Wage Gap Between the Sexes

[Seifer]

I didn't see a thread concerning this issue (at least not one that was posted after the recent Senate vote), so I decided to make my own.

I'm going to be honest - the main reason I'm posting this is because I'd like some insight into the issue. I'm confused as to why this gap would still be around, since it seems like a lot of jobs/career fields follow a certain pay grid that would prevent a wage gap from occurring. (Everyone starts at the same wage, and when they are promoted they move to the next pay grade. The pay is the same for everyone on that level, no matter their gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.) I've worked in several jobs (including retail and office jobs) and from what I can tell, the pay has been fair. Of course, I'm not privy to everyone's pay checks, so I can't be 100% certain.

Is this wage gap occurring because of unfairness in promotions? I've seen this argument used - that men are more likely to get promoted over a woman doing the same job. This is something I can see happening, though I doubt this accounts for all of the statistics and figures I've heard concerning the wage gap.

If anyone can give me their insight into this issue and what it entails, I would be appreciative. I don't know enough about it to make a fair judgment at the moment.

[TheHuckster]

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I would expect the gap entails the amount a pay grade is, how reviews are performed, and there are still many careers out there that vary widely in salary or wages.

I could see a retail cashier being promoted to supervisor with a lesser raise than the same circumstances as a male, for instance, and during their annual review, the male gets a higher pay raise than the female. The gap per-raise might be small, even negligible, but as the years go on, these differences add up.

In other professions, the gap can be tremendous. I'm currently in software engineering, and at my skill level, one job can pay 50% more than another. There are many factors involved in how much a single job might pay, one of them being "how much did you make at your last job?" If a female was screwed by just one truly sexist employer, it could affect her salary in the next job.

[Anthony K. S.]

Well, from what I've read on the subject, men and women tend to value different things when it comes to careers.

Men usually seem to go for the jobs with the highest salaries, while women tend to gravitate toward careers with lower salaries but more job security.

Take construction, for example, a traditionally male-dominated field.

It offers fairly good pay ... but when a recession hits, construction workers are always the first people to get laid off. Buying a house is the last thing anybody wants to do when the economy is down.

By contrast, nursing and teaching, both female-dominated fields, may not offer as much money, but these jobs are pretty much recession-proof.

You should be wary of that statistic, that a woman makes 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes, because it is notoriously difficult to compare salaries across different occupations.

Besides job security, there are issues like the fact that a teacher might make less money than an office manager, but for working 9 months out of the year instead of 12. Things like that can be difficult to account for.

So from what I understand, at least part of the reason why men make more money than women is because of differences in career choices.

[siead_lietrathua]

granted, this video is a bit OT but it does talk about the wage gap issue, and explains how it's all in how you break down the data. for example, the female interviewer talked about how single women vs men had a several grand earning gap. he responded that a woman, that was newly single, having spent 20 years or so raising kids, would not be earning as much as a single man of the same age. he says that instead of single, he would compare people that never married, or never had children, for a more accurate comparison.
basically, the gap really falls between mothers (or in our time, the child-rearer) VS everyone else.
it also goes into race as a factor. that you can't just compare all people of two races, you have to also factor in education level and the feild they are in. it's no fair comparing, say, 10 people of X race, who may work as doctors, with 10 people of Y race, that work as laborers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sG...V9vRa8cilis88A

edit to add: that 77c thing doesn't factor in the fact that many women (back to the mom thing) work part-time so they can be home with kids.

[TheHuckster]

granted, this video is a bit OT but it does talk about the wage gap issue, and explains how it's all in how you break down the data. for example, the female interviewer talked about how single women vs men had a several grand earning gap. he responded that a woman, that was newly single, having spent 20 years or so raising kids, would not be earning as much as a single man of the same age. he says that instead of single, he would compare people that never married, or never had children, for a more accurate comparison.
basically, the gap really falls between mothers (or in our time, the child-rearer) VS everyone else.
it also goes into race as a factor. that you can't just compare all people of two races, you have to also factor in education level and the feild they are in. it's no fair comparing, say, 10 people of X race, who may work as doctors, with 10 people of Y race, that work as laborers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sG...V9vRa8cilis88A

edit to add: that 77c thing doesn't factor in the fact that many women (back to the mom thing) work part-time so they can be home with kids.

Given this, then, what is the Senate trying to accomplish? That anyone who was not working in a particular field for 20 years gets hired at a wage that reflects how much they'd make if they had been in that field all those years?

