Wage Gap Between the Sexes

[Gravekeeper]

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.

The studies I looked at took into account all of these additional control factors including overtime, maternity leave, etc. Every study that runs the numbers that way still ends up with an unexplained gap. Though those factors do account for a small percentage of the gap in every study. The end result though is that there is still a gap that has no explanation beyond discrimination.

Researchers are already way ahead of you guys in this argument. By decades even. Since it is their job, while we are just random people on the interweb trying to armchair quarterback an complex issue.

our society's perceptions of gender roles needs to shift more, sadly, to see more change.

You are actually correct in that research has found that its influenced by the stereotype of a traditional nuclear family vs what is perceived as an ideal worker. The qualities that make a "Good" woman ( if you're living in the 30's ) are seen as incompatible with the traditional notion of an "Ideal" worker ( IE willing to kill themselves and ruin their family lives for the company ). And these gender stereotypes shoot women in the foot out of the gate, regardless of what their actual capabilities are.

Additionally, men are self absorbed idiots apparently. A man on average will not alter what he thinks he deserves to be paid regardless of social status, position or industry. Even if its a female dominated industry or they are directly informed that women outperform them at a given job. Comparatively, women's sense of wage entitlement is related directly to their social status in a given country.

If a women is told she's worth less her entire life, she will have a diminished sense of wage entitlement. On the other side, men in the same country who are evaluating and hiring said women, will think they are worth less and try to pay them less. Toss that on top of men interviewing women for a position will evaluate them negatively if they attempt to negotiate their salary. While men suffer no such penalty for the same action.

This effect begins before she even gets in the door. Just putting a female name on a resume reduces the chances of being hired.

The more "Traditional" a country is, the worse the gap.

(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)

Why would researchers compare those two when they're obviously not on equal terms as relevant data? Give them some credit. It is their job after all. -.-

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.

Those factors are considered as control factors in the studies I was talking about.

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.

Is this a bad time to point out that it's mainly the US government that uses 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)

No, it has more to do with the fact that 80% of single parents are women. >.>

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.

Conversely, I went and spent half an hour researching this topic to ensure I knew what I was talking about before forming a position. -.-

[the_std]

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.

I'm not going to say that you aren't entitled to your opinion, but this is a strange sentiment to share on a debate site. The whole point of this place is to discuss new and contentious topics, and have an open mind to the outcome. Otherwise, we're all just standing around yelling and making absolutely no difference to each other at all.

[siead_lietrathua]

gk, would you be willing to post the studies your talking about? genuinely curious to read them, since i have yet to find an actual research paper that shows the people broken into categories properly rather than into just male VS female. within 'similar' organizations and having 'similar' positions. but if the woman's only had her position 3 years to the man's 10 or more, there is gonna be wage differences, just as there is between me working for *company* 7 years vs the kids working there 2.
the reason i ask you to post the ones you've read, instead of just googling it, is so i can read and analyze the same data.

as to people making studies not breaking up the data properly, i do have to refer back to that initial video i posted. because, while it's older, it does show that people will manipulate the data to get the results that prove their point rather than showing proper comparisons.

heck, as i posted earlier, i had it hit my FB post that there are less than 50% women in media (tv and such) BUT you have to cut out the Public Relations field from that, where women represent over 70%.
(i would post a link to that page, but i don't want real-me to be hunted down too easily since i'm a commenter there)

also, single parents may be mostly women, but you have to factor in child support into the equation as well. they may not be on welfare if the ex/ father is helping the bills. wheras if they are including pensions in that figure and women live, on average, 4 years more than males it can make an impact. (according to stats can http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...alth26-eng.htm )
edit to add: they may also be including benefits which could be under the mother's name, but be for a married household. ie: female on disability while partner is still working

[Anthony K. S.]

The whole point of this place is to discuss new and contentious topics, and have an open mind to the outcome.

That's kind of what I meant when I said that I would listen to my opponents.

All I was really saying in that postscript was that if, after listening to what my opponents have to say, I still don't agree with them, I'm going to stand by my own views.

When a classroom full of fellow students all disagreed with me, I just shrugged it off. So I was in the minority there - the smallest possible minority, in fact. Oh, well, what can you do? I won't concede to a view I don't agree with, no matter how many people disagree with me, or who they are.

This was just a minor thought, anyway, in response to Gravekeeper's comment implying that if he's agreeing with Andara, then it looks bad for the opposing side.

