, nothing new here.


that same past discrimination applies to men as well. not every man is welcomed into the union, a guild or the 'boys club'. not every man has a helpful uncle or a neighbor who knows a guy. plenty of guys learn trades & vocations but only a fraction of them get the chance to apprentice on real job sites until they get a license / union card.

discrimination knows no bounds it seems. as for those men who were discriminated against, it's not just a discrepancy in pay, it's a primary paycheck not coming into a household at all.
 
2012-05-22 12:52:51 PM  
If somebody gets the job done, you should pay them the same money. Period. The fact that women DO get discriminated against for pay is the problem nobody wants to address honestly. If somebody is sitting on their ass, slacking, pissing and moaning and wasting your company's time and money, you should fire their lazy ass. Period. But God help you if you fire a woman for that cause you might get a discrimination suit shoved up your ass. And therein lies the OTHER employment problem that nobody wants to address honestly.
 
2012-05-22 12:53:30 PM  
It's pretty obvious which people read the headline and which people read the article.
 
2012-05-22 12:54:08 PM  
Hey, I just work here. And this is crazy. But here's my paycheck, raise it maybe?
 
2012-05-22 12:55:15 PM  

draypresct: American men spend three hours a day on household chores, but that is one hour and 40 minutes less than American women


That's a lot of hours per day. Even if you assume that they spend extra time on the weekend to boost the overall average, that's a shiatload of time every day.

Do some laundry, cook some food, wash some dishes, vacuum, clean the bathrooms, mow the lawn, repair stuff.

Most of these are not things you need to do every day, and some can be parallelized (like laundry).

Where are these people wasting so much of their time?
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report