Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

14028 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
 
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?
 
2012-05-22 12:58:30 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: 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?


You should know, you're one of them aren't you?
 
2012-05-22 12:59:15 PM  

Satyagraha: $.05 more than the gubberment says so they lie


That's just to start. Then you factor in for other things. Little things like how many hours worked, may have an small impact on earnings.
 
2012-05-22 12:59:47 PM  

tuffsnake: AverageAmericanGuy: 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?

You should know, you're one of them aren't you?


That's what I'm saying. I have no idea how they are wasting that much time. I have to assume the statistics are incorrect.
 
2012-05-22 12:59:59 PM  
I think that the author of the article misses much of the point: that women don't just make less when they do the same job, they have a hard time getting the jobs that pay better in the first place.
 
2012-05-22 01:00:58 PM  

Theaetetus: 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.


there you go.

That is way you see the wage disparity before kids.

See! You answered your own question.
 
2012-05-22 01:01:23 PM  
What I got from this article:

"You can't PROVE it's discrimination causing the gap, so it CAN'T be discrimination! Nyah-nyah-nyah!"

Seriously, this author wigs out over a couple percentage points difference in describing the gap and then says that including systemic discrimination as part of the explanation for the pay gap is unfair, oh and actually it's women's own fault because they choose to be worth less by working jobs that aren't as important....

Yeah... not buying any of it.
 
2012-05-22 01:07:09 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


I think that it is still relevant. The chart just mentions broad categories of workers with no specifics. Consider "office clerks, general." It says nothing of the working conditions or hours of the specific jobs. My point is that I think men would be more likely than women to take an office clerk job that offered more pay but also had some kind of drawback to make the job more disagreeable. I'm not saying that it's the only factor accounting for the wage gap, but I do think it's a relevant one.
 
2012-05-22 01:09:40 PM  
Maybe this makes up for the fact that choosing between a career or staying home with the children is still not a choice that most men have the luxury to make.
 
2012-05-22 01:10:21 PM  

altrocks: What I got from this article:

"You can't PROVE it's discrimination causing the gap, so it CAN'T be discrimination! Nyah-nyah-nyah!"


Then you didn't read the article because it says exactly the opposite.

altrocks: this author wigs out over a couple percentage points difference in describing the gap


Yes, a couple percentage points. Just a measly 60% of the gap.

Systemic discrimination has nothing to do with women being underpaid. It is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with separately using different means. Exactly what the article says.
 
2012-05-22 01:10:38 PM  

h0tsauce: I think that the author of the article misses much of the point: that women don't just make less when they do the same job, they have a hard time getting the jobs that pay better in the first place.


altrocks: What I got from this article:

"You can't PROVE it's discrimination causing the gap, so it CAN'T be discrimination! Nyah-nyah-nyah!"

Seriously, this author wigs out over a couple percentage points difference in describing the gap and then says that including systemic discrimination as part of the explanation for the pay gap is unfair, oh and actually it's women's own fault because they choose to be worth less by working jobs that aren't as important....

Yeah... not buying any of it.


Guys, read the article:

Now, it may be true that seemingly free choices, such as a person's choice of occupation, might actually be affected by systemic gender discrimination - such as when young women are subtly (or not so subtly) discouraged from pursuing well-paying careers in historically male-dominated industries. But let's not conflate that with direct workplace discrimination, in which a woman is paid less than comparable male colleagues simply because she is a woman. Both are problems that need to be confronted and addressed, but each deserves its own consideration; the better we can distinguish them, the better we can extinguish them, so it does no good to characterize one as the other.
 
2012-05-22 01:11:54 PM  
Where is this occurring? While I believe it, most of the women I've worked with in the same gig earned more. Again, I believe it, but i've never worked anywhere that i've seen it.
 
2012-05-22 01:19:29 PM  
"Math class is tough!" (often misquoted as "Math is hard").

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-05-22 01:20:53 PM  
What the raw numbers don't show is industry pay scales

For example, NPO have a lot more female employees than male. They also pay less, in general, than profit making industries. My anecdote. I spent years as a voluntary grant reviewer for the United Way. Every year the NPO's were asking for Grant Money to give pay raises to their staff to bring them up to "Industry Standard Wages". I don't know about other areas or groups, but our group never granted money that was going to be used for pay raises. We didn't feel it was in the United Way Charter. United Way money was to be used for meeting basic human needs. If the NPO wanted to give pay raises, we expected them to do their own independent fund raising, and raise undesignated dollars to do it with.
 
2012-05-22 01:21:46 PM  

Theaetetus: 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.


Another explanation is that women are choosing to go into lower paying, more fulfilling careers, like primary education and social worker, because they know they want a work/life balance. Also being in a low paying field isn't the social stigma for a woman that it is for a man.
 
2012-05-22 01:22:03 PM  
I'm not intelligent enough with numbers to follow half that article, but I think I got the gist of it.

Basically, when they did the numbers for the initial wage gap "they" made it too simple and forgot to include variables that would make the gap less pronounced.
 
2012-05-22 01:25:16 PM  
Never mind the earning gap, let's talk about where the real discrimination occurs: the spending gap. According to The Institute of Stuff I've Made Up, women spend 73% of all household income, regardless of who earns it. So which would you rather do: Earn money or spend it?
 
2012-05-22 01:26:08 PM  
This data is conclusive proof that men are smarter, harder working and worth more to employers than women.

/Statistics... they work lots of different ways.
 
2012-05-22 01:27:58 PM  

doubled99: 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.


Some people get a better response to them being ballsy when negotiating a salary. Just because John going in and being assertive and saying "X" gets him a 10% raise doesn't mean Mary going in and being equally assertive and saying exactly the same thing would get her a 10% raise---it might get her fired or demoted. Hint: that's why they call it discrimination.

So yeah, it may be that John does a better job of asking. Or it may be that the boss is more receptive to being asked by John.

When I was in junior high, if you asked the regular kids if there were cliques in school, they would tell you yes, very much, their grade was entirely run by cliques of popular kids.

If you asked the popular kids if there were cliques in school, they would tell you no, that their grade didn't have cliques, everyone just had their own friends.

That's pretty much true of every junior high--it's all a matter of perspective.

So one person's "John's just a more ballsy negotiator than Mary." is another person's "John's boss discriminates in favor of John and against Mary."

The truth is somewhere in the middle. When women do negotiate assertively, and come to the table prepared, they tend to find managers who are primed to think women don't negotiate assertively and that women will accept lowball offers. So while women who negotiate assertively get better offers than other women, they don't get offers as good as the ones gotten by men who negotiate assertively. And so forth.

It's a mix of both.

It's business, and at the levels of the game where people are really counting the dollars and caring about negotiating, people are less worried about "fair" and more worried about maximizing their returns in the game.

It is what it is. And if the prevailing stink of the market lets them shave a buck here and there by paying a gal less for the same job, they're not going to pay her one dollar more than they absolutely have to just to be nice guys. They're going to pay her what they can get away with paying her. Until market forces make it so they can't.
 
2012-05-22 01:31:16 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Theaetetus: 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.

Another explanation is that women are choosing to go into lower paying, more fulfilling careers, like primary education and social worker, because they know they want a work/life balance. Also being in a low paying field isn't the social stigma for a woman that it is for a man.


What about when you correct for that? In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.

Female heart surgeons start out ~$27k per year less. Female pulmonary disease specialists start out ~$44k per year less.

Link
 
2012-05-22 01:34:37 PM  
But women spend more money, so they got that going for them!
 
2012-05-22 01:36:17 PM  
The article writer's real problem is that he doesn't seem to realize that people use statistics to reinforce their beliefs, and not the other way around.

If he spent more time on Fark, Digg, and Slashdot, he'd realize how futile his efforts are.
 
2012-05-22 01:39:12 PM  
Yeah, yay hooray for being the one to pick up shiat at the grocery store.
 
2012-05-22 01:39:24 PM  

mgshamster: What about when you correct for that? In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.


From you own link, just like I was saying:

The large gender gap in starting salaries may have something to do with female physicians negotiating greater flexibility and family-friendly benefits, such as not being on-call after certain hours, Lo Sasso suggested.

"It may be that lifestyle factors are increasingly important to newer physicians. It could be that women in particular want to have more of a lifestyle balance in their medical careers," he said.



And this is a matter of my personal experience as the wife is a physician who is currently choosing to work part time to raise our kids.
 
2012-05-22 01:41:04 PM  
Other studies of gender distribution in the workplace show that the fields where women are in the majority tend to provide more stable work.

Men tend to be hurt more in recessions because male-dominant fields like construction and manufacturing tend to be linked to the state of the economy.. when times are good, the pay is good, but when times are bad, the pay is bad. Female-dominant fields like nursing and office management tend to be less volatile.. the pay isn't as good when times are good, but the pay doesn't drop as much when times are bad.

You could say that women tend to be more conservative about choosing jobs, and that -- like most investments -- the conservative options tend to offer lower but more stable returns. That isn't a condemnation.. you could easily say that women tend to be smarter about choosing jobs.

That also isn't a denial that gender bias in the workplace exists.. but when you hear about the need to narrow the gender gap in employment, people tend to think 'CEOs getting $100 million bonuses' not 'coal miners making $15/hr'.
 
2012-05-22 01:42:24 PM  
The only real value in this kind of breakdown isn't really the whole "battle of the sexes" thing. It's to look at life choices for potential pitfalls. Most people's life decisions happen not as a battle of the sexes but as part of a married team, and most people are in a marriage that stays married, and works out.

So the caveats are good things for them to note in their career planning so that they as a pair don't have either of them get skunked and they can plan together and avoid the pitfalls. That way if one of them gets disabled or something, they're as covered as possible.
 
2012-05-22 01:42:35 PM  

antron: 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?


I'm gonna be honest here. Women over the age of 40 piss me right the hell off if I'm around them for more than a half an hour. I literally can't eat lunch between 11 and 12 in the cafeteria here because of the incessant, LOUD cackling. I get being social. But the loud, long, constant KAHAKAHAKA! is ridiculous.

YMMV, I work in a fairly unique environment.

/The women I actually *work* with are nice and low key though.
//Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...
 
2012-05-22 01:44:14 PM  
And then there are all of the rest of us who for whatever reason don't fit that model, and avoiding whatever pitfalls we can, too. Or engaging in 20/20 hindsight.
 
2012-05-22 01:46:52 PM  

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


Well, you gotta want it.
 
2012-05-22 01:47:58 PM  

Julie Cochrane: And then there are all of the rest of us who for whatever reason don't fit that model, and avoiding whatever pitfalls we can, too. Or engaging in 20/20 hindsight.


Jesus... Don't you write for a living? :p

Diagram that sentence for me, why don't ya?
 
2012-05-22 01:49:10 PM  
Honest question.

If I am selling life insurance it is accepted practice to charge more for men of the same age because they will probably die sooner and I will have to pay out sooner, having made less off of premiums and investing those premiums. It is also OK to charge men more for their car insurance because they are more likely to have an accident.

But if I hire a woman and discount her salary because there is an 80% chance she will leave the workforce for an extended period, which would have a detrimental effect on my company, that is unacceptable discrimination.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but I do have to question how we decide what kind of discrimination is and isn't morally acceptable.
 
2012-05-22 01:50:03 PM  

BeesNuts: //Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...


Isn't that about the normal time for making that info public? Or is the minimum number of missed periods before a woman has to tell her co-workers less than 3?
 
2012-05-22 01:51:09 PM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: 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".


