Women and wages

[Tryhard]

In other countries that's a whole different story.

Interestingly enough, the wage gap was reported to be decreasing in the UK recently by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), but that was attributed to the fact that men's wages are getting paid less at a faster rate at women's wages, so essentially it's more everyone getting screwed than things actually getting better.

*shrug* ?

These are quite interesting. The comments still don't agree on that page and call it cherrypicked evidence, but I have no idea. I accept that there is one, but I find it inconclusive to as how exaggerated it is or not. Some tests even showed that women made 8% more than men in some cases. And here was the article (checking on it, seems like sometimes it cuts it off to logged in members and sometimes it doesn't, so oops I guess) that the second link was replying to.

I did find this one pretty interesting though, with the fact that the cited figures are indicating median annual payment instead of "working the same job".

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jul/15/terry-mcauliffe/mcauliffe-says-women-earn-77-percent-mens-pay-same/

Edited November 21, 2014 by Tryhard

[Dagon]

Another thing to think about is that one gender will more than likely make more money than the other. There is a lot of factors contributing to wage. I'd argue that those stats will always show that one gender has a high her wage. These are stats so they would take show the whole story. They might show a one percent difference later on even if gender equity is reached.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Dagon

[dondon151]

It seems that fixing the economy is one of the best things we can do about salary inequality. Under a stable economy, women will be able to find better jobs and face against discrimination, so they will not have to tolerate abuse. This is better than hoping that a law enactment act will somehow fix inequality problems (hint: it hasn't ever fixed anything, and it won't).

child labor laws, anti-segregation laws, occupational safety laws, etc.

contrary to what you seem to believe, laws actually do things.

Why you of all people must be concerned about someone else's salary while they show satisfaction about it? If they are willing to accept the trade and satisfied with their part, you have no right to intervene in voluntary negotiations, even if you find it injust and abusive (because 'value' is a subjective concept).

i don't think you adequately read my sentence. i said that a woman would be indignant if she found out that she was making less money than her male counterpart, so her satisfaction is actually contingent on ignorance. i'm sure that if you went back to the 1950s in the US and asked some black people, you would find plenty who were satisfied with their comparative lack of rights. even if many black people were happy being second-class citizens, that doesn't make it right to deny them their rights.

Edited November 21, 2014 by dondon151

[Esau of Isaac]

i think you misunderstood what i said in my previous post:

i'm willing to wager that in many cases, unless you told a woman that she was making less money than a man doing the same job, she wouldn't complain about her income. that doesn't mean that the inequity should stand.

Oh, I agree on that front, then.

if searching for a job were really as easy as you claim it to be, then why is it that so many people who lost their jobs in the economic recession are no longer counted in the unemployment figures because they gave up looking for a new job? and why is it that the underemployment figures for fresh college graduates has increased from around 10% in 2008 to around 17% in 2014? i will concede that the action of looking for a job is easy, but that's a solid bit of pedantry if you assume that i'm not talking about getting a job.

Because the supply of capable workers in their careers were far higher than the demand. The argument is silly, I suppose, but the difference is not immaterial. It does not cost much to search for a job. Even getting a job --with condition being any job rather than a highly specific one-- is not particularly difficult. The difficulty is in getting a job of comparable pay in a comparable field. If that's what you're referring to, then I agree; I never said that it's possible to shield yourself from risk, but the comparison isn't especially relevant in this situation.

[Tryhard]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11240532/The-gender-pay-gap-has-fallen-to-a-record-low.html

"The difference between the average earnings of men and women in the UK has narrowed to its smallest gap since records began in 1997, with women in their 20s and 30s now earning more than their male counterparts."

That's uh, that's quite something. I actually missed that in the first article.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Tryhard

[Rapier]

i don't think you adequately read my sentence. i said that a woman would be indignant if she found out that she was making less money than her male counterpart, so her satisfaction is actually contingent on ignorance.

I agree with you here, then.

child labor laws, anti-segregation laws, occupational safety laws, etc.

contrary to what you seem to believe, laws actually do things.

Bad wording of my part, I apologize.

Indeed, laws actually do things, but how effective are they? We have Kennedy's Equal Pay Act, which in theory should have solved (or contributed a lot to solving) the gaps in payment between men and women, yet it hasn't been as effective as it should be (otherwise the topic wouldn't be an issue). How effective have child labor/equal pay/anti-segregation laws been, in practice? (note that this is not the same as saying that laws are useless because they don't solve problems completely - that'd be an appeal to a perfect solution, which is a fallacy. This is not the point)

My point is actually this: A solid economy is the best method to lower the aforementioned social problems. And since you ignored it altogether, I suppose you have no objections to this statement. A solid economy would make it so that women/black people who feel discriminated against can quit their jobs and find other ones more easily. It would also lower the number of children at work with the increase on opportunities.

