The gender pay gap

[Wokko]

That article is pretty bad, not that it's badly written but it begins from the false premise that a 'gender gap' in pay exists because different work get paid differently, it doesn't even bring up the same person in the same job being a man or a woman.

'Myth 1' talks about qualifications, but those are not related to career breaks. A career break will stall a career, not because of lack of training but a lack of seniority and quite simply not working. If I could get promotions and pay rises by not working then I'd be set for life.

'Myth' 2 brings up a point and then again argues something else, talking about different roles being undervalued.

'Myth' 3 talks about negotiation skills and outcomes but doesn't really go anywhere. In an article I read and possibly linked earlier this 'myth' is actually debunked the other way, with women and men almost equal in their willingness to negotiate salary. I've never worked with a woman who was backward about coming forward for more money.

'Myth' 4 talks about different life choices but doesn't go into that point either because, well, making different life choices such as raising children of course leads to less employer/employee work. I also get pretty tired of seeing 'unpaid' domestic work, because if a partner is at home and the other partner is working then the person doing home duties is still receiving resources for their labour. The employed party is providing all necessities and usually extra disposable cash to the domestic partner. Of course this arrangement is very rarely men being 'taken care of' (I know of one guy doing this, lucky chap), and from talking with men it's not due them not wanting this role, it's just not available for men at all.

[stui magpie]

^

In the main the woman will choose to stay home with the kids regardless of relative income. I did the single dad routine while working full time. I'd really love to get backpay for doing the housework after coming home from work.

I do know one couple who the husband stayed home with the kids rather than the wife, simply because her earning capacity was more than double his, so the one who can earn the most stays at work.

Personally the whole "unpaid work at home" thing shits me to tears. If it takes you more than 2 hours to do the housework once the kids go to school you're doing it wrong. Cruisy gig if ever there was one.

[Mugwump]

^ add many variables to a highly politicised issue, overlay personal agendas, fail to define terms very carefully, and truth drowns very quickly indeed. For what it's worth, my view is that there is something in the "leadership is seen through a male archetype", and that probably does disadvantage women. Having said that, all of the overt discrimination I have seen in large organisations has been in favour of individual women at the expense of individual men, in the name of diversity and gender balance. It's a complicated world, and it's a good idea to try to look at it without too many ideological blinkers.

[stui magpie]

Interesting article in todays Aged.

It has become a fashion to mark International Women's Day each year with discussion about statistical differences between what women and men working full‑time earn on average, and how this is a problem requiring urgent redress. Much of the pay gap between women and men is influenced by the choices people make for themselves, rather than discriminatory attitudes by employers.

For the record, the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that full‑time male workers earn an average of $1587.40 per week, whereas women earn $298.10 less on average.

In other words, the observed gender pay gap in this country presently stands at 18.8 per cent.

For many feminists such an outcome represents an indictment, for the pay gap is often claimed to be grounded in persistent and widespread sexism by employers refusing to extend wages to women on a par with men.

But is it really the case that the pay gap is wholly attributable to gender discrimination in the labour market?

Economic theory and empirical analysis would suggest not.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/pay-ga ... 3y5bl.html

[think positive]

The problem with averages is they never really land in the middle. Too many variables.

[Skids]

Female plumbers get the same as male plumbers.

[Tannin]

Interesting article in todays Aged.

It has become a fashion to mark International Women's Day each year with discussion about statistical differences between what women and men working full‑time earn on average, and how this is a problem requiring urgent redress. Much of the pay gap between women and men is influenced by the choices people make for themselves, rather than discriminatory attitudes by employers.

For the record, the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that full‑time male workers earn an average of $1587.40 per week, whereas women earn $298.10 less on average.

In other words, the observed gender pay gap in this country presently stands at 18.8 per cent.

For many feminists such an outcome represents an indictment, for the pay gap is often claimed to be grounded in persistent and widespread sexism by employers refusing to extend wages to women on a par with men.

But is it really the case that the pay gap is wholly attributable to gender discrimination in the labour market?

Economic theory and empirical analysis would suggest not.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/pay-ga ... 3y5bl.html

1: of course it is not the only cause. Only a moron would argue otherwise.

2: but this is entirely irrelevant to the main point, which is that we pay women much less than we pay men, even men doing the same jobs. It doesn't matter whether the cause is gender discrimination, outdated awards and labour laws, or an acute shortage of mouldy green cheese. What matters is that we pay people equal amounts for work of equal value. And we don't.