Not quite... That article does note that single professional women make more than men their age... but they're not their counterparts. Rather, they compare college-educated women in their first professional jobs after college, to all men, including GED earners and high-school drop out day laborers.
However, if they control for that variable and look at single college educated women and single college educated men in their very first job, the men earn more. And before you suggest "different career choices," as noted above, even in the same exact job, men out-earn women.

In other words, it's exactly the same sort of mistake as this article is pointing out - if you simply compare the median incomes of both populations, you're not really showing anything other than a single variable. In the case you mention, they've shown only that higher education raises median incomes compared to the average... which should be obvious already.
 
2012-05-22 01:56:14 PM  

BeesNuts: antron: 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?

I'm gonna be honest here. Women over the age of 40 piss me right the hell off if I'm around them for more than a half an hour. I literally can't eat lunch between 11 and 12 in the cafeteria here because of the incessant, LOUD cackling. I get being social. But the loud, long, constant KAHAKAHAKA! is ridiculous.

YMMV, I work in a fairly unique environment.

/The women I actually *work* with are nice and low key though.
//Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...


I agree 100%.

I used to take a train to work and back (1 hour each way). The majority of commuters were middle-aged women.
If you didn't bring an iPod, or some other device to shut out the cackling, you would literally be driven insane by the time the train pulled into the station.

I thought it was just me until I spoke with others about the experience. As soon as one guy mentioned "train ladies", everyone instantly knew what he was talking about, and had their own horror stories to tell.
 
2012-05-22 02:00:30 PM  
i would love to discuss the merits of equal pay for women, but, as a woman... i have to leave the office now to visit my daughter's 3rd grade teacher to discuss her coloring book options. this is actually good news, because i don't really understand what i do at work.. and it tends to give me frequent, workday ending migranes. omg i'm pregnant!
 
2012-05-22 02:01:38 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: mgshamster: What about when you correct for that? In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.

From you own link, just like I was saying:

The large gender gap in starting salaries may have something to do with female physicians negotiating greater flexibility and family-friendly benefits, such as not being on-call after certain hours, Lo Sasso suggested.

"It may be that lifestyle factors are increasingly important to newer physicians. It could be that women in particular want to have more of a lifestyle balance in their medical careers," he said.


And this is a matter of my personal experience as the wife is a physician who is currently choosing to work part time to raise our kids.


That's not what you were saying. You said: "fewer hours worked," and "lower paying/more fulfilling careers to get a better work/life balance." The link I provided corrected for hours, and showed the exact same career, so neither of those could be it. The only thing in the link is a suggestion that it might be salary negotiations for better work/life balance, but no evidence to back it.

If you did mean to say that they negotiate a lower wage for better benefits, then the article's suggestions support what you meant to say, rather than what you actually said. It does seem to make a bit of sense, but is it true? Is there research which supports this hypothesis? Or does the available research negate the hypothesis? Might be a good thing for us to look into.

As for your anecdote about your wife working part time - that was corrected by hours worked in the article. Also, since the article is based on starting salary fresh out of residency, did your wife choose to work part time fresh out of residency? How does her salary compare with male physicians in the same specialty with the same experience who work part time? (Since this is only anecdotal, whatever decisions your wife made won't skew the results, as it's just one of thousands of data points).

As for my own anecdotes, when my wife (a chemist) started her job, she made less than her male counterparts, despite the fact that she had greater work experience, better education, and was a harder worker (and this could be shown based on the quality and quantity of her work). This was a few years ago, though, and I don't know if it's changed since she got hired on as a salaried employee vs the hourly employee when she first started. She's asked me to stop bugging her about it, because she's not going to challenge the company in fear of reprisal.
 
2012-05-22 02:03:24 PM  
so buy 10 cent store-brand ramen instead of the 11 cent Nissin brand
 
2012-05-22 02:06:08 PM  
What I alway wonder when this comes around again... If women are being paid less, then why is anyone even employing men?
 
2012-05-22 02:07:48 PM  

mgshamster: She's asked me to stop bugging her about it, because she's not going to challenge the company in fear of reprisal.


This is pretty much the reason this gap exists... in my anecdotal experience.

/But we all know that already.
 
2012-05-22 02:13:38 PM  

SharkTrager: Honest question.

If I am selling life insurance it is accepted practice to charge more for men of the same age because they will probably die sooner and I will have to pay out sooner, having made less off of premiums and investing those premiums. It is also OK to charge men more for their car insurance because they are more likely to have an accident.

But if I hire a woman and discount her salary because there is an 80% chance she will leave the workforce for an extended period, which would have a detrimental effect on my company, that is unacceptable discrimination.

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but I do have to question how we decide what kind of discrimination is and isn't morally acceptable.


People don't stay with one company that long anymore. The truth is that the male worker you hire will leave your company, too. Promoting from within is largely a fantasy left over from a bygone era. Might happen that you can tap a guy from within, but generally a guy you have who acquires the knowledge base you're going to need for the next level up isn't going to wait around for a new position to open up, and a guy you have when a new position opens up isn't going to immediately have the knowledge base you need---while a guy applying from outside will already have it.

It used to be that men would sit around for years or entire careers while companies screwed them over and didn't promote them, despite the guys going out and working their butts off to earn MBAs, etc. You'd have a guy with an MBA and a list of quals as long as your arm, and management would pass him over for promotion not because he wasn't qualified for what he was applying for, but just because he was really good where he was and the company preferred to have him stay there.

Well, nowadays that wouldn't wash. Now, you pass someone over for promotion when they've worked their ass off for it, and they're qualified, just because you want them to keep doing what they're doing---they're going to go get that promotion from another company.

The military can tell you, "We want you where you are, shut up and soldier." Civilians can't. "Oh yeah? I'm outta here, jack."

So your 80% argument did make some sense back when people were "company men" and worked for one company their whole life.

Now? Nobody stays, because they know your company would fire them in a heartbeat if the bean-counters said it would save a nickel.
 
2012-05-22 02:16:04 PM  

mgshamster: That's not what you were saying. You said: "fewer hours worked," and "lower paying/more fulfilling careers to get a better work/life balance." The link I provided corrected for hours, and showed the exact same career, so neither of those could be it. The only thing in the link is a suggestion that it might be salary negotiations for better work/life balance, but no evidence to back it.


Better work life balance, whether in the same field or different fields, that is a factor in women's salaries. That's the point.

mgshamster: As for your anecdote about your wife working part time - that was corrected by hours worked in the article. Also, since the article is based on starting salary fresh out of residency, did your wife choose to work part time fresh out of residency?


Again it comes down to work life balance, as for the wife she worked full-time out of residency however she accepted a lower starting salary because she wanted to stay local, she did not want to relocate.
 
2012-05-22 02:20:51 PM  
b-b-but PATRIARCHY!
 
2012-05-22 02:21:16 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Better work life balance, whether in the same field or different fields, that is a factor in women's salaries. That's the point.


Once again, is there evidence for this? We can make it up and claim it's true all day long, but that really doesn't mean anything unless we have the evidence to support it.

I would argue that a good work/life balance is also important for men in today's world. It certainly is for me. And if it's true, it would negate the argument that women get less pay for a better work/life balance if men are also looking for a better work/life balance while still getting the higher pay.
 
2012-05-22 02:22:13 PM  
Given that EVERY woman I know (even the "liberated" ones) still prattles on about how she wants a man who makes more than her... though, she supports the idea of women being breadwinners and stay-at-home dads in principle... just not in HER case... I really don't care how much money women make.

You can't make the same as men AND feel that men should be the breadwinners. It doesn't work that way. Start caring about actual equality, and I'll start caring about it again too.

/I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability
 
2012-05-22 02:33:11 PM  

VonEvilstein: What I alway wonder when this comes around again... If women are being paid less, then why is anyone even employing men?

 
2012-05-22 02:37:54 PM  
It would be best if the working women would just shut up and make sure that the coffee is fresh.
 
2012-05-22 02:38:18 PM  
Julie Cochrane 2012-05-22 01:27:58 PM

doubled99: 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.

Some people get a better response to them being ballsy when negotiating a salary. Just because John going in and being assertive and saying "X" gets him a 10% raise doesn't mean Mary going in and being equally assertive and saying exactly the same thing would get her a 10% raise---it might get her fired or demoted. Hint: that's why they call it discrimination.

So yeah, it may be that John does a better job of asking. Or it may be that the boss is more receptive to being asked by John.

When I was in junior high, if you asked the regular kids if there were cliques in school, they would tell you yes, very much, their grade was entirely run by cliques of popular kids.

If you asked the popular kids if there were cliques in school, they would tell you no, that their grade didn't have cliques, everyone just had their own friends.

That's pretty much true of every junior high--it's all a matter of perspective.

So one person's "John's just a more ballsy negotiator than Mary." is another person's "John's boss discriminates in favor of John and against Mary."

The truth is somewhere in the middle. When women do negotiate assertively, and come to the table prepared, they tend to find managers who are primed to think women don't negotiate assertively and that women will accept lowball offers. So while women who negotiate assertively get better offers than other women, they don't get offers as good as the ones gotten by men who negotiate assertively. And so forth.

It's a mix of both.

It's business, and at the levels of the game where people are really counting the dollars and caring about negotiating, people are less worried about "fair" and more worried about maximizing their returns in the game.

It is what it is. And if the prevailing stink of the market lets them shave a buck here and there by paying a gal less for the same job, they're not going to pay her one dollar more than they absolutely have to just to be nice guys. They're going to pay her what they can get away with paying her. Until market forces make it so they can't.


You've made the word "discrimination" virtually meaningless. Technically, any hire would be discrimination unless you didn't interview and simply chose people on the merits of their resume.

When you pick a babysitter for your kids, you're simply "discriminating" too. Oh, wait. then, it's okay. It's just using your judgement.
 
2012-05-22 02:38:45 PM  
Apparently, the entire American economy is now firmly based upon the notion that somebody, somewhere is getting screwed.
 
2012-05-22 02:41:27 PM  
either the corps enjoy discriminating against women so much they are willing to forgo profit by hiring more expensive but merely equally productive men, or they actually believe the extra cost of hiring males pays off in production for some reason.
 
2012-05-22 02:53:11 PM  

SharkTrager: "But if I hire a woman and discount her salary because there is an 80% chance she will leave the workforce for an extended period, which would have a detrimental effect on my company, that is unacceptable discrimination."



Not only that, but in most cases you'll have to keep paying her for the time she's gone. AND you'll have to pay again for a substitute worker to do her job while she's away, AND you'll have to train that substitute to do her job on your own dime (training you've already paid for), AND you'll have to throw away that additional training investment and let that substitute worker go because you HAVE to let her back to her original job.

People forget -- it's not just about how much the employee gets, it's also about how much the employer pays. In the end, an employer who hires a woman over a man doesn't just pay even parity, in many cases they pay substantially more -- and lose productivity in the process.

I'll tell you what: When 50% of child custody cases are decided in favor of fathers, when 50% of alimony payments are from ex-wives to ex-husbands, when men can and do take 6-12 weeks of paternity leave without jeopardizing their jobs or careers, when men get as much uncounted time out of the office for family reasons (taking kids to the doctor, etc.) as women, when the average full-time work week is as long for women as it is for men....THEN we can talk about glass ceilings and "81¢ on the dollar". Fair?

BTW, I say full-time because for part-time work, women actually earn substantially MORE than men.

And before anyone accuses me of bitterness, I'm not bitter at all - I just think that when we talk about gender equality, it's more valuable to debate apples vs. apples than to scream our heads off about how women are getting short-changed.
 
