Gender pay-gap myth

[serenity]

I have long stated that I dont believe women are as badly off professionally as claimed.

Here is further proof:
A headline by Reuters on Nov. 7 was startling and certainly newsworthy: "Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study." Yet, one full week later there was no newspaper coverage of this politically incorrect report, though the study was based on 25,000 corporate directors at 3,200 companies with female directors being an 8-to-1 minority.

The Reuters report stands in stark contrast to the politically correct — but empirically incorrect — Associated Press story that blanketed the nation on April 23, 2007. The AP story was based on the advocacy press release of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) that claimed after one year out of college women earned 20 percent less than men and that the gap widened 10 years later to 31 percent. The AP did not tell the nation that statistical analyses accompanying the press release reduced the two purported gaps to 5 percent and 12 percent respectively .

Second, is there really a gender pay gap?

This answer here also appears to be no based on research published in America's most prestigious peer-reviewed Economics journal. Economist June O'Neill, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, wrote an article titled "The gender gap in wages, circa 2000" in the May 2003 issue of the American Economic Review. By factoring in some of the many work-related differences between men and women such as hours worked per week, danger and travel requirements of the job, years of education, years in the field, and many other characteristics, she found the purported pay gap virtually vanished.

Further, a recent New York Times story titled "For young earners in big city, a gap in women's favor" portends a pay gap favoring women immediately following educational completion.

Third, is there really a boy and man crisis in education? Here the answer is an unqualified yes. While there are many "boy crisis deniers" in the media, they blindly follow ideology rather than empirical research reality. The basic facts of the boy and man crisis in education have been widely disseminated. Briefly, they are: Boys perform less well in school at all levels than do girls and have higher school drop-out rates especially in high school. In higher education, men at best constitute 40 percent of the undergraduate student population and university graduates, 25 percent of psychology graduate students, and 20 percent of veterinary medicine students. And, the list goes on with comparisons predominantly favoring women.

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/ ... ontent.270 (http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.270)

[Falcon]

not true for all levels placidity,
in science jobs in the UK, women got on average over 50 pecent less than men and that was only 5 years ago. 'They' are trying to redress the balance but it's still in the high forties.

[BW]

not true for all levels placidity,
in science jobs in the UK, women got on average over 50 pecent less than men and that was only 5 years ago. 'They' are trying to redress the balance but it's still in the high forties.

People should really put a little asterisk (*) whenever they use a statistic like that. We don't know if that takes into account experience differences, how much hours work per week, the level of work (engineer vs secretary), etc. There are tons and tons of variables to consider here, and just throwing out a number without any idea of the context or how it was calculated, is just irresponsible.

There's a famous book called "How to lie with statistics". I guess I should read it sometime, but I'll go ahead and recommend that you read it instead.

In any case, I say we are going about this in entirely the wrong way. We should strive for equality of opportunity, and act in the strongest way possible against any gender-based discrimination in the system. But, that does not mean we should enforce equality of outcome!

[Falcon]

Breadwinner, I apologise. The stats were in relation to SCIENCE industry jobs, from post-doctoral appointments to research group leaders. Nothing to do with engineers and secretaries.

[BW]

Breadwinner, I apologise. The stats were in relation to SCIENCE industry jobs, from post-doctoral appointments to research group leaders. Nothing to do with engineers and secretaries.

Still lots of variables. Experience, numbers of hours worked, company of employment, educational background, number of years with the company, etc.

It's impossible to do the maths to completely eliminate all the variables involved in setting wages. It's a sloppy metric, and certainly shouldn't be something we throw around casually.

[Falcon]

Breadwinner, I apologise. The stats were in relation to SCIENCE industry jobs, from post-doctoral appointments to research group leaders. Nothing to do with engineers and secretaries.

Still lots of variables. Experience, numbers of hours worked, company of employment, educational background, number of years with the company, etc.

It's impossible to do the maths to completely eliminate all the variables involved in setting wages. It's a sloppy metric, and certainly shouldn't be something we throw around casually.
Science jobs don't have raises willy nilly; there are prescribed pay bands, and the superior candidates usually get the jobs. Science staff is the UK hardly qualify for overtime, and the work requires that you work much more than 8.30-5.30 Mon to Fri. Educational background is considered when choosing candidates, not for ascending pay scales- that comes from work output. Same with experience. I can't break it down any simpler- the survey was a comparison of like versus like, within the realms of any Normal distribution. It may differ country to country, I give you that.

But enough of that: do you believe there is a gender-wise pay gap?

[BW]

Science jobs don't have raises willy nilly; there are prescribed pay bands, and the superior candidates usually get the jobs. Science staff is the UK hardly qualify for overtime, and the work requires that you work much more than 8.30-5.30 Mon to Fri. Educational background is considered when choosing candidates, not for ascending pay scales- that comes from work output. Same with experience. I can't break it down any simpler- the survey was a comparison of like versus like, within the realms of any Normal distribution. It may differ country to country, I give you that.