I don't intend to say that laws are useless. They do help, but they are not very practical unless the country has a solid economy. Children will still work on poor countries with labor laws, regardless if a kind bureucrat decided to overrule it with his mighty pen stroke, because they are in need. Women and black people will still be discriminated against if they don't have much opportunity to ascend socially, because they have no choices. Besides, enforcing these laws is particularly expensive. Opportunity is the key.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Rapier

[Magical CC]

The girl who works with me in the company always complain how she gets lower wage than me or my other male friends. While it's true that she work harder than us, the result of her work is lower than us, about 1/3 to an average guy. I am not sure about America, but here in my country, if you want to have better salary, you have to be either a foreigner or be able delivery a better working result.

On another note, the bars in my country only accept young girls. You cant deny the fact that male also suffers from sexism.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Magical Amber

[Esau of Isaac]

On another note, the bars in my country only accept young girls. You cant deny the fact that male also suffers from sexism.

The same is true of some professions in America too, actually. Waitresses tend to make far more than their hairy brethren, for example, and the difference in pay between male and female models tends to be staggering. Gender inequality goes both ways, really, but the way it's reported you'd think women were chattel.

[Rapier]

Waitresses tend to make far more than their hairy brethren, for example

This should convince feminists to just shave already and receive better salaries

Wait... I missed the point, didn't I

Regarding better salaries for women as waitresses, I can see why this happens and why employers have a preference for women (especially young women). It seems just, because [young] women attract more clients, which means the employer makes more profit, therefore they're more valuable in that market than men. In a way, they are "contributing" more.

While it's true that she work harder than us, the result of her work is lower than us

Do you mean she works more and receives less, or that she works more and produces less?

Edited November 25, 2014 by Rapier

[eclipse]

Regarding better salaries for women as waitresses, I can see why this happens and why employers have a preference for women (especially young women). It seems just, because [young] women attract more clients, which means the employer makes more profit, therefore they're more valuable in that market than men. In a way, they are "contributing" more.

Can you do me a huge favor and NOT go that way? Your resident mod has a headache, and this may very well end up messy.

(or it may not, and the topic can carry on as intended, and I'll be super-happy)

[Tryhard]

The same is true of some professions in America too, actually. Waitresses tend to make far more than their hairy brethren, for example, and the difference in pay between male and female models tends to be staggering. Gender inequality goes both ways, really, but the way it's reported you'd think women were chattel.

There was a few quotes from that telegraph article that I linked that I think were quite interesting:

Jo Swinson, minister for women and equalities and business, said that the “vision has to be eliminating the pay gap completely.”

Tax free childcare and shared parental leave come into effect next year, which should “help tackle the unequal split of caring responsibilities,” Ms Swinson added.

Nicky Morgan, minister for women and equalities, said she was “delighted that the gender pay gap has reduced to its lowest point in history,” although “there is more to be done.”

“Women are vital to the success of our long-term economic plan and we need to make the most of their skills at every age. We have more women in work than ever before, but businesses need to value diversity in their workforce and pay attention to the role of women in their organisations,” Ms Morgan said.

Gaenor Bagley, executive board member and head of people at PwC, said, ““A sizeable part of the gender pay gap is the symptom of not having enough women in senior positions, so the increased focus from businesses to tackle this is clearly paying off."

There is always the distinction of calling it the gender pay gap, but it always seem to refer solely to women's unfair pay in regards to men and in circumstances or specific jobs where it is the opposite (in this case in the pretty big age group of 22-39), almost no worry is given to it. And if there is a gap (and I find it funny when they refer to favouring women as "a negative gap"), then surely there is still a problem? Sometimes I think that these people would be absolutely fine with men getting paid 25% or whatever less. Well, I at least know some are (seriously though, wanting to bring one group down to even things out instead of wanting more money equally split, what the hell). Like Dagon said I do expect it to be very hard to keep it to an exact amount, but the gap should be managable enough to be trivial.

I dunno, it bothers me a little when they refer to women strictly getting paid less and that always being the problem, even if it is more common.

I hope it's just the way it is reported.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Tryhard

[Magical CC]

Do you mean she works more and receives less, or that she works more and produces less?

She works more and produces less.

[Rehab]

Waitresses making more would be an example for a big huge prime argument for a ton of feminists I've heard from, actually. I've heard a bunch say that women actually find themselves in service industry jobs a lot more, both because it's seen as their "sphere" culturally and because both just making it and getting equal pay elsewhere is disproportionately harder. And then they still lose out in aggregate pay, between professions.