[siead_lietrathua]

btw: i don't think anyone is saying there is NO gap, just that it's exxaggerated and misrepresented.


dug around a bit more, found this article:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/...rgap.html#tren
which has a section on discrimination that talks about the "unknown" gap, which is where you take out factors like education and age (which leaves 12%) and about how discrimination might be part of this gap, though there are other factors as well. this data is from the 1980's, so it's probably lesser now almost 30 years later.

here's one on how child-free single women are actually earning more than male counterpart in metropolitan areas. it also details that it's not talking about all women, just this specific catagory.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...770831192.html

here's an article by the guy that wrote the book "why men earn more" explaining lifestyle choices effect on pay.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/12/wom...rningmore.html

there;s also one out there apperantly by the Rochester Institute of Technology talking about how private business owning females take home a smaller salary than male counterparts, but i'm having a hard time finding it. and there's no discrimination when you are your own boss.

here's one form the US government with a slew of data. and while it does mention a gap of aroun 20% in 2009, it also says "This comparison of earnings is on a broad level and does not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining or further highlighting earnings differences. " (page 28)
page 33 is also worth reading, since it talks about choice of career creating the gap in wages as well.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...in_America.pdf


heere's another one that breaks down and explains the data better, showing how the gap varies from labour intensive feilds to others, breakdowns based on hours worker, other obligations, etc.
http://familyinequality.wordpress.co...rom-all-sides/

[Gravekeeper]

gk, would you be willing to post the studies your talking about? genuinely curious to read them, since i have yet to find an actual research paper that shows the people broken into categories properly rather than into just male VS female.

Here's a few of the more choice interesting reads:

Motherhood Penalty
Stereotypes and Salaries
Gender Differences In Wage Negotiation

within 'similar' organizations and having 'similar' positions. but if the woman's only had her position 3 years to the man's 10 or more, there is gonna be wage differences, just as there is between me working for *company* 7 years vs the kids working there 2.

Yes, but that's one of the most obvious factors you would control for in order to ensure accurate results. Unless you were some ass writing an op-ed to try and legitimize your own misogyny. >.>

heck, as i posted earlier, i had it hit my FB post that there are less than 50% women in media (tv and such) BUT you have to cut out the Public Relations field from that, where women represent over 70%.

I would assume perhaps it meant more as in actually appearing on TV. While its true that PR is predominantly female, the media tends to use internal PR departments instead of external firms ( Which are definitely female majority ). So the most important factor here would be how large is the PR department compared to the rest of the company.

If there's a PR department of 10 employees, 7 of which are female. It doesn't add up to much if the casting and production departments are predominately male and employ over 100 people.

Need moar data.

also, single parents may be mostly women, but you have to factor in child support into the equation as well. they may not be on welfare if the ex/ father is helping the bills. wheras if they are including pensions in that figure and women live, on average, 4 years more than males it can make an impact. (according to stats can http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...alth26-eng.htm )

Wrong country. The gap is 4.6 years in the US but female life expectancy is 2.4 years less in the US vs Canada as well. But I do not see why pensions would be figured into welfare or Medicaid. Especially in the US where the former is targeted towards low income families and the latter towards low income in general. Also in order to earn a pension, you would have to be working to begin with.

Single mother families are the highest poverty risk group in the US. Because the entire system is essentially designed to step on them. Far as I can dig up from the national poverty center, the poverty rate for single mother families in the US is around 31%.

Although the methods for determining that rate seem somewhat dubious as they have not been updated since 1960.

edit to add: they may also be including benefits which could be under the mother's name, but be for a married household. ie: female on disability while partner is still working

No, that actually penalizes your welfare / Medicaid.

[Gravekeeper]

btw: i don't think anyone is saying there is NO gap, just that it's exxaggerated and misrepresented.

Oh, I actually agree. The 77 cents to the dollar thing is basically a simplified, convenient talking point average. The studies I've read thus far that have used all possible controls ( experience, education, age, marriage status, children, etc etc etc ) typically find that the gap is reduced by around 1/5th or so when controls are taken into account.

Then there's the matter of the 77 cents being an average. When in actuality the wage gap is very complex and grows over the length of a woman's career. Rather than being an automatic pay cut at the beginning. At the beginning, men and women are much closer to parity. The gap begins to occur as they gain experience and climb the ladder so to speak. They are rewarded less over time for their efforts than men.