Finding poor-quality excuses is not helpful. Saying that women take time out of the workforce to have children isn't relevant, not if at the time you measure it they are doing equally valuable work and getting paid less for it. And that is a fact: women get less, and not just for this reason. One simple way to demonstrate this is to look at the income of recent graduates. These are people too young to be taking time out for children yet. And what do we find? Women get less. Consistently.

We can do better than this.

[Wokko]

Graduates of what? Women overwhelmingly gravitate to the humanities and health compared to higher paying degrees like sciences or engineering. Do you think a Womens Studies, Medieval Poetry or 1930s French Cinema major should get paid the same as a chemical engineer?

Men also overwhelmingly work in the lowest paid and most dangerous positions. I'm far more concerned that 90% of work place deaths are men compared to women earning 18% less.

I'm also yet to see any evidence that a man and woman working in the same position for the same length of time and working the same hours earn anything other than the same pay, you assert it but don't prove it.

[stui magpie]

Interesting article in todays Aged.

It has become a fashion to mark International Women's Day each year with discussion about statistical differences between what women and men working full‑time earn on average, and how this is a problem requiring urgent redress. Much of the pay gap between women and men is influenced by the choices people make for themselves, rather than discriminatory attitudes by employers.

For the record, the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that full‑time male workers earn an average of $1587.40 per week, whereas women earn $298.10 less on average.

In other words, the observed gender pay gap in this country presently stands at 18.8 per cent.

For many feminists such an outcome represents an indictment, for the pay gap is often claimed to be grounded in persistent and widespread sexism by employers refusing to extend wages to women on a par with men.

But is it really the case that the pay gap is wholly attributable to gender discrimination in the labour market?

Economic theory and empirical analysis would suggest not.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/pay-ga ... 3y5bl.html

1: of course it is not the only cause. Only a moron would argue otherwise.

2: but this is entirely irrelevant to the main point, which is that we pay women much less than we pay men, even men doing the same jobs. It doesn't matter whether the cause is gender discrimination, outdated awards and labour laws, or an acute shortage of mouldy green cheese. What matters is that we pay people equal amounts for work of equal value. And we don't.

Finding poor-quality excuses is not helpful. Saying that women take time out of the workforce to have children isn't relevant, not if at the time you measure it they are doing equally valuable work and getting paid less for it. And that is a fact: women get less, and not just for this reason. One simple way to demonstrate this is to look at the income of recent graduates. These are people too young to be taking time out for children yet. And what do we find? Women get less. Consistently.

We can do better than this.

In every case where the rate of pay for the work is regulated by an EBA or an Award, the rate is the same for male and female.

That is a lot of the workforce where people get paid exactly the same regardless of gender.

Where are all these cases where women get paid a lower hourly rate than men for doing the same work?

[David]

^ It'd be illegal here, wouldn't it?

[Tannin]

Oh FFS, who is talking about award rates here? We are taking variable-rate employment, obviously. Jost how thick are you guys pretending to be today?

It's not my job to repeat all the wealth of information about this, it's not an issue I even care about to mention - not being a woman and not having worked for anyone other than myself this last quarter century - but it's really sad to see such mindless parroting of mysognist myth and nonsense. Well, OK, I'm not all that surprised to see Stui Toryrightorwrong Magpie fall for that line (though as a personel manager he ought to be disgraced and struck of his professional register, if such a thing exists), and I'm beyond surprise with regard to Herr Doktor of Phychoceramics Wokko and the willed blindness to overwhelming evidence, but the likes of David and Mugwump ... really ... I'd thought you guys were better than that.

[stui magpie]

[Skids]

Men also overwhelmingly work in the lowest paid and most dangerous positions. I'm far more concerned that 90% of work place deaths are men compared to women earning 18% less.

.

A good point Wokko.

I get paid a bit extra if I; have to go underground, work night shift, work with explosives etc

[Skids]

Oh FFS, who is talking about award rates here? We are taking variable-rate employment, obviously. Jost how thick are you guys pretending to be today?

.

And what massive proportion of wage earners come under the "variable-rate employment" category? yep, &%%& all.

[Wokko]

http://video.news.sky.com/video/h264/vo ... 183000.mp4

An amazing interview/debate about the 'pay gap'.