2012-05-22 02:53:20 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: 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?


I'm guessing you don't have kids.
 
2012-05-22 02:57:32 PM  
salary-negotiation skills

FTA, that's most of the problem. Managers listen to male employees who want a raise, while people like myself and other women just get cut off at the knees and aggressively told to go away. Men are allowed to be aggressive and use their edge to get raises, while a women who does so is labeled a biatch or insubordinate, even when she's just trying to be assertive to gain equal rights. I've only gotten a raise twice, and both times, it was because I do exemplary work and a lot of it...and because the male managers I had each went and gave me good reviews to the people actually in charge of giving the raises. That's right, I had to have a man go to bat for me so I could get richly deserved raises.
 
2012-05-22 02:58:23 PM  

spmkk: I'll tell you what: When 50% of child custody cases are decided in favor of fathers, when 50% of alimony payments are from ex-wives to ex-husbands, when men can and do take 6-12 weeks of paternity leave without jeopardizing their jobs or careers, when men get as much uncounted time out of the office for family reasons (taking kids to the doctor, etc.) as women, when the average full-time work week is as long for women as it is for men....THEN we can talk about glass ceilings and "81¢ on the dollar". Fair?


/facepalm

You won't get 50% of child custody cases decided for the fathers or 50% of alimony going to ex-husbands until the wage gap is fixed, for the reasons I noted above. Stop complaining that your cart doesn't work in front of your horse, and therefore, we can't have any carts at all.
 
2012-05-22 02:59:30 PM  
Playing the victim is much more fun than doing math correctly.
 
2012-05-22 03:03:51 PM  

spmkk: Not only that, but in most cases you'll have to keep paying her for the time she's gone. AND you'll have to pay again for a substitute worker to do her job while she's away, AND you'll have to train that substitute to do her job on your own dime (training you've already paid for), AND you'll have to throw away that additional training investment and let that substitute worker go because you HAVE to let her back to her original job.


Not only that, but they ALSO have to do the same thing for men when they go on paternity leave.
 
2012-05-22 03:06:01 PM  

someonelse: BeesNuts: //Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...

Isn't that about the normal time for making that info public? Or is the minimum number of missed periods before a woman has to tell her co-workers less than 3?


If she's anything like the cupid stunt who pulled that at a former unloading trailers/stocking job, she knew she was preggers before she started, she just wanted to illegitimately lock in a good job, work for a couple weeks, then get assigned somewhere cushier that normally pays much less so she can game the system.

/Farking ghetto trash
//Why yes, I am a woman who hates trash like this, because it makes us all look bad.
 
2012-05-22 03:06:07 PM  
Theaetetus Smartest
Funniest
2012-05-22 02:58:23 PM


spmkk: I'll tell you what: When 50% of child custody cases are decided in favor of fathers, when 50% of alimony payments are from ex-wives to ex-husbands, when men can and do take 6-12 weeks of paternity leave without jeopardizing their jobs or careers, when men get as much uncounted time out of the office for family reasons (taking kids to the doctor, etc.) as women, when the average full-time work week is as long for women as it is for men....THEN we can talk about glass ceilings and "81¢ on the dollar". Fair?

/facepalm

You won't get 50% of child custody cases decided for the fathers or 50% of alimony going to ex-husbands until the wage gap is fixed, for the reasons I noted above. Stop complaining that your cart doesn't work in front of your horse, and therefore, we can't have any carts at all.




Guess who fixes the cart.
 
2012-05-22 03:06:42 PM  
"We need to study all the possible aspects of women in the workplace (and even in early education) to determine if they are being treated as equals in life."

vs.

"Women earn $0.80 for every $1.00 men earn for the same job!"


Let me guess which one of those will win the day.

Nobody ever got interviewed on the nightly news for having a complicated explanation for a complicated problem.
 
2012-05-22 03:14:54 PM  

spmkk: I'll tell you what: When 50% of child custody cases are decided in favor of fathers, when 50% of alimony payments are from ex-wives to ex-husbands, when men can and do take 6-12 weeks of paternity leave without jeopardizing their jobs or careers, when men get as much uncounted time out of the office for family reasons (taking kids to the doctor, etc.) as women, when the average full-time work week is as long for women as it is for men....THEN we can talk about glass ceilings and "81¢ on the dollar". Fair?

The link you used does not account for type of job worked. If you read the article that started this whole thread, you'd have seen that you need to control for job type to make any meaningful comparison.

Or are you going to compare salaries without controlling for job type as well?


BTW, I say full-time because for part-time work, women actually earn substantially MORE than men.

And before anyone accuses me of bitterness, I'm not bitter at all - I just think that when we talk about gender equality, it's more valuable to debate apples vs. apples than to scream our heads off about how women are getting short-changed.

Again, your link specifically does not account for the type of work done. That's pretty important. I wouldn't rely on results that didn't bother trying to account for that, especially when arguing against studies that did account for part-time v. full-time _and_ for the type of job when looking at the salary inequity. If women actually do make more money part time after accounting for job type, that means that the inequity for full-time work is even greater than the overall average.

You're cherry-picking statistics that are poorly done to support your opinion.

/Re: Alimony: Brittany Spears pays more alimony than you, and she's a woman. See how cherry-picking statistics works?
 
2012-05-22 03:25:11 PM  

Aloy: salary-negotiation skills

FTA, that's most of the problem. Managers listen to male employees who want a raise, while people like myself and other women just get cut off at the knees and aggressively told to go away. Men are allowed to be aggressive and use their edge to get raises, while a women who does so is labeled a biatch or insubordinate, even when she's just trying to be assertive to gain equal rights. I've only gotten a raise twice, and both times, it was because I do exemplary work and a lot of it...and because the male managers I had each went and gave me good reviews to the people actually in charge of giving the raises. That's right, I had to have a man go to bat for me so I could get richly deserved raises.


that's cause women are pretty gay when they act aggressive
 
2012-05-22 03:42:43 PM  
My summary of TFA:

The wage gap between men and women isn't 19 cents on the dollar, it's only 15 cents. So quit your biatching and make me a sandwich.
 
2012-05-22 03:57:09 PM  

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


If this list is accurate, it makes me kind of mad, and I'm a man. I'm for equality in general, but in some of these services, I'd be happy if women were making 10-25% more than men.
When I'm at a middle-class restaurant, goddamned right I'd better get a waitress. When I get a waiter, I know that I'm getting bad service, and the younger he is, the worse it is.
When i'm choosing lines at a grocery or other retail store, I choose the line with the female cashier.
At Dunkin Donuts, I'm taking the line with the woman.
Nurse or receptionist? Same thing.
Seems to me the guy who takes these jobs is a fish out of water or didn't care enough or wasn't qualified to get a job that better suits them.
And all that said, not that a woman would definitively be better at construction or other physical labor, but you're not going to be impressed with the effort/concentration/output of the average american male dirtbag doing those jobs, either.
 
2012-05-22 03:58:20 PM  
No love for the IWW?
 
2012-05-22 03:59:58 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.


This.

Women have parity or near parity in most white-collar and professional jobs--lawyers, doctors in specializations, upper management, etc.--when you adjust for time on the job and other variables. That makes sense, because what professional is going to take less than any other professional in the same job? Then there's a gap, but not a large one, in "traditional" women's jobs, like teaching or nursing, and a larger gap in blue-collar jobs and skilled labor.

Where there's the biggest gap is unskilled labor. Women get paid much less for crappy jobs and have to like it; either because men are "allowed" to be more aggressive at demanding money or because bosses figure any woman desperate enough for these kinds of jobs needs the money and will take what she gets. (Which is true of any unskilled laborer)

Where you see the biggest gaps is in the lowest-paying jobs. Which is precisely the issue. Women are underpaid in jobs where everyone is underpaid.
 
2012-05-22 04:05:18 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.

This.

Women have parity or near parity in most white-collar and professional jobs--lawyers, doctors in specializations, upper management, etc.--when you adjust for time on the job and other variables. That makes sense, because what professional is going to take less than any other professional in the same job? Then there's a gap, but not a large one, in "traditional" women's jobs, like teaching or nursing, and a larger gap in blue-collar jobs and skilled labor.

Where there's the biggest gap is unskilled labor. Women get paid much less for crappy jobs and have to like it; either because men are "allowed" to be more aggressive at demanding money or because bosses figure any woman desperate enough for these kinds of jobs needs the money and will take what she gets. (Which is true of any unskilled laborer)

Where you see the biggest gaps is in the lowest-paying jobs. Which is precisely the issue. Women are underpaid in jobs where everyone is underpaid.


Female physicians just out of residency get paid less, on average, than male physicians just out of residency in all medical specialties, adjusting for hours worked. Link (pops)
 
2012-05-22 04:07:37 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Women have parity or near parity in most white-collar and professional jobs--lawyers, doctors in specializations, upper management, etc.--when you adjust for time on the job and other variables. That makes sense, because what professional is going to take less than any other professional in the same job


Unfortunately, that's simply not true. See this post above:

mgshamster: In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.

Female heart surgeons start out ~$27k per year less. Female pulmonary disease specialists start out ~$44k per year less.


The rest of your post relies on this false premise and is therefore invalid.
 
2012-05-22 04:10:44 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: Nurse or receptionist? Same thing.


Male nurse can be quite a shiatty job. Not that being a nurse isn't tough regardless, but every time you've got to move someone who weighs 350 pounds or restrain someone who's combative and erratic the guys are asked to help because they're generally stronger. I'm not surprised they're all jaded.
 
2012-05-22 04:14:46 PM  

s2s2s2: Until more women are willing to support stay at home males, I don't give a shiat.

/kidding


Why would you be? This is an option most women have, that most men dont. The genders are different. Get over it. You make less, but you also get the option of not working, dont have to register for the draft, are more likely to receive custody and less likely to wind up in prison, and have the PRIVILEGE of being the passive chooser in dating and relationships. Given all this, the feminist biatching about the wage gap is pretty laughable.
 
2012-05-22 04:16:15 PM  

mgshamster: Once again, is there evidence for this? We can make it up and claim it's true all day long, but that really doesn't mean anything unless we have the evidence to support it.


What kind of evidence are you looking for? They are less likely to want to travel, relocate, work undesirable work hours?
 
2012-05-22 04:23:17 PM  

draypresct: 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."



Data from the White House report says "Working women spend roughly one hour less a day on the job than working men and 40 minutes more a day on housework than men."
Summarized here.
 
2012-05-22 04:26:17 PM  

JesusJuice: and have the PRIVILEGE of being the passive chooser in dating and relationships.


What sort of no-confidence manbaby thinks the traditional dating role of waiting by the phone for suitors is a privilege?
 
2012-05-22 04:27:01 PM  

mgshamster: "spmkk: Not only that, but in most cases you'll have to keep paying her for the time she's gone. AND you'll have to pay again for a substitute worker to do her job while she's away, AND you'll have to train that substitute to do her job on your own dime (training you've already paid for), AND you'll have to throw away that additional training investment and let that substitute worker go because you HAVE to let her back to her original job.

Not only that, but they ALSO have to do the same thing for men when they go on paternity leave."



Except that, overwhelmingly, men don't go on paternity leave as often, or for as long, as women go on maternity leave.

Sure - when a woman crashes her car, the insurance company has to pay for the damages just like when a man crashes his. But insurance companies charge men a higher premium because statistically, a man is more likely to crash his car than a woman -- in other words, their cost of covering a man is higher, so they charge commensurately.