The average gap also varies wildly across industries ranging from 98% ( Construction ) to 60% or so ( Financial sector ).

But the public are idiots and aren't going to follow any nuanced argument longer than a single sentence. So 77 cents to the dollar and equal pay for equal work are the bite sized talking points.

[siead_lietrathua]

ccrap, i typed a bunch, hit reply, and my net died. by by long post!

for a short one, since i gotta run (lol rhyme)

to the motherhood article: reiterates stuff i've already said. motherhood impacts workability and wages. in parts it's comparing women to women as well, so it's not just about sexism.
to the negotiation one: that males are better negotiators for wages is not an example of sexism causing a wage gap. it's not men's fault they actually ask. i get paid more than many coworkers for the same reason, i negotiate raises for taking on new tasks where others do not.
to the steriotypes and salaries one: while a neat study into people's perceptions on what people should earn, and how the steriotype fo the wage gap can effect people's perception of wages, it's not real data and never claims to be. and there are a few areas where i would like more info on it but i'm almost outta time.

with the medicaid thing, jsut to explain what i ment better:
say a mom in a home of 5 files for food stamps for her family. the government will know it's for a family of 5, but it's mailed out to her, a women's name. so when they get the data of who is recieving benefits, they go down the mailing list and slot males to one side and females to the other, that mom would hit the female side.


again, noone is saying there isnt a wage gap. but "the wage gap" as talked about in media is painted as this sexist machine, where i'm saying it's not about sex, but motherhood.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I do actively wonder sometimes if these studies are in fact committing the cardinal sin of past results predicting future results. After all, your 35-50 something is Gen X, and before that you're talking babyboomers. We're getting now to the reality of women outgraduating men by almost 10% for two decades. I tend to believe that gap is going to go extinct and perhaps invert a little bit and sooner rather than later.

I knew I saw this recently: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...arity-for-now/

It's actually a rather large cohort (up to 34) that isn't being hugely effected by this trend anymore. 7% is still a delta, but that's less than what is largely reported. And again, this would be the kind of delta that really does need to be chopped up.

The other side of this, and maybe this is worth noting, is that the behavior men exhibit in regards to not taking less may largely be driving this. Rather than women making more and more money, dudes just are simply becoming unemployed and therefore stop getting counted except for the ones that will drop their salary. So it's not really women ascending so much as an entire generation of men whose bargaining position (supply and demand is fun!) is very much gone.

[Gravekeeper]

to the motherhood article: reiterates stuff i've already said. motherhood impacts workability and wages. in parts it's comparing women to women as well, so it's not just about sexism.

You're missing the point. Yes, motherhood CAN impact work-ability ( Especially in the US which has some of the shittiest parent and child care support in the world ) but as I keep saying, there are studies where those factors were controlled for. But the status of being a mother impacts wages regardless of whether or not it has any affect on job performance. To the point where simply being described as a mother causes a negative evaluation of work ethic or causes a resume to be rejected without consideration.

to the negotiation one: that males are better negotiators for wages is not an example of sexism causing a wage gap. it's not men's fault they actually ask. i get paid more than many coworkers for the same reason, i negotiate raises for taking on new tasks where others do not.

Missing it again. It is not that men are inherently better negotiators. They are more likely to negotiate depending on gender power balance, but are not better. The point is that women who negotiate like their male counterparts are viewed negatively and receive less even when their negotiations are successful. Whereas men who negotiate do not suffer any negative blow back for it.

to the steriotypes and salaries one: while a neat study into people's perceptions on what people should earn, and how the steriotype fo the wage gap can effect people's perception of wages, it's not real data and never claims to be. and there are a few areas where i would like more info on it but i'm almost outta time.

Stereotype is a large part of it. If you prefer, you can do what I did and go through every reference study on the Wikipedia article then read through the whole of the World Economic Forum's 2013 global gender gap report.

Or you can concede that people far smarter than us have already thought of all this 40 years ago and ran all of the numbers and determined that yes, there is a problem. All of the criticisms being leveled at the wage gap in this thread have been addressed in control studies. Because these arguments have been made long before any of us here thought of them.

And as I said, they indicated that when you take into account all possible controls ( Again, including age, education, experience, motherhood, industry, EVERYTHING ) they do in fact lower the popular 77 cent wage gap talking point by around 20% on average.