I still think there is some sexism going on, especially in particular industries or fields, but if what you say above is true, then the 77 cents for every dollar statistic is terribly misleading and shouldn't be used in discussions about equal pay between men and women.

[siead_lietrathua]

but it's used, because it's impactful. it gains attention, and makes it seem like there's a cause to fight for when, really, it's not.
the gap in wages is based primarily on non-work causes, like family, illness, etc. if you have less time to dedicate to work, then it's less likely you'll earn a raise in comparison to those that can.
that's why, say, a single mom in an office position might make less than a single (childless) female. she may have to take sick days because her kids are ill, not pull overtime on a weekend because she needs to drive them to practice, not take work home because she'll be busy checking homework. but with the childless female, because she has no familial obligations, she is more likely to pull overtime, take work home, come in early etc. pumping extra effort into a company shows by them paying you more. *shrug*

i think the issue is that people lobbying for 50-50 equality don't seem to realize that giving people equal opportunity doesn't guarantee an equal outcome, because people have lives! they want 50-50 ratios on everything, without even taking into account things like number of male vs female applicants. and you always always see them bitch about stuff like a lack of women CEOs, but if you mention there aren't a lot of female lumberjacks, they wave it off cuz that's, like, man work.

heck, there was one post on my fb a while back (i'm not digging for it) from Upworthy about how there is a horrible gap between men and women in news media because it's not an equal 50%. however, a commenter pointed out that in public relations, the disparity goes the opposite way, where there are significantly more women than men. it really does vary from field to field, and it smacks of dishonestly when they toss out generalized numbers instead of actually comparing within a proper catagory.

[Anthony K. S.]

if what you say above is true, then the 77 cents for every dollar statistic is terribly misleading and shouldn't be used in discussions about equal pay between men and women

That statistic has always been misleading.

For one thing, you'll notice that people often cite that statistic in tandem with the phrase, "equal pay for equal work." In fact, the Democrats did that in the article linked in the OP.

Many people simply assume, without ever thinking about it, that it means women are making 77% of what men are making for doing the same work, or at least in the same profession.

In reality, the statistic is a generalized comparison of men's earnings vs. women's earnings across all occupations.

It's basically like randomly selecting a man and woman, looking at their annual wages, and saying, "She's making a lot less money than he is. That's clearly sexist and discriminatory."

But when it turns out that he's a lawyer and she's a teacher ... Is she really making less money because she's a woman? Or is it actually that being an attorney is a more lucrative profession than teaching?

Alternatively, you could compare a woman's paycheck at the end of the week to that of her male co-worker, and find that he's making 50% more than she is, and declare this to be unfair ... without ever noticing that he actually worked 30 hours that week compared to her 20.

I can't tell you how many people I've seen over the years, both men and women, who were genuinely surprised when I told them this. They had always just assumed that it was 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work, especially since they kept hearing "equal pay for equal work" along with the statistic.

In reality, if you really applied the "pay should be equal" idea to the wage gap statistic, it would be more like, "Men and women should get equal pay, regardless of whether they're doing equal work or not."

[TheHuckster]

I had my suspicions that this was the case, although I held them as just suspicions because I had experienced first-hand cases of blatant sexism in at least one of the places I had previously worked (I'm male, but I discovered that I was making about 20% more per hour than a female colleague who had 6 months experience over me and was just as, if not better, of a worker than I was).

I really wish our politicians would actually work on fixing actual issues than make stuff up and make things worse. There are cases of sexism in the workplace, and cases of gender inequality in society in general which need to be addressed, but things like this, #BanBossy, and similar efforts are counterproductive.

[Andara Bledin]

But when it turns out that he's a lawyer and she's a teacher ... Is she really making less money because she's a woman? Or is it actually that being an attorney is a more lucrative profession than teaching?

This isn't how it's measured. The simple fact is that women in the same positions as men make less, on average, than their male counterparts. They also don't get hired as often, nor do they get promoted as often.

Don't believe the reports that say there isn't a wage gap.

This article at In The Capital highlights how women CEOs working for non-profits in DC make significantly less than men, there are significantly fewer of them, and their positions are most often in traditionally "female" role-related organizations. While it does note several reasons why women would earn less that aren't related to discrimination, it also says:

Women running groups with more than $100 million in profits made a median of $206,856 less than men running similar organizations.

Same position, same type of organization, and yet, making significantly leas while doing it.

[TheHuckster]

This isn't how it's measured. The simple fact is that women in the same positions as men make less, on average, than their male counterparts. They also don't get hired as often, nor do they get promoted as often.