If this is acceptable (as our society has decided it is), why is it unacceptable to recognize that employers will get less time worked per average hour for which they have to pay a woman than a man, and adjust the pay scales commensurately?
 
2012-05-22 04:27:38 PM  
This is all hogwash.

Women are actually making more than men gross. (For the first time ever)

This is because they tend to have two or more jobs, they work more hours than their male counterparts do and they have a lower unemployment rate. More women are graduating college than men are - leading to better jobs.

But womens still biatch. Men are on the decline in the workforce - in 20 years the men will be biatching about the income gap because they're on the other side.

I hate stupid women.
 
2012-05-22 04:31:43 PM  

Aloy: someonelse: BeesNuts: //Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...

Isn't that about the normal time for making that info public? Or is the minimum number of missed periods before a woman has to tell her co-workers less than 3?

If she's anything like the cupid stunt who pulled that at a former unloading trailers/stocking job, she knew she was preggers before she started, she just wanted to illegitimately lock in a good job, work for a couple weeks, then get assigned somewhere cushier that normally pays much less so she can game the system.

/Farking ghetto trash
//Why yes, I am a woman who hates trash like this, because it makes us all look bad.


I'm sure you're right, and the world is full of women who manage to time the first weeks of their pregnancy so that it dovetails perfectly with their job search.

/ghetto trash aren't the only ones who make us all look bad.
 
2012-05-22 04:33:09 PM  

you have pee hands: Nana's Vibrator: Nurse or receptionist? Same thing.

Male nurse can be quite a shiatty job. Not that being a nurse isn't tough regardless, but every time you've got to move someone who weighs 350 pounds or restrain someone who's combative and erratic the guys are asked to help because they're generally stronger. I'm not surprised they're all jaded.


I used to work in a lab that was about 80% female. It almost went without saying that I would do all the supply restocking, since I'm a guy. Sometimes this would involve hauling 55 gallon drums of biowaste. I never complained, even though this was not exactly the best use of my skill set. Let's be honest here, I'm 140 lbs and roughly the same complexion as a marshmallow, it's a little silly assuming I'm the most capable of doing the heavy lifting because of my gender.

It'd be like asking the girls to do all the glassware, since they must be good at washing dishes.
 
2012-05-22 04:34:43 PM  
Recent studies have shown in the biggest cities in America - unmarried, childless women under 30 are on average earning 8% more than men for the same jobs. "But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%)." Source

"However, in the case of clerical positions, women can make up to 28 percent more than men would. As most people trust the detail and accuracy that is perceived to come from a female who functions in a clerical job, companies will offer more competitive salaries to women." Source

Oh fark it, read the entire thing:

Men Don't Leave Home
Women are Breadwinners
 
2012-05-22 04:37:34 PM  

itsdan: draypresct: 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."


Data from the White House report says "Working women spend roughly one hour less a day on the job than working men and 40 minutes more a day on housework than men."
Summarized here.


Sure, when you compare "employed married women age 25-54" to "employed married men in the same age group" (link goes to source White House study). But remember, if your comparison groups are that large, then you can't, in the same breath, say that the claim that women make 81 cents to the dollar that men do is misleading. In both cases, you're looking only at the median time/income over an entire group, regardless of profession, employment status, etc.

In other words, if one is a bullshiat statistic, the other is, for the same exact reason.
 
2012-05-22 04:37:46 PM  
Forbes, Corporate America, Reince Priebus and Mitt Romney all want you to know that there is no wage gap, there is no war on women and if we all do as they say everything will be just fine.

They also want you to take off those shoes, shut up and go get them a sammich. Also unions, teachers, nurses cops and firefighters are bringing down America. Now bring your checkbook to their fundraiser at the lower Manhattan hospitals where the 9-11 first responders and survivors were treated and dig deep to "Restore America!"

/Derp article is Derp
 
2012-05-22 04:40:22 PM  

draypresct: "Again, your link specifically does not account for the type of work done. That's pretty important."


At best, it's even odds that that kind of breakdown would go in favor of the argument you're trying to make. Are you seriously suggesting that the work that women do at part-time jobs is higher-level on average than men's part-time work? [citation needed]


draypresct:"If women actually do make more money part time after accounting for job type, that means that the inequity for full-time work is even greater than the overall average."

...and now you're suggesting that women do higher-level work at part-time jobs (which justifies their higher earnings) AND at full-time jobs, which makes the supposed pay gap even wider than perceived. [CITATION NEEDED]
 
2012-05-22 04:40:29 PM  

skilbride: Recent studies have shown in the biggest cities in America - unmarried, childless women under 30 are on average earning 8% more than men for the same jobs.


Sorry, incorrect. From your link: He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do.

This not for the same jobs. And that study has been discussed earlier in the thread: it's looking at the median income of unmarried, childless women under 30 and the median income of unmarried, childless men under 30, and not correcting for education or profession.
 
2012-05-22 04:43:59 PM  

Theaetetus: This not for the same jobs. And that study has been discussed earlier in the thread: it's looking at the median income of unmarried, childless women under 30 and the median income of unmarried, childless men under 30, and not correcting for education or profession.


It still shows a trend that women are going to be making more than men in the near future. And all because more women are going to college and graduating.

Does this mean being a male is going to make it easier for you to get into college because they are under-represented?
 
2012-05-22 04:47:44 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: mgshamster: Once again, is there evidence for this? We can make it up and claim it's true all day long, but that really doesn't mean anything unless we have the evidence to support it.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? They are less likely to want to travel, relocate, work undesirable work hours?


I was thinking of a poll or something that compared desires of thousands of women vs thousands of men about what they are looking for with a job. That might be a start. Perhaps we could get a sociologist to analyze said data. It's not my field, though.

How do we know that women are less likely to want to travel (my wife loves to travel, and is actively looking for a job that lets her do so), relocate (while my wife and I would both prefer to stay where we are, because it's close to our extended families, we're both willing to go where the work is), or work undesirable hours (my wife started her job with the night shift, Tuesday-Saturday, managed to get a 4 day-10 hour shift working nights, Friday-Monday, finally made her way to a day shift, Friday-Monday, and is just now getting the chance to catch a day shift that lets her get at least one weekend day off, Sunday-Thursday; oh, and her company doesn't pay a night differential).

Is my wife the one woman who goes against the grain, or do we hold preconceived notions about how women act and what they desire?
 
2012-05-22 04:48:58 PM  

itsdan: draypresct: 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."


Data from the White House report says "Working women spend roughly one hour less a day on the job than working men and 40 minutes more a day on housework than men."
Summarized here.


Your link's summary seems to get the math wrong.

From the actual report: "On an average workday in 2009, employed married women spent 1.6 hours in household activities and an additional hour caring for household members. In contrast, employed married men spent nearly one hour in household activities and about 40 minutes caring for household members."

Women: 1h 36m + 1h = 2 h 36 m
Men: 1h + 40m = 1 h 40 m
p. 35 of Link

Difference: 56m, not 40m.

Note that this seems to consider only couples where both are employed full-time (or near full-time). The study I cited is (I believe) not limited to that select sample.

So whether you look only at couples where both are employed nearly full-time, or whether you look at all couples, women do more work at home than men do. It's different for different types of couples, and I'm sure there are couples out there where the men do more, but overall women put in a lot more time at home.

Seem to be a fair summary of both your source and my source?
 
2012-05-22 04:51:40 PM  

antron: 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?


it's a living nightmare.
 
2012-05-22 04:53:52 PM  

mgshamster: adjusting for hours worked.


See the problem?
 
2012-05-22 04:54:06 PM  

Theaetetus: Data from the White House report says "Working women spend roughly one hour less a day on the job than working men and 40 minutes more a day on housework than men."
Summarized here.

Sure, when you compare "employed married women age 25-54" to "employed married men in the same age group" (link goes to source White House study). But remember, if your comparison groups are that large, then you can't, in the same breath, say that the claim that women make 81 cents to the dollar that men do is misleading. In both cases, you're looking only at the median time/income over an entire group, regardless of profession, employment status, etc.

In other words, if one is a bullshiat statistic, the other is, for the same exact reason.



I was only really replying to the hours-worked statistic which seemed to only address "working women" not drawing a larger conclusion really.

But that said, as if often true with statistics, I don't think it's fair to call them 'bullshiat' as long as the math is correct, it's how it's presented. the 77 cents on the dollar stat is correct, for what it is. The "bullshiat" only kicks in when people aren't informed of the actual nature of a statistic, which is sometimes intentional and sometimes not.
 
2012-05-22 04:54:21 PM  
Also, this is a hot button issue for me. To put this in context, I live in Northern Virginia.

My last three relationships there's been a huge income disparity - but the last one was the worst.

My boyfriend worked two jobs, 6 days a week, to even come close to be even with me. The first job, he worked four days 12 hours a day when you factor in his commute. The second job he worked two days, 5 hours a day as a DJ at a bar.

On average, I work *maybe* including commute, 35 hours a week. There are weeks where I pull 60 hours depending on whats going on - but most of the time it's not that bad. When you included my bonus's compared to his, I made about 10K more than him.

This created a shiat ton of fights because I paid more as I made more, but was still required to do the majority of the household chores (because I had the time) and we didn't really have a lot of time to spend quality time together because he worked so much.

So yeah, womens biatch a lot - but really, in metropolitan cities like DC - women who went to college have it far better off than men in the area.
 
2012-05-22 04:54:58 PM  

skilbride: Theaetetus: This not for the same jobs. And that study has been discussed earlier in the thread: it's looking at the median income of unmarried, childless women under 30 and the median income of unmarried, childless men under 30, and not correcting for education or profession.

It still shows a trend that women are going to be making more than men in the near future.


Not necessarily, and frankly, with data that focuses only on median incomes and variables of "gender", "age", "marital status", and "presence of children," I would hesitate to make bold predictions about centuries of trends being reversed.

And all because more women are going to college and graduating.

Again, this merely shows that "going to college and graduating" results in a "higher median income" than not. We're seeing the result of that in the gender disparity, but it has nothing to do with gender - it has to do with education.

Does this mean being a male is going to make it easier for you to get into college because they are under-represented?

Unlikely. It's reasonable to take steps to remedy past discrimination, but once that's resolved and any disparity is due to intentional choices, then it's less reasonable. If more men are not going to college because they can get skilled blue-collar jobs earlier, then it would be unreasonable to have a quota system to force colleges to enroll more men.

The best comparison would be Title IX. One way a school can be compliant, in spite of not having equal numbers of athletes, is by demonstrating a lack of interest. If only 10% of the female student body wants to participate, you don't have to restrict male programs.
 
2012-05-22 04:55:38 PM  

mgshamster: Is my wife the one woman who goes against the grain, or do we hold preconceived notions about how women act and what they desire?


Here where I live, your wife would be the norm. :)
 
2012-05-22 04:58:02 PM  

Theaetetus: Unlikely. It's reasonable to take steps to remedy past discrimination, but once that's resolved and any disparity is due to intentional choices, then it's less reasonable. If more men are not going to college because they can get skilled blue-collar jobs earlier, then it would be unreasonable to have a quota system to force colleges to enroll more men.


I don't think that's why men aren't going to college - I actually don't know WHY men aren't going to college - but the unemployment rates would suggest that isn't the case.
 
2012-05-22 05:01:39 PM  

spmkk: draypresct: "Again, your link specifically does not account for the type of work done. That's pretty important."