In other words, female waitresses making more than male waiters comes out as a wash at best, because who wants to grow up to be a waiter? (to replace "waiter" with every single job that women overall make more than men in wouldn't always have the same effect, but the point of the argument I've seen remains that those jobs still don't make for a playing field that's in the favor of women overall)

Not to say I personally think the whole set of issues that make up "gender gap shit in the workplace" is so straightforward that it only ever runs one way in every situation, but I wouldn't exactly want to trade.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Rehab

[Tryhard]

Waitresses making more would be an example for a big huge prime argument for a ton of feminists I've heard from, actually. I've heard a bunch say that women actually find themselves in service industry jobs a lot more, both because it's seen as their "sphere" culturally and because both just making it and getting equal pay elsewhere is disproportionately harder. And then they still lose out in aggregate pay, between professions.

In other words, female waitresses making more than male waiters comes out as a wash at best, because who wants to grow up to be a waiter? (to replace "waiter" with every single job that women overall make more than men in wouldn't always have the same effect, but the point of the argument I've seen remains that those jobs still don't make for a playing field that's in the favor of women overall)

Not to say I personally think the whole set of issues that make up "gender gap shit in the workplace" is so straightforward that it only ever runs one way in every situation, but I wouldn't exactly want to trade.

So do you think that overall the feeling is that the more important issue is the unwelcoming atmosphere of industries into, let's say more "higher-tier" jobs specifically for women more so than the fact of the notion of women getting paid less for the same amount of work or do you think that both are put forward as equal issues or both being contributing factors?

I wouldn't want to trade either but I do find it rather strange that in the age group of 22-39 at least in the UK (I'll have to admit I'm pretty ignorant about what the situation is like elsewhere) women now on average make more than men for the same jobs working full time and on an hourly basis (over a range of jobs too). However if you want to speak about how men tend to hold higher paying jobs, then that would be something else entirely.

EDIT: Then of course there is the whole issue that men are more likely to work overtime hours and more hours in general and how accurate the studies we have are.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Tryhard

[Achelexus]

Men and women get paid the same on average for the same job, the difference is that men pursue higher paying(and harder) careers and that they work more hours per week, and the reason for that is that no women cares to date a man without money, whereas a man cares very little for how much money his partner has.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Achelexus

[Lord Raven]

That's probably one of the more misogynistic things I've heard on this board...

[Achelexus]

That's probably one of the more misogynistic things I've heard on this board...

Lol misogynistic, it's kinda hard to take that word seriously.

[Rehab]

You might've ducked being actually called misogynist if you had left out the old gold-digger standby.

So do you think that overall the feeling is that the more important issue is the unwelcoming atmosphere of industries into, let's say more "higher-tier" jobs specifically for women more so than the fact of the notion of women getting paid less for the same amount of work or do you think that both are put forward as equal issues or both being contributing factors?

I wouldn't want to trade either but I do find it rather strange that in the age group of 22-39 at least in the UK (I'll have to admit I'm pretty ignorant about what the situation is like elsewhere) women now on average make more than men for the same jobs working full time and on an hourly basis (over a range of jobs too). However if you want to speak about how men tend to hold higher paying jobs, then that would be something else entirely.

EDIT: Then of course there is the whole issue that men are more likely to work overtime hours and more hours in general and how accurate the studies we have are.

I've personally heard the former more than the latter around some of my hangouts, at least, but I don't think I could count the latter out. Acceptance and encouragement of women in workplace and educational cultures are especially common subjects for me to hear from them, though, yes.

That and women still having lower participation in the workforce are often mentioned near the same breath.

I do have to say that I've probably seen more data showing that incomes, participation and representation of women are getting better as we go forward than the reverse. I've also heard the idea part of why we don't see as many women who have pierced then inner sanctum of jobs/areas that tend to require time invested and experience gained may be because we care, pay attention to and expend effort more on the whole thing than we used to, back when those dudes were the young up-and-comers. Could be at least one less-toxic reason why the gap may be more noticeable in the 30+ age range (which is when people tend to get married and have kids moreso overall, of course. slightly less less-toxic area. I also wonder if that part might help inform the overall pay gap, given (I hope it's safe to assume) older-than-30 people tend to make more of the money made).

I assume/realize conflicting studies and assessments no doubt abound, though.

[Achelexus]

How can you even deny that women in general care more about their partner's social status compared to men?

[Lord Raven]

Do you have any facts or unbiased studies to back yourself or will you keep making blanket statements about this?

[dondon151]

How can you even deny that women in general care more about their partner's social status compared to men?

how can you even deny that women in general don't care more about their partner's social status compared to men?