But that still leaves the other 80% as pure discrimination. And this discrimination component varies by country based on the empowerment of the female gender in that country. Know where the best place in the world to be a woman is? Iceland. Followed by Norway, Finland, Sweden, The Philippines, Ireland and Switzerland.

The US ranks 23rd.

Unsurprisingly, as you move south and east, things go to hell for women in short order. The more traditional and less progressive a country is, the worse it is. Which is to be expected. Though there are some curve balls in there, like Japan, which much to my surprise is fucking terrible ranking in at 105 on the list.

say a mom in a home of 5 files for food stamps for her family. the government will know it's for a family of 5, but it's mailed out to her, a women's name. so when they get the data of who is receiving benefits, they go down the mailing list and slot males to one side and females to the other, that mom would hit the female side.

That is so not how it works. In order to apply for food stamps, you must report the total sum of your assets and the individual income of every household member. Including all of their relationships too you, their name and age, all documentation of their citizenship, income statements for every member, any child support payments being made or received and proof of childcare expenses.

The government has full data on EVERYONE in said family of 5. You don't just say oh, hey, I have a family of 5. Can I have my food stamps?

again, noone is saying there isnt a wage gap. but "the wage gap" as talked about in media is painted as this sexist machine, where i'm saying it's not about sex, but motherhood.

And you would wrong.

[BlaqueKatt]

again, noone is saying there isnt a wage gap. but "the wage gap" as talked about in media is painted as this sexist machine, where i'm saying it's not about sex, but motherhood.

I'm pretty sure my brain bluescreened at that.

so people other than women can be mothers? 0_0

Because as GK has pointed out numerous times already, Fatherhood isn't an issue for men.

Which means it's not parenthood, it's motherhood, which only effects....ta-da women, which would be sexist(in order to not be sexist, parenthood in general would have the same effect on both genders and it doesn't). And I believe we have a thread on assertive women, or women with leadership skills being referred to as bossy.

There was actually an ad made several years ago that illustrates perfectly

Found it!

[HYHYBT]

I know this is by now a small point long past, but still...

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.

If businesses that have less money to spend on a given position predominantly hire women to fill it, that's not a negation of the gender wage gap, but an example of it.

[siead_lietrathua]

I'm pretty sure my brain bluescreened at that.

so people other than women can be mothers? 0_0

sigh. women that have never been married or have had children tend to make as much or more than their male counterparts. i already posted an article on this before.
me, as a child free woman, will make more over my lifetime than my sister in law, who is a mom. it's not gender discrimination, it's the reality about our ability to dedicate time to our jobs.

GK to the rest, you say i'm missing the point... i'm not. i've already said i'm NOT saying there is not a wage gap. i'm saying the wage gap is for the most part understood, and that it is mostly not discrimination.
when it comes to wage gap, only 12% of that gap falls under "undetermined" causes. so, at very most, 12% would be discrimination based, not "that still leaves the other 80% as pure discrimination."

ever heard the term "steriotypes exist for a reason"? it does work when dealing with primary child-carers.
when one parent is the one responsible for doctor's visits, taking care of sick children, having to be home during certain hours, unable to work overtime, etc. that parent will be impacted financially. it doesn't matter if the person is male or female. the secondary caregiver, not having to deal with those tasks, will have a boost in productivity.
if our culture was one where men were the child-rearers, we would have a reversal of the current stats. but, because women are the ones that carry, birth, and nurse children, in our society they tend to be the primary caregivers. so it seems like sexism, when really it's a system designed against those that take off time to raise kids. which i don't think is discrimination, it's simply an effect of a choice.
if you take off 5 years to raise kids, regardless of the parent's gender, you are gonna miss out on 5 years of raises. you shouldn't get a raise you didn't earn. and, depending on the industry, you also may have to start over from the bottom of the totem pole.
if you're someone that was a stay-at-home parent for 16 years or more, regardless of gender, you will be seen as less hireable than someone that has been working consistently 16 years, and is therefore more experienced. if you are hired, you will also probably start at a lower wage than someone with more experience. is it discrimination, or is it that the person with more work experience has earned the right to a higher wage through their labours?

again, because repeating myself is the theme of the day
1) not saying there is no wage gap.
2) saying the majority of wage gap is based on factors that have nothing to do with male VS female.
3) not saying there is NO discrimination, just that it's overblown for hype.
4) saying parenthood does effect wage gap, but for very legit reasons.


edit to add: that ban bossy thing is laughable, to the point i won't even address it. if you can't watch their promo video and realize the questions they ask the kids are misleading, and that these women in positions of power and wealth are arguing against a word that had 0 impact on their ability to gain that power and wealth.... yeah.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I know this is by now a small point long past, but still... If businesses that have less money to spend on a given position predominantly hire women to fill it, that's not a negation of the gender wage gap, but an example of it.