The major failing of that argument is that it doesn't tell me how jobs are distributed between men and women. It's entirely possible, and very much likely, that women would take time off to raise a family, or other fulfill other roles. Perhaps women are an overwhelming majority of the new generation of scientists, but not from those from earlier generations (so, men take up the senior positions, while women outnumber them in the more junior positions).

If you want to do specific case vs case comparisons, where you are much better able to hold those factors constant, then I fully support that. Take a woman who is 100% identical in their career to a man (same age, same job, same everything). See if the pay gap exists, then address the possible causes (if discrimination is found, address it). However, the over-reaching stats that you are trying to use are nowhere near as valid a comparison; they are just too sloppy and easily manipulated to draw conclusions.

Ps, could you provide a link to the study you are mentioning? The fine print and the methodology are the most critical aspects of the study, and the fact that you didn't even mention any details at first is troubling.


But enough of that: do you believe there is a gender-wise pay gap?

I'm saying that's not the issue. Why do you want to enforce an outcome in the first place? If women make different career and life choices as men, then what exactly is the problem with that? By artificially trying to "correct" this different, you're only going to end up creating state-sanctioned discrimination.

I'm against gender-based discrimination, but the real question is... are you?

[Falcon]

I am indeed!

[Falcon]

Sorry I can't provide you with the study, it's an internal QA document for the relevant institutes and not yet public. You'll have to go on my integrity. :)

[Kalz]

As a qualified young male professional in the US i can tell you that women have distinct advantages in getting their foot in the door to good jobs. Many older men who are in hiring positions like young women around them. I have observed this so may times i am sick of it. But young women can use this to their advantage by taking the entry level jobs and working their way up once they in the system. I have personally seen that it is harder for me to get in the door and prove myself because of this. Even when i am by far the better candidate in every way. Of course i will qualify this statement by saying the frequency of this might be different in different fields. I speak mostly of fields suc as PR, advertising, marketing, public relations. My experienc eis a man with a degree in these fields ent even worth as much as a attractive young woman with no degree..at least for the entry level jobs.

[serenity]

Found this today while doing research:

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Concluding Observations: Trinidad and Tobago (2002).

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cedaw/trinidad2002.html


The Committee is concerned that, despite high educational qualifications, women continue to be underpaid in every sector of employment, except the State employment sector. It is also concerned about the consequences of gender stereotyping in curricula and the impact of the fact that girls take traditional "female" courses and boys traditional "male" courses on women's employment options and income. The Committee is also concerned about the lack of specific legislation prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace and providing a remedy for victims of sexual harassment.

The Committee encourages the Government to analyse the correlation between the high level of education attained by women and their income levels; it urges the Government to implement curriculum reform and the revision of textbooks in order to combat traditional attitudes towards women and to help to create an enabling environment for women's presence in high-level and well-paid positions. It also recommends that the State party avail itself of existing research and practice with regard to equal pay for work of equal and comparable value in order to overcome inequality in pay. The Committee further recommends that sexual harassment in the workplace, including in the private sector, should be penalized.

[KFCSpicy]

This article is from the Women and Equality unit printed by the UK Government.

http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/ ... p_2004.doc (http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/factsheets/gender_paygap_2004.doc)

The article is long as it's a word document too so I didn't repost it here...but the link is there for one and all to read.

It is a huge problem here in the UK and they consider themselves enlightened and progressive. Go figure!

[Jenny]

The group that I work for are known for having one of the highest (if not the highest) ratio of male to female people. I don't believe that there is a gender pay gap where I work....pay depends on the grade of engineer you are. But that varies with time....eg you can enter at grade 4 and be a grade 5 in a year or make grade 5 in two years, depends on your quality of work. Men and women undergo the same grading......I entered with 3 guys...Im already a grade 5 within less than a year...they still on grade 4.....even though we entered with equivalent quals.

[KFCSpicy]

Jenny where I work we are graded into our posts also but saying that each post has an estimation of pay. If you are a Grade 3 per se you get "between" figure x and figure y. So even though you and I may be both grade 3 that don't mean we getting the same salary my dear. Men get more money in the UK that is a fact. Unless the two men you work with are willing to divulge their pay to you I don't see how you will know for a fact that when you all were on the same grade your salaries were exactly the same.

There are few fields where the salary for a post is fixed for e.g. Security. An S.O. on site can get a standard pay of £6.90 - £8.00 per hour, depending on the contractors and the greed of the security company all standard s.o's getting £7.00 and if you are a Shift Supervisor or Controller then your pay rises with your title it has nothing to do with gender in this particular field.

Private sector and Public Sectors...well that's where the drama unfolds.

[Jenny]

I think its different for a consulting firm. We have fixed rate depending on the grade...man or woman. We are also seconded out to the client at a fixed rate....grade 5 engineers no matter man or woman have to pay the same consultancy fees for our services.

[kayt]

So there's no universal proof on the closing gap on female's pay. There are some councils in the UK that have acknowleged the desparity but are still in the process of sorting pay out. This is supposed to be a 1st world country. Anyone have any information on TnT's gender pay gap? What's it like for other developing countries. In some rural places women work for free.