[Tryhard]

Men and women get paid the same on average for the same job, the difference is that men pursue higher paying(and harder) careers and that they work more hours per week, and the reason for that is that no women cares to date a man without money, whereas a man cares very little for how much money his partner has.

Yeah so you kinda made a few assertions here:

1. "Men and women get paid the same on average for the same job." - This is inconclusive and why I'm wondering about if a) such a pay gap exists and b) if it exists, is it exaggerated? This doesn't exactly help when you just state what you think is the case.

2. "The difference is that men pursue higher paying(and harder) careers." - If you mean in terms of job choices, where women are far more likely to be interested in working with people while men tend to work with machines or in maths or science, then yes. Though I would admit that being a teacher is a difficult job that I would not want to have and a lot of the jobs are simply underpaid.

3. "They work more hours per week." - On average, yes, men are more willing to put in more hours and more likely to take overtime then women.

4. "The reason for that is that women care about the money their partner has while men don't." - I can't understand the logic behind this one and definitely the one I have a problem with. Manipulative people exist, and I really haven't seen any evidence to show that women are especially so. I don't consider this a gendered issue. Along with the fact that you didn't really provide anything to back this up, that's why people viewed this poorly.

I've personally heard the former more than the latter around some of my hangouts, at least, but I don't think I could count the latter out. Acceptance and encouragement of women in workplace and educational cultures are especially common subjects for me to hear from them, though, yes.

That and women still having lower participation in the workforce are often mentioned near the same breath.

I do have to say that I've probably seen more data showing that incomes, participation and representation of women are getting better as we go forward than the reverse. I've also heard the idea part of why we don't see as many women who have pierced then inner sanctum of jobs/areas that tend to require time invested and experience gained may be because we care, pay attention to and expend effort more on the whole thing than we used to, back when those dudes were the young up-and-comers. Could be at least one less-toxic reason why the gap may be more noticeable in the 30+ age range (which is when people tend to get married and have kids moreso overall, of course. slightly less less-toxic area. I also wonder if that part might help inform the overall pay gap, given (I hope it's safe to assume) older-than-30 people tend to make more of the money made).

I assume/realize conflicting studies and assessments no doubt abound, though.

It's definitely interesting to me, but I do often hear about the acceptance (or perceived lack-of, in this case) in specific fields, especially in STEM. Do you think it is because that these fields are very male-dominated or do you think they are genuinely unwelcoming to women. I really believe that the insistence that such fields are sexist or such is actually quite detrimental to women who are interested in joining it, mainly because I haven't really heard or seen widespread discrimination in those.

I do appreciate the trend going positively for wage differences (along with participation in the workplace from what I understand?), but is there a specific point where equity can be had? Within 5-10% of each other? Less? I think it's rather hopeful to imagine that it can be consistently kept as completely equal, especially for all age groups.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Tryhard

[Achelexus]

how can you even deny that women in general don't care more about their partner's social status compared to men?

IIRC there were some studies in which they showed photos of the opposite sex for men and women and asked them to rate their attractiveness, they showed photos of men dressed as fast food employees to various women, then showed the photo of the same men dressed in much more formal clothes(as if they were some sort of executive or whatever) to other women, the result was that the men shown in these "burger king employee clothes" were rated as far less attractive than the men dressed as big executives(even though they were the same men). They did the same thing but with reversed genders and the result was different, the implied job of the women in the pictures didn't make a difference in how attractive they were for men. I'm not saying that women are gold-diggers or whatever, but it makes sense from both a cultural and an evolutionary point of view(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy, women tend to marry up while men tend to marry down, this is true for all parts of the world).

I'll see if I can find said study to link it here.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Achelexus

[Lord Raven]

I don't believe you until you find the study and I'm shocked that people are taking you seriously given you've linked a study before that contradicted the point you made. Interestingly enough you haven't even gone through the trouble of responding to that.

[Rapier]

That's probably one of the more misogynistic things I've heard on this board...

That's probably one of the most sensationalist things I've ever seen on this board... Attack the argument, not the person behind it. You completely forgot to do so. It's very easy and intelectually dishonest to just point at someone and yell mysoginist or any other bad term to make them look bad while not addressing their points.

It is also interesting how you and dondon decided to ignore the rest of his post and only pay attention to the "women generally prefer men with money" part. The weakest link of the chain is the easiest to be broken, hm? The rest of his content is factually correct, and since Tryhard already summed it up on his latest post, I don't need to repeat him. See if you can address that.

She works more and produces less.

It is natural for people who produce less to also receive less. Not that this applies to all women in general, but it seems to apply to the case you pointed, unless I read it wrong.