But I might point out, especially if what we're saying is women are hired because they are lower paid, that is another lower paid man that is removed from the sample. So if you looked at the net earnings of men vs. women, they keep growing for women in proportion to men BUT the gap doesn't shrink very fast because the low paid men are removed, the highly paid men remain, and the lower paid women enter the workforce.

I vividly remember when I was unemployed after I moved to New York, I could not get temporary or staffing companies to consider me for entry level work or even A job that was less paid and I needed the money. I would have been the best damn temp filing clerk they had ever had.

I wish I could say gender didn't factor into it, but it does in both hurtful and helpful ways. It's one of the reasons I hate this as a topic because I both agree there is a gender pay gap, but often it gets discussed in vacuum. What ISN'T getting discussed is that women who are actively seeking employment out employ men in virtually every cohort (on average). The difference is especially stark amongst millenials where the pay gap is also currently the smallest.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm

[Gravekeeper]

sigh. women that have never been married or have had children tend to make as much or more than their male counterparts. i already posted an article on this before.

But they don't. This is what I keep saying when I refer to control studies. Control studies account for motherhood and remove it as a factor. They compare the genders on completely equal grounds and still find a significant wage gap.

me, as a child free woman, will make more over my lifetime than my sister in law, who is a mom. it's not gender discrimination, it's the reality about our ability to dedicate time to our jobs.

Your sister is not every mother. Again, the status of being a mother is detrimental regardless of whether or not it actually affects job performance. Your sister and a woman that has a stay at home husband both suffer a wage gap.

GK to the rest, you say i'm missing the point... i'm not. i've already said i'm NOT saying there is not a wage gap. i'm saying the wage gap is for the most part understood, and that it is mostly not discrimination.

So with a host of evidence stretching back to 1940 about systematic gender discrimination in the work place that begins the moment a woman sends out her resume, you're still going to argue that it's a minority factor?

when it comes to wage gap, only 12% of that gap falls under "undetermined" causes. so, at very most, 12% would be discrimination based, not "that still leaves the other 80% as pure discrimination."

It is a shame you didn't read the entirety of the study you're pulling that figure from, if its the one I think it is.

when one parent is the one responsible for doctor's visits, taking care of sick children, having to be home during certain hours, unable to work overtime, etc. that parent will be impacted financially. it doesn't matter if the person is male or female. the secondary caregiver, not having to deal with those tasks, will have a boost in productivity.

Except that it DOES matter if they are male or female. As I've pointed out more than a few times now. There is a detrimental and discriminatory effect to the label "mother", while there is no corresponding one to the label "father". Even if both individuals are devoting equal time to child rearing or if both individuals are not impacted at all by child rearing from a productivity stand point.

so it seems like sexism, when really it's a system designed against those that take off time to raise kids. which i don't think is discrimination, it's simply an effect of a choice.

I don't know how many more ways I can explain what a control study is. >.>

if you take off 5 years to raise kids, regardless of the parent's gender, you are gonna miss out on 5 years of raises. you shouldn't get a raise you didn't earn. and, depending on the industry, you also may have to start over from the bottom of the totem pole.

A control study takes this into account. This is what I'm trying to explain. A control study is not comparing the woman who took 5 years off to raise her kids to the man that has a stay at home mother to raise his. Its comparing a man and a woman with the same job, equal domestic burden, equal experience, equal education, equal hours, equal skills, etc and still finding that the woman is paid less.

You're coming up with arguments which, like I said, researchers already thought of decades ago and account for in control studies. Its their job. They are experts at it. We are just a bunch of idjits arguing on the interweb with zilch qualifications in this category.

In which case I am going to go with what the evidence the experts uncovered tells me is correct. Rather than what I personally think is right. Because I am not a professor of gender studies, a sociologist or a statistical mathematician. I'm a dude on a couch with Google and too much time on his hands. <cough>