Wage Gap Myth Exposed — By Feminists

[mjr]

That's not MY headline. That's the Liberal Huffington Post...

Yes, I know the article is from 2012...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ...b_2073804.html

The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed “full time.” What is important is the “adjusted” wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.

And the PDF referenced in the article:

http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/gr...graduation.pdf

Even if you still think a "wage gap" exists, it's not the 23 cent difference we're led to believe, in actuality.

[Gravekeeper]

That's not MY headline. That's the Liberal Huffington Post...

Sigh. Its an editorial by someone from a conservative think tank. At least do the absolute barest of research before you get all excited.

As for the study, the author herself points out the problems with its methodology. Then eventually spins into the usual bullshit when her argument runs out.

Seriously, dude.

[Greenday]

So I guess all those instances of people getting hired for the same job, same responsibilities, same amount of hours, and different pay never happened.

[Gravekeeper]

So I guess all those instances of people getting hired for the same job, same responsibilities, same amount of hours, and different pay never happened.

Dude, the study covers college graduates one year out of college. The article itself points out that its not comparing people getting hired for the same job as a problem with its methodology.

ffs, both of you.

[Greenday]

Dude, the study covers college graduates one year out of college. The article itself points out that its not comparing people getting hired for the same job as a problem with its methodology.

ffs, both of you.

/sarcasm...

[Canarr]

So I guess all those instances of people getting hired for the same job, same responsibilities, same amount of hours, and different pay never happened.

Does that actually happen? I mean, how often do you really get the chance to see two people, with the exact same professional background, get hired for the exact same job, work the exact same hours, and get paid different salaries?

Hoff Sommers is definitely a controversial figure - especially as a self-identified feminist - and also definitely not at the liberal end of the spectrum. But she's definitely not wrong in stating that the "women earn 23 cents less than men for the same work!" is simply not true.

[mjr]

So I guess all those instances of people getting hired for the same job, same responsibilities, same amount of hours, and different pay never happened.

Can depend on experience level, and whatnot, though. Right?

And again, this wasn't a study I did. It also goes into how things are broken down by job. Of course some jobs pay more than others.

It's obvious that a social worker (mostly a female field) is going to get paid less than a petroleum engineer. That doesn't mean there's a "wage gap" there.

[s_stabeler]

actually, i wouldn't say it's obvious.
1) they're both skilled jobs.
2) both are fundamentally office jobs ( a petroleum engineer is the guy who works out where to drill, not the guy who actually does the drilling. they might well go out to a drilling platform, but not for more than checking up on how it's going.)
3) they can both be high stress jobs. ( a petroleum engineer risks quite a lot of money on each well, since oil rigs cost quite a lot to operate per day. A social worker is supposed to help protect vulnerable people.

though surprisingly, experience isn't actually as much of a factor as you would think. It's more of a proxy for how well you can do the job.

[Daskinor]

This argument..

We know woman make less then men for Full Time and Part Time work across all industries. We have a vast government bureaucracy that can compute the average pay based on the information every tax payer submits to the IRS every year.

The question is WHY is this the case. And there is no clear cut reason. It could be and most likely is unconscious and/or sexism. Could be the types of jobs each sex takes. Men still highly outnumber women in high paying tech jobs. Could be social bias in job selections, secretary need to be female. Could be all the above.

In the grand scheme of things the pay rates should be equal. There is no compelling argument to why it is not.

As for this article, sample size is way to low to mean jack and shit. The environment is not secured to prevent any other kind of bias in the data samples. And the author starts moving to logical facilities to prove some kind of undefined point.

[Greenday]

Does that actually happen? I mean, how often do you really get the chance to see two people, with the exact same professional background, get hired for the exact same job, work the exact same hours, and get paid different salaries?

Hoff Sommers is definitely a controversial figure - especially as a self-identified feminist - and also definitely not at the liberal end of the spectrum. But she's definitely not wrong in stating that the "women earn 23 cents less than men for the same work!" is simply not true.

The 23 cents figure is just a number that doesn't account for any factors. So it's a true fact, it just doesn't apply to the same jobs. It compares cashiers to CEOs which doesn't make sense.

But even accounting for all that, women still earn a few cents less per dollar than male colleagues accounting for education, etc. etc.

[mjr]

The 23 cents figure is just a number that doesn't account for any factors. So it's a true fact, it just doesn't apply to the same jobs. It compares cashiers to CEOs which doesn't make sense.