At best, it's even odds that that kind of breakdown would go in favor of the argument you're trying to make. Are you seriously suggesting that the work that women do at part-time jobs is higher-level on average than men's part-time work? [citation needed]

You're suggesting that it's the same or it doesn't matter. You've made the claim, back it up.

I've got to ask: Do you actually believe that it is not important to control for job type? In that case you would have no problem with the unadjusted income inequity figure of 80%, instead of the adjusted 86%, right? I mean, I thought it was pretty self-evident that the 80% figure was flawed, but the way you're arguing that adjusting for job type is irrelevant makes me wonder what your position is on this.


draypresct:"If women actually do make more money part time after accounting for job type, that means that the inequity for full-time work is even greater than the overall average."

...and now you're suggesting that women do higher-level work at part-time jobs (which justifies their higher earnings) AND at full-time jobs, which makes the supposed pay gap even wider than perceived. [CITATION NEEDED]


Average = 86%. This is made up of both full and part time work.
If part time > 100%, then full time is less than 86%.
Math: it's all the citation you need.
 
2012-05-22 05:09:01 PM  

skilbride: Theaetetus: Unlikely. It's reasonable to take steps to remedy past discrimination, but once that's resolved and any disparity is due to intentional choices, then it's less reasonable. If more men are not going to college because they can get skilled blue-collar jobs earlier, then it would be unreasonable to have a quota system to force colleges to enroll more men.

I don't think that's why men aren't going to college - I actually don't know WHY men aren't going to college - but the unemployment rates would suggest that isn't the case.


I wouldn't necessarily agree, again, because the numbers you're looking at are too broad.
The best explanation I've heard - which takes into account the fact that it's lower class men whose rates of enrollment have declined, not upper class men - is that for many such men, it's easy to get a construction, auto repair, or trade job, but not very easy to get a bachelors degree and get a white collar job, due to classism. However, the same doesn't apply for lower class women, who, due to sexism, have a tougher time getting the same trade jobs.

Basically, if you're a poor male, you can go to a voc-tech school or apprentice yourself, but if you're a poor female, you're still going to need at least an associate's degree.
 
2012-05-22 05:09:53 PM  

Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: Women have parity or near parity in most white-collar and professional jobs--lawyers, doctors in specializations, upper management, etc.--when you adjust for time on the job and other variables. That makes sense, because what professional is going to take less than any other professional in the same job

Unfortunately, that's simply not true. See this post above:
mgshamster: In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.

Female heart surgeons start out ~$27k per year less. Female pulmonary disease specialists start out ~$44k per year less.

The rest of your post relies on this false premise and is therefore invalid.


So you're going to tell me that women in unskilled labor DON'T get paid less than their male counterparts?

I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong, but let's look at some other alternatives.

Those are STARTING salaries. Again, when you're new in a field, you take what you can get, and people hiring screw you. This may be what I referred to above, that men are allowed to negotiate harder than women; or that women don't realize that their counterparts are getting more to begin with. What is the gap after both men and women have been practicing for five years? Your article doesn't say, and that's important.

Forbes pointed to a mysterious 17% disparity that can't be explained by time on the job, etc. If it CAN be explained by women "settling" for less or being afraid to negotiate for more, rather than latent sexism, that would be good to know. For instance, are male heart surgeons and female heart surgeons getting offered the same initial salary, and men simply being tougher bargainers? Are the women saying "OK, that sounds good to me?" Or are women negotiating for other things, such as "I'll take less, but I want extra days off so I can get to my kids' soccer games?" because that would be a reasonable trade?

As importantly, are women heart surgeons dissatisfied with their lower pay? I for instance would be quite happy with less pay if I got more free time, if I had kids and I wanted to spend time with them; or if I traded less pay for the hours I wanted. As in: "I'll take a lower salary if you guarantee me M-F 6-2 every day." Just looking at raw salaries shows that women are getting paid less; but doesn't necessarily tell you WHY women are getting paid less.

Unless you dig a little deeper, you're left with the presumption that bosses are evil or women are stupid, and I'm not willing to accept either premise without more proof.
 
2012-05-22 05:10:03 PM  
I don't want to sound like a sexist or anything, but ... how do I say this ... maybe women just aren't as good at their jobs as men.

i637.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-22 05:18:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: Women have parity or near parity in most white-collar and professional jobs--lawyers, doctors in specializations, upper management, etc.--when you adjust for time on the job and other variables. That makes sense, because what professional is going to take less than any other professional in the same job

Unfortunately, that's simply not true. See this post above:
mgshamster: In the medical world, a newly trained female physician fresh out of residency will have, on average, a smaller starting salary than a newly trained male physician fresh out of residency, in all medical specialties.

Female heart surgeons start out ~$27k per year less. Female pulmonary disease specialists start out ~$44k per year less.

The rest of your post relies on this false premise and is therefore invalid.

So you're going to tell me that women in unskilled labor DON'T get paid less than their male counterparts?

I'm always willing to admit I'm wrong, but let's look at some other alternatives.

Those are STARTING salaries. Again, when you're new in a field, you take what you can get, and people hiring screw you. This may be what I referred to above, that men are allowed to negotiate harder than women; or that women don't realize that their counterparts are getting more to begin with. What is the gap after both men and women have been practicing for five years? Your article doesn't say, and that's important.

Forbes pointed to a mysterious 17% disparity that can't be explained by time on the job, etc. If it CAN be explained by women "settling" for less or being afraid to negotiate for more, rather than latent sexism, that would be good to know. For instance, are male heart surgeons and female heart surgeons getting offered the same initial salary, and men simply being tougher bargainers? Are the women saying "OK, that sounds good to me?" Or are women negotiating for other things, such as "I'll take less, but I want extra days off so I can get to my kids' soccer games?" ...


I concur with your post. Earlier, I was asking for evidence of whether this is the case. I think that would be a key piece of the puzzle: if women are making less than men, is it because they are negotiating for other benefits rather than pay?

Also, the reason I used the starting salaries is because that's the best view for comparing equally skilled and equally trained people. Both the men and the women had the same skill, same experience, same job, same state, and still the women were earning less adjusting for hours worked. Can we look at a similar statistic with 10 years experience? Does such data exist?

If we could, and the data showed men and women to be earning the same salaries, then your hypothesis that it's negotiation skills might be true (assuming that they are not negotiating less pay for better hours, etc).
 
2012-05-22 05:26:06 PM  

mgshamster: I concur with your post. Earlier, I was asking for evidence of whether this is the case. I think that would be a key piece of the puzzle: if women are making less than men, is it because they are negotiating for other benefits rather than pay?


It's very common for couples to assign one member (usually the man) to go after the highest paying job possible, even if it has zero medical/time off (like a software contractor type of job), and have the other go after a job with the best benefits/time off (like a school teacher). That way they can have plenty of money, but also get nice benefits and have at least one person with enough time off to raise children. I would bet that could explain a lot of the disparity. It could be that women are actually motivated by factors other than money more so than men, or it could be sexism that couples more often pick the woman to go after the job that pays less, but has more time off and benefits. Either way, it's not discrimination by the employers.
 
2012-05-22 05:27:23 PM  

thursdaypostal: It's pretty obvious which people read the headline and which people read the article.


yes, painfully obvious.
 
2012-05-22 05:29:35 PM  

spiderpaz: mgshamster: I concur with your post. Earlier, I was asking for evidence of whether this is the case. I think that would be a key piece of the puzzle: if women are making less than men, is it because they are negotiating for other benefits rather than pay?

It's very common for couples to assign one member (usually the man) to go after the highest paying job possible, even if it has zero medical/time off (like a software contractor type of job), and have the other go after a job with the best benefits/time off (like a school teacher). That way they can have plenty of money, but also get nice benefits and have at least one person with enough time off to raise children. I would bet that could explain a lot of the disparity. It could be that women are actually motivated by factors other than money more so than men, or it could be sexism that couples more often pick the woman to go after the job that pays less, but has more time off and benefits. Either way, it's not discrimination by the employers.


I've never heard that before. Let's assume it's true: then you'd be right that it's not discrimination by the employers, for couples only. The singles would have different data. Is there a difference in pay for couples, and no difference in pay for singles? That would help support the hypothesis.
 
2012-05-22 05:30:37 PM  

mgshamster: I concur with your post. Earlier, I was asking for evidence of whether this is the case. I think that would be a key piece of the puzzle: if women are making less than men, is it because they are negotiating for other benefits rather than pay?

Also, the reason I used the starting salaries is because that's the best view for comparing equally skilled and equally trained people. Both the men and the women had the same skill, same experience, same job, same state, and still the women were earning less adjusting for hours worked. Can we look at a similar statistic with 10 years experience? Does such data exist?

If we could, and the data showed men and women to be earning the same salaries, then your hypothesis that it's negotiation skills might be true (assuming that they are not negotiating less pay for better hours, etc).


I'd like to know the same thing, about the overall experience. It used to be the gap got explained away as "well, women haven't been working as long so of course they get paid less" or whatever, but that's clearly not going to be true any more. Now I know of a few informal and poorly-publicized studies that show that MEN who take time off for family tend to get paid less and promoted less than their MALE counterparts who devote 110% of their time to the company; so is there an anti-family bias in corporations, rather than an anti-woman bias? If anyone, male or female, doesn't want to be a "team player" they don't get the big bucks?

My other question revolves around satisfaction. Analysts always look at salary, as if "women getting paid less" was proof of everything; but my question is whether or not the lower-paid woman is just as happy with her pay as the higher-paid man. Now, if she's not, then that's bad; but if she's okay with it, and if the trade is that she gets other benefits for the lower pay (time off for the kids without penalty, for example), then that should be all right with everyone. Unfortunately for the activists, you can't get equal pay for unequal work; so ANYONE (male or female) who needs guaranteed Fridays off to pick up the kids just can't get the same pay as someone who will always stay late to finish up a project.

And, like I said, it's in the poorest paid jobs that the gap is the worst. Yes, it may be terrible that a female heart surgeon gets $27K less than her male counterpart right out of residency. However, a female housekeeper who only MAKES $27K a year is not going to cry for her, you know? Especially when a male housekeeper probably gets $35K, which is considerably more of a discrepancy at that pay scale. (I made those numbers up)
 
2012-05-22 05:35:31 PM  

Gyrfalcon: And, like I said, it's in the poorest paid jobs that the gap is the worst. Yes, it may be terrible that a female heart surgeon gets $27K less than her male counterpart right out of residency. However, a female housekeeper who only MAKES $27K a year is not going to cry for her, you know? Especially when a male housekeeper probably gets $35K, which is considerably more of a discrepancy at that pay scale. (I made those numbers up)


I absolutely agree that a pay disparity is worse for low income individuals. My original response to you was simply to point out that pay disparity doesn't go away with higher income professions.
 
2012-05-22 05:46:38 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: adjusting for hours worked.

See the problem?


No. Why don't you try to explain it.
 
2012-05-22 05:54:33 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: She's asked me to stop bugging her about it, because she's not going to challenge the company in fear of reprisal.

This is pretty much the reason this gap exists... in my anecdotal experience.

/But we all know that already.


Yeah--but it does need to be pointed out that that fear of reprisal is a rational, justified fear with a basis in experience. Either your own experience, or watching it happen to someone else--usually a bit of both.

How the wage gap is usually preserved is "I'm not allowed to give anyone a raise of more than X%." It perpetually passes the buck. The permanent cop-out.

Generally, if you rock the boat, you get canned.