Don't believe the reports that say there isn't a wage gap.

Speaking for myself, I'm not denying there isn't a wage gap, but Anthony's post was retorting the statistic that, on average, for every dollar a male makes, a female makes 77 cents. Even the article you cited, which estimates the gap to be 12%, contradicts this claim.

When politicians come up with claims like this which are either inconsistent or can't be backed up, they're going to be scrutinized by the opponents and that gains them some traction. I feel like I've heard this 77 cents statistic for a very long time (> 10 years)... is this very specific number true now, and if not, then what recent, reliable study can people use to make a case?

I think there is a case to be made, but until you have the true underlying cause, and some good hard data without slogans or some repeated mantra, passing something is probably not going to help the situation.

[siead_lietrathua]

reading that article, andara, i have to ask a few followups:
1) comparing diffrent non-profits: are the non profits generating the same scale of income? are they for diffrent causes? after all, one cause may sanction less for wages than another.
the article itself says "The banking and finance sector, for example, has the highest-paid CEOs, and yet only 15 percent of these are women. In comparison, women run 34 percent of D.C. education and arts nonprofits, which also have the smallest salaries."
edit to add: my biggest concern is the salary allowances. some non profits actually care more about putting the money into the cause than paying the CEO.
2) are the women married/ mothers? if so it may fall under the thing i posted above: people that work less from a higher level of outside obligations make less.
3) one consistant in the article is that they choose the median value to show their numbers, instead of the mean, or average. if they are only using the median, that can skew the results.
for example, let's say the diffrences are 75- 60- 57-35-14-10-4-2.
the average would be a 32.125, but the median is 24.5. so it can make a huge difference

[Sleepwalker]

The wage disparity isn't sexist because women do a shittier job than men? That's... special. Not at all new, of course, that charge has been leveled at every oppressed group ever. Blacks/gays/the poor/catholics/women/the young/the old just don't work as hard as <group that holds the most power and money>.

The interesting thing about the mother angle is it never even occurs to people to people that fathers and husbands might also suffer in their work performance because they are parents and spouses. That assumption is entirely gendered, and people benefit from it based on gender expectations, _not individual performance_. That is why it is sexism, and not objective job review. When I interview, I will suffer from the assumption that women will take less pay and be less able to advance in their careers, despite having zero intention of spending my time and energy gestating a parasite or coddling a manchild who managed to put a ring on it, and men will benefit from the assumption that they won't be spending much of their time and energy on supporting other people. It is irrelevant to an interviewer if a man is married with kids or not, and even single childfree women carry the burden of being able to become the dreaded married mother.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm with Andara on this one ( You know your in trouble now ). >.>

Oddly enough, construction is the fairest of all industries with women making around 98% of the pay of men despite being a male dominated industry. Conversely, female majority industries such as education and health services they make 76% of men. The absolute worst industry of all is financial services. Wall Street asshole town. Where women make only 70% of their counterparts.

Numerous studies have been done using the control factors you guys are talking about ( experience, education, motherhood, etc ) and have found that even when controlled for every possible factor there is still around a 20% unexplained gap. Furthermore, the gap was found to be on a curve and very discriminatory towards older women and women with children.

IE Women start their careers at around an 8% gap on average. But as they progress through their careers, the gap grows as they get less and less with each promotion or new position compared to a man. If they have children, it tanks completely and not because their children caused any effect whatsoever on job performance. A young, childless woman makes 98% of her male counterparts. The older she gets, the less she makes, and if she dares procreate, she can kiss some odd 30% of her lifetime earnings goodbye compared to a man. Women with children are also statistically less likely to even be hired and women in general are less likely to be hired on resume alone in many industries.

Interestingly enough, men on average are paid more and considered more competent if they are married or a parent. The total opposite effect. On top of that, women who negotiate for higher salaries are viewed negatively in a job interview by male interviewers and even if successful, receive smaller increases. Conversely, other men being interviewed are not negatively viewed when they try to negotiate.

Furthermore, if you eliminated the wage gap you would actually grow the economy due to increased spending power and a reduced disparity in gender and social support services. ( 80% of all welfare recipients in the US are women, as are 70% of all Medicaid recipients ). This disparity exists in every country that has a significant wage gap.

