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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MorrisBird: Forbes runs this article or a version of it at least once a week.
meat0918: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 530x609]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
draypresct: American men spend three hours a day on household chores, but that is one hour and 40 minutes less than American women
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 17 2017 11:28:35
Runtime: 0.644 sec (643 ms)