There are very few people in this world who are irreplaceable geniuses in their workplace. The rest of us are replaceable cogs in a machine. Make noise, management just swaps out the part.
 
2012-05-22 06:03:41 PM  

spmkk: Not only that, but in most cases you'll have to keep paying her for the time she's gone. AND you'll have to pay again for a substitute worker to do her job while she's away, AND you'll have to train that substitute to do her job on your own dime (training you've already paid for), AND you'll have to throw away that additional training investment and let that substitute worker go because you HAVE to let her back to her original job.


I don't know what the hell fantasy world you live in, but it sure would have been easier on me if I had lived there when I had my kid.

Are they taking immigrants? What are their visa requirements? Taxes? Um...would I be able to take my guns with me (because I'm kind of fond of the occasional shooting trip).

Can I sign up for my very own unicorn with rainbow wings when I get there? And bunnies. There must be bunnies. And polka dot swimsuits. And affordable gyms with convenient schedules of yoga classes.
 
2012-05-22 06:09:39 PM  

Julie Cochrane: spmkk: Not only that, but in most cases you'll have to keep paying her for the time she's gone. AND you'll have to pay again for a substitute worker to do her job while she's away, AND you'll have to train that substitute to do her job on your own dime (training you've already paid for), AND you'll have to throw away that additional training investment and let that substitute worker go because you HAVE to let her back to her original job.

I don't know what the hell fantasy world you live in, but it sure would have been easier on me if I had lived there when I had my kid.

Are they taking immigrants? What are their visa requirements? Taxes? Um...would I be able to take my guns with me (because I'm kind of fond of the occasional shooting trip).

Can I sign up for my very own unicorn with rainbow wings when I get there? And bunnies. There must be bunnies. And polka dot swimsuits. And affordable gyms with convenient schedules of yoga classes.


In California, maternity or paternity leave is 6 weeks at 55% pay, and an additional 6 weeks at no pay, before they can refuse to let you back. We take immigrants, but I'm not sure what the Visa requirements are (and a good portion of our immigrants completely ignore immigration laws). Taxes are fairly high. You can bring your guns, but certain firearms are not allowed or allowed with specific modifications (if it's a pistol, you're probably allowed to keep it as it). We have no unicorns, with or without rainbow wings, but there are plenty of bunnies. Polka-dot swim suits are occasionally seen. Gym membership can get expensive depending on where you go, but there are plenty of yoga classes, and I'm certain you can find one that fits your schedule.
 
2012-05-22 06:10:17 PM  

someonelse: Aloy: someonelse: BeesNuts: //Except our new manager apparently found out she was preggers exactly two days after she started (3 months ago) and decided to tell us about it just now...

Isn't that about the normal time for making that info public? Or is the minimum number of missed periods before a woman has to tell her co-workers less than 3?

If she's anything like the cupid stunt who pulled that at a former unloading trailers/stocking job, she knew she was preggers before she started, she just wanted to illegitimately lock in a good job, work for a couple weeks, then get assigned somewhere cushier that normally pays much less so she can game the system.

/Farking ghetto trash
//Why yes, I am a woman who hates trash like this, because it makes us all look bad.

I'm sure you're right, and the world is full of women who manage to time the first weeks of their pregnancy so that it dovetails perfectly with their job search.

/ghetto trash aren't the only ones who make us all look bad.


I'm still giving her the benefit of the doubt, but it's still obnoxious.
 
2012-05-22 06:12:42 PM  
Ironically, much of the wage gap is due to women themselves. Consider that women place a great deal more importance on how much money their potential mate makes than men do. Women look for someone with money, men look for someone with...looks. In fact a lot of men are uncomfortable if a woman makes more than they do. Note I'm speaking in broad generalities here, in general this is true, though it may not be true for individual situations. What is the result of this? The result is that women spend a lot of time and money trying to look as good as possible, they spend more on clothes, jewelry, makeup, accessories, plastic surgery, etc. than men do, and a lot more time than us getting ready. And on the other hand men spend a lot of time and effort trying to get as much money as possible. They will work harder, for longer hours than women for no reason other than to get some extra money. They will negotiate deals and salaries harder and they will endure a lot more crap if they think it will benefit them financially. The reason they do this is mostly to impress women. They want to buy a hot car to impress women, they want lots of money to take their date out somewhere nice, to buy her something nice to impress her, to get a nice apartment or house. So while women may complain about the wage gap a lot of it is due to the behavior of their own gender which has pressured men to work harder to make more and driven a culture of money among men.
 
2012-05-22 06:19:32 PM  

FarkinHostile: They have multiple orgasms, and now they want equal pay, too?!

Never satisfied Women...sheesh.


1/2 the money and all the pu..... n/m
 
2012-05-22 06:24:05 PM  
So let me guess this straight, women are being tertiary educated at a higher rate than men, but are earning less...

How are those humanities majors working out for you girls?
 
2012-05-22 06:24:55 PM  

mgshamster: Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: adjusting for hours worked.

See the problem?

No. Why don't you try to explain it.


"Adjusting for hours worked"... might as well be, "adjusting for quality of work" or "adjusting for quantity of work". There is a value in "hours worked"... it can't be ignored by "adjusting".

It costs the employer less for one employee working 10 hours than two employees working 5 hours.
 
2012-05-22 07:03:39 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: adjusting for hours worked.

See the problem?

No. Why don't you try to explain it.

"Adjusting for hours worked"... might as well be, "adjusting for quality of work" or "adjusting for quantity of work". There is a value in "hours worked"... it can't be ignored by "adjusting".

It costs the employer less for one employee working 10 hours than two employees working 5 hours.


I'm not so sure about that one. Part-time employees usually get fewer benefits than full time employees. Two employees working a 25 hour week might very well cost less than one employee working a 50 hour week, especially if that one employee is getting overtime.
 
2012-05-22 07:12:58 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: adjusting for hours worked.

See the problem?

No. Why don't you try to explain it.

"Adjusting for hours worked"... might as well be, "adjusting for quality of work" or "adjusting for quantity of work". There is a value in "hours worked"... it can't be ignored by "adjusting".

It costs the employer less for one employee working 10 hours than two employees working 5 hours.

I'm not so sure about that one. Part-time employees usually get fewer benefits than full time employees. Two employees working a 25 hour week might very well cost less than one employee working a 50 hour week, especially if that one employee is getting overtime.


It depends too on whether the two employees can be required to work up to 40 hours at regular time; in which case the boss can squeeze overtime out of them without paying extra in actual OT. I've seen that done by a lot of slimy bosses, where you're hired as a "part-time" employee and only guaranteed 25 hours a week...but they'll give you 40 like they're doing you a favor and not pay you the 15 hours as OT. Which can actually suck if you were planning on using those 15 hours for something else, like school or a second job.

Disney was notorious for that one, until the unions got on their ass.
 
2012-05-22 07:33:32 PM  
My mother was born in 1954. When she was in high school she was told by a guidance counselor, "you have the skills to be an engineer. But...oh... you're a woman." And because of that culture and her acceptance of it she ended up with a liberal arts degree which opened the door for her to do things like sell textbooks and manage a book store. Today she works at an elementary school as a teaching assistant (dealing with discipline issues, helping in some classrooms, monitoring recess, etc) and my father has the higher paying job between the two of them.

If she had been born 20 years later this wouldn't have been an issue. She would have been more ambitious. Granted, I'm not sure how much raising two kids would have affected things, but she would have at least aimed higher.

I often wonder how much of the pay gap can be attributed to the older generations' belief that men were meant to make more than women and hold more "important" jobs and that we've only changed our culture regarding that belief relatively recently.

/male
//optimistic that the pay gap will disappear in my lifetime because nobody respectable discriminates on purpose anymore
///possibly naive
 
2012-05-22 07:39:01 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: adjusting for hours worked.

See the problem?

No. Why don't you try to explain it.

"Adjusting for hours worked"... might as well be, "adjusting for quality of work" or "adjusting for quantity of work". There is a value in "hours worked"... it can't be ignored by "adjusting".

It costs the employer less for one employee working 10 hours than two employees working 5 hours.

I'm not so sure about that one. Part-time employees usually get fewer benefits than full time employees. Two employees working a 25 hour week might very well cost less than one employee working a 50 hour week, especially if that one employee is getting overtime.


"usually" and "might very well"...

Valid point I guess... but doesn't really have any bearing on what I said. 10 hours from one employee costs less then 10 hours from two employees.

Using the term "adjusted for hours worked" is simply a way of trying to justify an unsound comparison.
 
2012-05-22 07:44:37 PM  

Underwater Bystander: I often wonder how much of the pay gap can be attributed to the older generations' belief that men were meant to make more than women and hold more "important" jobs and that we've only changed our culture regarding that belief relatively recently.


Recently? Like... this week? 'Cause I must have missed the memo.

Ask 100 women how they feel about being with a man that makes less money than they do... and then try 'significantly less'. See what kind of answers you get.
 
2012-05-22 07:59:02 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: ProfessorOhki: Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: adjusting for hours worked.

See the problem?

No. Why don't you try to explain it.

"Adjusting for hours worked"... might as well be, "adjusting for quality of work" or "adjusting for quantity of work". There is a value in "hours worked"... it can't be ignored by "adjusting".

It costs the employer less for one employee working 10 hours than two employees working 5 hours.

I'm not so sure about that one. Part-time employees usually get fewer benefits than full time employees. Two employees working a 25 hour week might very well cost less than one employee working a 50 hour week, especially if that one employee is getting overtime.

"usually" and "might very well"...

Valid point I guess... but doesn't really have any bearing on what I said. 10 hours from one employee costs less then 10 hours from two employees.

Using the term "adjusted for hours worked" is simply a way of trying to justify an unsound comparison.


So what are the numbers? What's the evidence that two 20 hour employees cost more than one 40 hour employee? If you are providing benefits, then I can see the cost of two employees being more than one. But without benefits, why does two cost more? And if it does cost more, then why are more and more small businesses hiring part time employees in order to save on costs, rather than keeping full time employees? Link (pops) Another Link (pops)

The "adjusted for hours" part means that if you work 40 hours, and I work 30 hours, all other things equal, I should be earning 75% of what you earn. But if I'm actually bringing in 90% of what you make, then I'm making more than you, adjusted for hours.
 
2012-05-22 08:13:02 PM  

mgshamster: Is my wife the one woman who goes against the grain, or do we hold preconceived notions about how women act and what they desire?


Yes she is. Women are more likely, especially the ones who want families, value family friendly policies more than men, less travel, flexible hours, etc.
 
2012-05-22 08:18:17 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Valid point I guess... but doesn't really have any bearing on what I said. 10 hours from one employee costs less then 10 hours from two employees.

Using the term "adjusted for hours worked" is simply a way of trying to justify an unsound comparison.



Yeah but you have to make reasonable allowances otherwise you can't ever compare 2 things. Because most people are paid by the hour, if women work on average a few hours less per week, that's going to affect things. If men work X and women work X-3, the employer doesn't hire someone to work 3 hours.
 
2012-05-22 08:19:21 PM  
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but I've been in the workforce for almost 25 years. I've had jobs in fields all over the map, both skilled and unskilled. I have never had a women make less than me for the same work.

First job out of college group of four half men half women, all made the same. From field to field I've never seen this...however in the last decade I've seen that there are two glass ceiling, one to middle management, one to upper management. The first one keeps most men out, the second keeps most women out. Pound for pound (in my experience) a woman is more likely than the man to get the middle management job, a man is more likely to get the upper management. This has caused a weird situation where upper management has started to run out of qualified men and has started bringing up more women.
 