And yet, that's what is constantly touted.

But even accounting for all that, women still earn a few cents less per dollar than male colleagues accounting for education, etc. etc.

The article says (and I think the PDF probably backs this up) that when you control for factors, the discrepancy "nearly vanishes".

Aside from that, unless companies report these wages, what about raises? Then you have someone making more than someone else, for possibly doing the same job. And isn't it against most HR policies to discuss your salary/wage with other employees?

[HYHYBT]

Assuming that it's true that equally qualified, equally senior men and women doing the same job average the same pay, that doesn't mean there's not a problem. Mostly, it shifts where the likely-still-there problem would be: why are women in lower-paying jobs?

[Canarr]

The question is WHY is this the case. And there is no clear cut reason. It could be and most likely is unconscious and/or sexism. Could be the types of jobs each sex takes. Men still highly outnumber women in high paying tech jobs. Could be social bias in job selections, secretary need to be female. Could be all the above.

In the grand scheme of things the pay rates should be equal. There is no compelling argument to why it is not.

I'm confused. On one hand you say, there could be many reasons for the earnings gap, and we don't really know. But then you turn around and say, there shouldn't be an earnings gap, because there's "no compelling argument" for it, when you just admitted that you don't know if there is?

The 23 cents figure is just a number that doesn't account for any factors. So it's a true fact, it just doesn't apply to the same jobs. It compares cashiers to CEOs which doesn't make sense.

But even accounting for all that, women still earn a few cents less per dollar than male colleagues accounting for education, etc. etc.

That's exactly my point: the claim is all too often "23 cents less for equal work!", and that's just not true. Yes, it's a fact, but it's a useless one for any discussion, because it's just too broad a fact to have any useful meaning.

Aside from that, unless companies report these wages, what about raises? Then you have someone making more than someone else, for possibly doing the same job. And isn't it against most HR policies to discuss your salary/wage with other employees?

Well, if a man got a raise in the year that the study covers, and a woman didn't, then that would of course contribute to the difference. Not sure what you're trying to argue here, though. If men get a raise in a timeframe where women don't, that could have different reasons, too - sexism is one possibility, lack of assertiveness or negotiation skills may be another.Or this. reason.

Assuming that it's true that equally qualified, equally senior men and women doing the same job average the same pay, that doesn't mean there's not a problem. Mostly, it shifts where the likely-still-there problem would be: why are women in lower-paying jobs?

Studies have shown that women don't tend to place the same priorities on compensation that men do; they tend to value things like flexible hours, short commutes, more vacation days, pleasant work environment, and may tend to accept lower paying jobs that offer one or more of these. Whereas men generally assign high importance to monetary compensation, and are willing to accept less pleasant working conditions to acquire it.

Whether or not that explains the actual earnings gap, I don't know. Apparently, the women's empowerment group that put together this study did a shitty job trying to figure that out, so maybe somebody needs to do a better job and try to take an objective look at the issue. But throwing around bullshit claims of, Women earn 23% less than men because discrimination!" definitely isn't going to solve anything.

[Daskinor]

Should of been more clear.

While there is many reasons the earnings gap could exist. There is not a reasons that a earnings gap should exists in the first place. There are people who would argue that there is no earnings gap, the appearance of such is only because women create it for themselves for *insert a sexist reason here*.

We know there is an earnings gap. But no reason why it would exist on its own without some kind of cause.

[Canarr]

Should of been more clear.

While there is many reasons the earnings gap could exist. There is not a reasons that a earnings gap should exists in the first place. There are people who would argue that there is no earnings gap, the appearance of such is only because women create it for themselves for *insert a sexist reason here*.

We know there is an earnings gap. But no reason why it would exist on its own without some kind of cause.

I feel like we're not talking about the same thing here... of course the earnings gap doesn't exist on its own, without some kind of cause. There is always a cause; the question is, whether or not it's a legitimate cause - a "good" reason.

If you're trying to say that some of the professions with a high percentage of women - like education and nursing - are generally underpaid, I agree with you. However, that is an issue that society as a whole needs to tackle: the fact that we tend to undervalue jobs where the primary objective isn't to produce something or earn money. That's not a sexism issue.

But if you're trying to say that women, as a whole, should be earning the same as men, as a whole, regardless of their individual backgrounds and life choices, then I disagree. There is no proof that the earnings gap between men and women - how high or low it may actually be - is caused by sexism.