[siead_lietrathua]

The wage disparity isn't sexist because women do a shittier job than men? That's... special.

did i say shittier job? no, i said, they may not be able to put in as much overtime, or other out-of-workplace tasks. not being able to go above and beyond the call of duty doesn't mean they do a shit job. but the people that are able to will be rewarded monetarily. overtime pay is usually mandatory after all, and there's no special gap in these charts to eliminate overtime pay when they compare annual wages as far as i can tell.
heck if they're just comparing the amount earned per year, they might even be rolling bonuses in. which, depending on the company, could be a friggton. (one year the CEOs of place-i-work took home 1.5mil bonuses, tell me that won't skew things)
it also can impact careers if they take of a year or two for matleave, since they have to begin the catch-up game. some, in financial ability, may even take off work until all kids are in full-day school. it really depends on what they prioritize, family or career.
also, to the idea of fathers suffering for being married: in a stereotype cookie cutter family, having the wife at home lessens the out-of-work tasks the husband has to do, leaving him more time to dedicate to work. if you get out of having to do laundry or wash floors you get more free time.
and i'm more than aware that in our days, this goes both ways (as i said in my first post in this thread). a father that stays at home gives his wife the extra work ability bonus.
granted, societal pressures on women to be the super perfect woman that can work fulltime and be a supermom/wife may still cause her to prioritize family over career, so she may not take advantage of that opportunity to the same degree as a man. for the matter, male societal pressure is still to be the breadwinner, moneymaker, provider etc which is a mentality that encourages working long hours and lots of overtime to be able to take care of the family needs. our society's perceptions of gender roles needs to shift more, sadly, to see more change.

it really needs to be a comparative between unmarried, childless women VS unmarried, childless men. because as soon as marriage is tossed in the mix, that's when things start jumping drastically. heck, GK, you showed in your own list of stats that the gap between a woman and man in that criteria was only 2%. (you also mentioned she is young, we would have to check for age gap as well, since "male counterparts" could mean just in career, and they could have a few years on her in age/ duration of career)
to the older women/ women with children having a bigger gap, there are also other factors to consider, like how many years taken off for childcare. for example, if she took off, say, 5 years in a row, that's 5 years of missed salary increase, and an instant gap that'll be damn impossible to make up unless she is issued a, frankly unearned, salary bump.

to the married men/ fathers being paid more.. i already addressed this. if their wives are at-home moms (or part time workers) it removes the outside of work pressures and frees up more time for overtime/ extra tasks. companies tend to reward extra effort.

also, i would have to check those studies. because, as i said before, if they are using the median as the numbers of comparison instead of the average, it can really skew results. people with an agenda tend to use median.

edit to add: does the welfare/ medicate also include the elderly? women also live longer on average then men and that could be effecting the numbers. (also, is "welfare" rolling all government 'handouts' in with it, such as pensions? because that would really bugger it up too)

[Anthony K. S.]

Well, the only point that I was trying to make was that the "77 cents on the dollar" statistic is misleading, especially when people use it in combination with the phrase "equal pay for equal work."

It leads people to believe that women are being paid 23% less than men for doing the exact same work. Now, it doesn't actually say that. People seem to just assume that's what it means. But citing the 77 cents statistic in conjunction with "equal pay for equal work" certainly does encourage the assumption.

But I have seen several analyses of the wage gap statistic that have attributed it to a combination of several different factors, one of which is always "occupational differences."

For one thing, that women, for whatever reason, tend to prefer careers that offer greater job security. When you're a nurse, you usually don't have to worry about losing your job because the economy has taken a downturn. And a great many women seem to find that more appealing than having a higher salary.

The article that Andara cited stated that the nationwide pay gap between men and women was 12.7% (not 23%), although the linked article seemed to indicate that that was "for white collar occupations."

Which is a little confusing. You would think that they would have qualified that in the later article rather than simply say that the nationwide pay gap is 12.7% and leave it at that.

Anyway, the linked article stated that difference can be partly explained by occupational differences, and that women tend to be clustered in occupations that pay less.

Again, the point isn't that women aren't discriminated against. It is that there are multiple factors that contribute to the wage difference. Many of those factors, in hiring, retention, promotion, etc., are, in fact, influenced by gender biases. However, it's not as cut-and-dried as some people make it out to be.

And in the case of my particular argument, the point was that people are being incorrectly led to believe that a woman makes 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes, when they are doing the exact same work. By what I've read about it, this is simply not the case.

EDIT :

I'm with Andara on this one ( You know your in trouble now ).

Meh.

Hey, look, I once took an Introduction to Law course in which, more than once, I was literally the only student in the entire class who advocated a particular position. I will listen to what my opponents have to say, but in the end, I will stand by what I think is right, no matter how many people disagree with me.