2012-05-22 08:24:34 PM  

mgshamster: The "adjusted for hours" part means that if you work 40 hours, and I work 30 hours, all other things equal, I should be earning 75% of what you earn. But if I'm actually bringing in 90% of what you make, then I'm making more than you, adjusted for hours.


It doesn't work that way.

Well... it kind of works that way.

Example I quoted is correct. If you make 75% of what I make while working 30 hours to my 40 hours... the salaries are essentially equal.

However... it is not correct to claim they are the 'same job'. There is a value inherent in the hours that a person is willing and able to work. That value is dependent on the situation and the needs of the employer.

Even if the speed, quality and quantity of work are equal when "adjusted for hours worked"... they are still not the same job.

I'm not here saying that the wage gap is not real... just saying that comparing John's 50 hour workweek to Jane's 20 hour workweek as "the same work" is disingenuous.
 
2012-05-22 08:24:48 PM  

itsdan: Yeah but you have to make reasonable allowances otherwise you can't ever compare 2 things. Because most people are paid by the hour, if women work on average a few hours less per week, that's going to affect things. If men work X and women work X-3, the employer doesn't hire someone to work 3 hour


Where it starts to balance is with salaried employees. Men (statistically) that are salaried work more hours on average than women that are salaried. Example: man makes 50K a year, woman makes 45K a year for the same job. Man works (on average) 45 hours a week, woman works 38 hours a week. That is 2340 hours a year vs. 1976 which is 21.37 an hour vs. 22.77 an hour. My math might be off, but that's what I got quick and dirty.
 
2012-05-22 08:31:59 PM  

yingtong: You could say that women tend to be more conservative about choosing jobs, and that -- like most investments -- the conservative options tend to offer lower but more stable returns. That isn't a condemnation.. you could easily say that women tend to be smarter about choosing jobs.


One could also say that having a risk taker in the family backed up by a conservative worker it's smarter on average. I mean, consider retirement advice - so much in the riskier stocks, so much in safer bonds, etc...

One goes for work that's relatively secure but still pays enough for the non-optional bills: Food, healthcare, house payment/rent. The other goes for a less secure but higher paying(on average) job that covers things like newer vehicles, down payments, retirement savings, etc...

AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


That's why you go with medians over means. IE 50%, 75%, 90%, 92%, 101% would have 90% be the median, 82% for the mean, with the 50% 'dragging down' the mean. It's why median income in the USA is lower than the mean - there are enough rich people making so much that it drags up that average.

SphericalTime: 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.


I remember at least a few studies where they managed to completely eliminate the 'wage gap' by controlling for enough stuff. I think that one they were looking at benefits as well though. One thing they found was that women, on average, tended to go for jobs that provided more benefits in lieu of greater pay. Things like medical care, child care, paid maternity leave, more stable jobs, etc...

My core thought: If I was an employer, and women REALLY only earned 81% as much as men for the SAME work, I'd be hiring only women for 82% of the cost of men. Since I can't do that, either the wage gap isn't really there, or women don't do the same work.
 
2012-05-22 08:37:56 PM  

itsdan: Pray 4 Mojo: Valid point I guess... but doesn't really have any bearing on what I said. 10 hours from one employee costs less then 10 hours from two employees.

Using the term "adjusted for hours worked" is simply a way of trying to justify an unsound comparison.


Yeah but you have to make reasonable allowances otherwise you can't ever compare 2 things. Because most people are paid by the hour, if women work on average a few hours less per week, that's going to affect things. If men work X and women work X-3, the employer doesn't hire someone to work 3 hours.


Agree that variables need to be compensated for in making comparisons. In this particular discussion, the data is never (that I've seen) presented that way. "Adjusting for hours" is not a magic data equalizer...

Using your example... let's say the woman leaves every Friday at lunch (3 hours early) to do some traditional woman activity... while the man stays and works 8 hours. The cost to the employer in overhead doesn't change... he still needs to keep the lights and AC on, maintain a workstation and pay for a supervisor (etc). So the employers overhead cost (x) for them is the same for the entire day. X/8 for the "male" and X/5 for the "female". At exactly the same hourly salary... she is more expensive than he.
 
2012-05-22 08:38:16 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: mgshamster: Is my wife the one woman who goes against the grain, or do we hold preconceived notions about how women act and what they desire?

Yes she is. Women are more likely, especially the ones who want families, value family friendly policies more than men, less travel, flexible hours, etc.


How do you know that? What makes you so certain? Is it something you just believe to be true, or is there evidence that shows that it's true?
 
2012-05-22 08:39:18 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Even if the speed, quality and quantity of work are equal when "adjusted for hours worked"... they are still not the same job.


Why? If the work is the same, how are they not the same job?
 
2012-05-22 08:47:23 PM  

mjbok: I have never had a women make less than me for the same work.


Women don't want equal pay for equal work. They want to work in soft occupations and take a few years off every now and again, without losing ground to men who don't do this.

It is very different to the "equal pay for equal work" which already exists in most western countries.
 
2012-05-22 08:48:28 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Using your example... let's say the woman leaves every Friday at lunch (3 hours early) to do some traditional woman activity... while the man stays and works 8 hours. The cost to the employer in overhead doesn't change... he still needs to keep the lights and AC on, maintain a workstation and pay for a supervisor (etc). So the employers overhead cost (x) for them is the same for the entire day. X/8 for the "male" and X/5 for the "female". At exactly the same hourly salary... she is more expensive than he.


Well, you just re-emphasized that the type of job is a key factor. For an office job that's likely true, but I don't know many women who leave work early every friday. In fact statistically it seems like men often work more than 40 hours. So your formula might have to take into account those services needing to stay on longer because the guy isn't leaving at the "official" end of business. Of course factor in which of these employees is more fickle about the thermostat and the A/C may not be an issue at that point.
 
2012-05-22 08:49:02 PM  

mgshamster: Pray 4 Mojo: Even if the speed, quality and quantity of work are equal when "adjusted for hours worked"... they are still not the same job.

Why? If the work is the same, how are they not the same job?


Because they do not do the same amount of work.
 
2012-05-22 08:50:06 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Underwater Bystander: I often wonder how much of the pay gap can be attributed to the older generations' belief that men were meant to make more than women and hold more "important" jobs and that we've only changed our culture regarding that belief relatively recently.

Recently? Like... this week? 'Cause I must have missed the memo.

Ask 100 women how they feel about being with a man that makes less money than they do... and then try 'significantly less'. See what kind of answers you get.


From what I've noticed of my generation (read: 20 somethings) there is a belief that anyone, regardless of sex, can do any job. It's just implied. I'm not sure if that was how it was 30 years ago but that's how it is among young people now.

Two of the three weddings I attended last year were between couples where the bride probably made more than the groom (I'm unsure what the third bride does since I don't know her very well). And I'm sure you could make the argument that not all women are like this, but how many good women are going to demand that a man pay for everything and shower her with his wealth?

You seem to be either much older than me or much more rural and conservative values oriented than me. Not that those are necessarily bad things. I just believe we're seeing different perspectives.
 
2012-05-22 08:57:49 PM  

itsdan: Well, you just re-emphasized that the type of job is a key factor. For an office job that's likely true, but I don't know many women who leave work early every friday. In fact statistically it seems like men often work more than 40 hours. So your formula might have to take into account those services needing to stay on longer because the guy isn't leaving at the "official" end of business. Of course factor in which of these employees is more fickle about the thermostat and the A/C may not be an issue at that point.


Our office is a ghost town by noon on Fridays (general contractor, boys in the field, girls in the office). Actually... it's become such the norm there... we get paid on Thursdays now.

/And you made me LOL.
//Been to the office three times in two years... it's COLD in that MFer.
 
2012-05-22 09:08:08 PM  

Underwater Bystander: Pray 4 Mojo: Underwater Bystander: I often wonder how much of the pay gap can be attributed to the older generations' belief that men were meant to make more than women and hold more "important" jobs and that we've only changed our culture regarding that belief relatively recently.

Recently? Like... this week? 'Cause I must have missed the memo.

Ask 100 women how they feel about being with a man that makes less money than they do... and then try 'significantly less'. See what kind of answers you get.

From what I've noticed of my generation (read: 20 somethings) there is a belief that anyone, regardless of sex, can do any job. It's just implied. I'm not sure if that was how it was 30 years ago but that's how it is among young people now.

Two of the three weddings I attended last year were between couples where the bride probably made more than the groom (I'm unsure what the third bride does since I don't know her very well). And I'm sure you could make the argument that not all women are like this, but how many good women are going to demand that a man pay for everything and shower her with his wealth?

You seem to be either much older than me or much more rural and conservative values oriented than me. Not that those are necessarily bad things. I just believe we're seeing different perspectives.


Much older?!?! Fark you!

Yeah... I'm older. I agree that the times they are a-changin'... and for the better. I was just pointing out... to say that they have "changed" is pretty far away. It's definitely generational.

For those older than me... around the same age... and even slightly younger... men are defined by what they do for a living... and what they make. Speaking WAY generally here of course. Not saying it's right or wrong... just the way it is.

Women... for the most part, are not defined by the same things.

The effect of this is that men women tend to see work as a means to an end... work less hours... and leave the workforce sooner than men.

/Farkin' kids.
//Don't get married.
///IT'S A TRAP!
////Get off my lawn.
 
2012-05-22 09:13:57 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Ask 100 women how they feel about being with a man that makes less money than they do... and then try 'significantly less'. See what kind of answers you get.


Where I live we used to have this ban on taking any "Jennies" (female mudcrabs) in a effort to help conserve their numbers. The logic being you only need a few males as long as there is plenty of breeding females. Then it was noticed that this was not having any effect on population levels.

The boffins step in and do a scientific study, and discovered that the Jennies refused to breed with any male mudcrab that was smaller than them. As the male mudcrabs were selectively caught, there weren't enough large male mudcrabs to go around. All these protected large Jennies were basically becoming "cat ladies" rather than adjusting their standards.

It made me laugh to read about it, because it reminded me that human females use the same logic when it cames to how much money they earn, and the expectation they have that their partner must meet or exceed this amount.
 
2012-05-22 09:20:40 PM  

mgshamster: How do you know that? What makes you so certain? Is it something you just believe to be true, or is there evidence that shows that it's true?


Yes there are studies (pdf)., reports, surveys, etc. Here's the first lady promoting family friendly policies to keep more women in the science fields.
 
2012-05-22 10:49:13 PM  
The dating pool just has me confused about current expectations. I feel like if I don't offer to pay my way at each date--and mean it--usually resulting in actually paying my way---I look like I'm trying to sponge off guy dates (gold digger).

I feel like guys are looking to date women who make at least within shouting distance of what they make, more or less. It doesn't so much seem to be about "more" or "less" as it is about "comparable." If you're not in the same ballpark, you're not a good fit.

It makes me...edgy. My income sucks--but if a guy is inclined to write me off as a financial liability, I'm not inclined to go show him a balance sheet of the reasons his impression is mistaken, because if that's what it takes to convince him.... and then that's the only reason he changes his mind about me to being real enthusiastic...Um.... Yikes?

I'll be glad when I find a new job and the surface picture is a simpler one.
 
2012-05-22 11:23:38 PM  
At first, I'm all like, "she makes 81 cents than me". But then I realize oh, it's to the dollar.
 
2012-05-22 11:54:13 PM  

draypresct: "spmkk: draypresct: "Again, your link specifically does not account for the type of work done. That's pretty important."

At best, it's even odds that that kind of breakdown would go in favor of the argument you're trying to make. Are you seriously suggesting that the work that women do at part-time jobs is higher-level on average than men's part-time work? [citation needed]

You're suggesting that it's the same or it doesn't matter. You've made the claim, back it up."



Nice try. You are claiming that not only are women paid less than men, but that their work is also worth more per hour, on average, than work that men do. That's a hell of a claim, and frankly it's a little bit absurd for you to expect someone else to do your homework and prove that it doesn't have a foundation rather than demonstrating that it does.


draypresct: "I've got to ask: Do you actually believe that it is not important to control for job type?"


Of course it is.

It's also important to control for the reduction of hours worked for maternity leave and other childcare/family reasons, without a commensurate reduction in compensation. It's likewise important to control for the gender disparity in actual hours worked per week, above 40, in salaried positions. Further, it's also important to control for the double cost that employers are saddled with in hiring temporary replacements to maintain productivity during extended absences, and the sunk cost of training those replacements only to then let them go (or the cost of the alternative -- reduced productivity). It's perhaps even more important to control for the cost of higher employee turnover in positions filled by women, who on average spend much less time in the workforce than men before self-selecting out (either permanently or for prolonged periods).

Controlling for all of those things is at least as important as controlling for job type. And if anything, TFA shows that controlling for job type weakens the evidence of a gender gap. Or at most it may show no link at all, since it's possible that the adjustment from 81% to 86.5% is due to including part-time work in the averages, for which the pay scale (again) favors women. The author really doesn't specify, though.

Did you want to talk about accuracy and thoroughness in statistics, or were you just making chit-chat?
 
2012-05-23 12:12:24 AM  

Julie Cochrane: The dating pool just has me confused about current expectations.


How do you think we feel? I once had a first (and last) date get pissed at me because I dared to question her humanity and strength as an independent woman because I dared to walk around the car to open the door for her.

Do what's right for you. If it doesn't work out... at least you'll find out right away.

/Whoever does the asking out should pay.
//The default is that the guy should pay.
///Not dating.
////Still too angry.
 
2012-05-23 05:57:01 AM  

dywed88: 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).


Why is that an issue? I mean, they can pick their careers now - they're free to do that. Do you feel justified in telling them that they must work a different job simply because men do it? It seems a bit strange - no snark intended.
 
2012-05-23 07:18:58 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Julie Cochrane: The dating pool just has me confused about current expectations.

How do you think we feel? I once had a first (and last) date get pissed at me because I dared to question her humanity and strength as an independent woman because I dared to walk around the car to open the door for her.

Do what's right for you. If it doesn't work out... at least you'll find out right away.

/Whoever does the asking out should pay.
//The default is that the guy should pay.
///Not dating.
////Still too angry.


I'm a wee leetle bit sensitive about it because I'm poor and "between jobs." The last thing in the world I want is for a guy to think I'm using him for a free meal. So I want to go someplace I can afford, order something I can afford, and will not biatchily fight with him over the check--but will probably feel more comfortable if he lets me pay my way.

Over-sensitive about, "No, I don't want to use you for money, just for companionship and if I really like you I might want your body, k? But keep your wallet to yourself. Unless, you know, it's the second or third date and going well, and you're just getting out a condom, in which case, yeah, I guess your wallet is... oh... mmmmffff.. wha.. was.. I... say... mmmff?... Mmmmm.... nevermi... mmmm..."
 
2012-05-23 09:45:38 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.


people keep repeating the pay gap myth, so they keep re running that article. makes sense to me tbh. turns out that the actual pay gap was about 95/100. and even that number is does not account for men's greater productivity which iirc is about 3-5%. so the real pay gap would be less than 2%.

i think that it has less to do with threats and more to do with truth. Unfortunately there is a concerted effort by a subset of feminism (called gender feminists by christina hoff sommers in her book "who stole feminism") that use these myths to try to unjustly secure special privileges.

Another example of the one of these myths was during the 90s when the AAUW declared that schools "shortchange" girls. It turned out that the whole thing was fabricated and in fact boys were doing worse than girls. but that didnt stop congress from passing legislation that reallocated resources to help girls at the expense of boys. As a result, the modern university system is now 60% female. An entire generation of young men, disenfranchised from education.
 
2012-05-23 10:50:17 AM  

spmkk: draypresct: "spmkk: draypresct: "Again, your link specifically does not account for the type of work done. That's pretty important."

At best, it's even odds that that kind of breakdown would go in favor of the argument you're trying to make. Are you seriously suggesting that the work that women do at part-time jobs is higher-level on average than men's part-time work? [citation needed]

You're suggesting that it's the same or it doesn't matter. You've made the claim, back it up."


Nice try. You are claiming that not only are women paid less than men, but that their work is also worth more per hour, on average, than work that men do. That's a hell of a claim, and frankly it's a little bit absurd for you to expect someone else to do your homework and prove that it doesn't have a foundation rather than demonstrating that it does.

Where on Earth are you getting this from anything that I wrote? You claimed that women work less than men (without adjusting for job type), and that this explains the difference in salaries found by researchers who adjusted for job type.

Let's try this again:
Assume 2 different random jobs: Commercial fishers and accountants. On average, because it's seasonal work, the commercial fishers work fewer hours per week. Accountants make more per hour, and work more hours per week. Assume (for the sake of illustrating the statistical issue) that proportionately more women are commercial fishermen. A study looks at both, and shows that within each type of job, women make less than men. You show that women work fewer hours, not adjusting for type of job (note: if you adjust for job type in this example, let's assume that within each job, women work the same, but since more women are commercial fishermen their overall average is lower). I point out that type of job matters (which it does), and you claim that I'm saying that the work women do is worth more and that I need to cite this fact. 1) Your statement is not related to what I said, and 2) You are the one claiming that hours work doesn't need to be adjusted by job type. Again, it's your claim, you back it up.


draypresct: "I've got to ask: Do you actually believe that it is not important to control for job type?"

Of course it is.

It's also important to control for the reduction of hours worked for maternity leave and other childcare/family reasons, without a commensurate reduction in compensation. It's likewise important to control for the gender disparity in actual hours worked per week, above 40, in salaried positions.

How about job type? There are different types of salaried positions, and different types of hourly positions. Why do you feel that it is unimportant to adjust for job type?


Further, it's also important to control for the double cost that employers are saddled with in hiring temporary replacements to maintain productivity during extended absences, and the sunk cost of training those replacements only to then let them go (or the cost of the alternative -- reduced productivity).


Do you happen to have any data on this? Do you wonder if, perhaps, the researchers who looked at this might have already adjusted for this when they looked at pay adjusting for the acutal hours worked (and job type)?

By the way - the only study I've actually seen about missed work by gender (admittedly it was a very limited study on a generally younger workforce) found that it was similar between men and women. Women missed more work because of childcare, men missed more work because they hurt themselves playing sports (again in this limited sample).

It's perhaps even more important to control for the cost of higher employee turnover in positions filled by women, who on average spend much less time in the workforce than men before self-selecting out (either permanently or for prolonged periods).


Do you have any data supporting the idea that women leave jobs more often than men? Why would you assume that (in today's era of increased job mobility) men tend to stay at the same job for long periods of time?


Controlling for all of those things is at least as important as controlling for job type. And if anything, TFA shows that controlling for job type weakens the evidence of a gend ...


The reason I'm asking for all this backup is the one statistic you've provided so far to back up your opinions . . . really doesn't (see example above). Your reaction to my pointing this out is to question my "accuracy and thoroughness in statistics". {projector.jpg}
 
2012-05-23 12:05:46 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: mgshamster: Pray 4 Mojo: Even if the speed, quality and quantity of work are equal when "adjusted for hours worked"... they are still not the same job.

Why? If the work is the same, how are they not the same job?

Because they do not do the same amount of work.


I'm totally boggled by this. How do they not do the same amount of work per hour? I can see them not doing the same amount of work per week or per day, because one is working more hours than the other per week or per day, but to claim that they don't work the same per hour just doesn't make sense.
 
2012-05-23 12:08:41 PM  

itsdan: Pray 4 Mojo: Using your example... let's say the woman leaves every Friday at lunch (3 hours early) to do some traditional woman activity... while the man stays and works 8 hours. The cost to the employer in overhead doesn't change... he still needs to keep the lights and AC on, maintain a workstation and pay for a supervisor (etc). So the employers overhead cost (x) for them is the same for the entire day. X/8 for the "male" and X/5 for the "female". At exactly the same hourly salary... she is more expensive than he.

Well, you just re-emphasized that the type of job is a key factor. For an office job that's likely true, but I don't know many women who leave work early every friday. In fact statistically it seems like men often work more than 40 hours. So your formula might have to take into account those services needing to stay on longer because the guy isn't leaving at the "official" end of business. Of course factor in which of these employees is more fickle about the thermostat and the A/C may not be an issue at that point.


It also doesn't take into account 24 hour facilities, in which the electricity is running regardless of who is there and how many hours they work.
 
2012-05-23 12:26:05 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: mgshamster: How do you know that? What makes you so certain? Is it something you just believe to be true, or is there evidence that shows that it's true?

Yes there are studies (pdf)., reports, surveys, etc. Here's the first lady promoting family friendly policies to keep more women in the science fields.


Ah, good. Now we're getting somewhere. I don't have the time to read that report this week, but I will look into it.
 
2012-05-23 03:45:22 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.

 
2012-05-23 04:29:42 PM  
And let's not forget about compensation not being paid in only wages and salary. Take, for instance, the director of the local library branch, who rode her bike to work up until the day before she went into labor. She proceeded to be provided with 3 months of maternity leave with full pay and benefits. When the 3 months was over she simply quit. She is not required to recompense for that monetary, as well as fungible health provision, compensation. Bullshiat. How is that fair to men?
 
2012-05-23 06:16:39 PM  
This in a way reminds me of the healthcare debate, because it is SHAMEFULL that the US doesn't have universal healthcare. This, of course, doesn't take into account the ungodly taxes everyone pays in Europe. Even the middle and lower income people pay huge percentages in taxes. The rich? I believe there was an article recently that put it somewhere in the 70% range. Also there is the time off delta, etc.

Julie brought up something above that also kind of stuck in my brain. Women want to be considered equal (except when they don't). Paying for dates, opening doors, covering puddles with jackets, etc. is supposed to be the norm. Killing spiders, lifting objects, etc. also (usually) fall to men. There is a flipside where women (statistically) cook and clean more. However are these gender roles and expectations not just as much a relic of less enlightened times as the perceived pay gap?

Honestly I think a lot of women want it both ways. Equal pay and open doors. Equal pay and free dates.

//Open the door for my wife and kill spiders too, despite the fact she makes a shiatload more than me.
 
2012-05-23 06:35:45 PM  

mjbok: Julie brought up something above that also kind of stuck in my brain. Women want to be considered equal (except when they don't). Paying for dates, opening doors, covering puddles with jackets, etc. is supposed to be the norm. Killing spiders, lifting objects, etc. also (usually) fall to men. There is a flipside where women (statistically) cook and clean more. However are these gender roles and expectations not just as much a relic of less enlightened times as the perceived pay gap?

Honestly I think a lot of women want it both ways. Equal pay and open doors. Equal pay and free dates.

//Open the door for my wife and kill spiders too, despite the fact she makes a shiatload more than me.


spotoffun.files.wordpress.com

/hot
 
Displayed 196 of 196 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report