Here's What The Gender Pay Gap Looks Like

[MigL]

Given the fact that no-one will refuse a pay increase over their fellow worker, male or female, and if we don't want to create another layer of government oversight, isn't the solution simply an attitude adjustment of management and HR departments within companies or organizations which are the worst offenders ?

 

This can be done at the individual level by a refusal to do business with the offending companies/organizations, or at the societal level, by identifying and 'shaming' those companies/organizations into reforming their pay structures. A simple 'watchdog' government department, with no disciplinary powers, could take care of this ( or would they open themselves up to lawsuits ).

 

Both of these measures will affect their bottom line, and that is the only 'pressure' they understand and respect

[Skeptic134]

Given the fact that no-one will refuse a pay increase over their fellow worker, male or female, and if we don't want to create another layer of government oversight, isn't the solution simply an attitude adjustment of management and HR departments within companies or organizations which are the worst offenders ?

 

This can be done at the individual level by a refusal to do business with the offending companies/organizations, or at the societal level, by identifying and 'shaming' those companies/organizations into reforming their pay structures. A simple 'watchdog' government department, with no disciplinary powers, could take care of this ( or would they open themselves up to lawsuits ).

 

Both of these measures will affect their bottom line, and that is the only 'pressure' they understand and respect

 

Absolutely. People "voting" with their wallets works, it isn't always immediate but it works. Likewise bad publicity espcially with social media works as well.

 

And I think this goes beyond gender pay discrimination.

[iNow]

Unfortunately, some of the largest employers don't transact business directly with average consumers so are largely immune from such social pressures. Likewise with those conglomerates that have consolidated power so significantly as to dominate entire industries. They don't care what activists say. They don't have any competition. The issue amplifies when you include those whose primary customer base is in Asia.

[Delta1212]

I think there is a potential problem in focusing on the pay gap without context. It's existence definitely points to a problem, but the problem could be in one (or both) of two areas, and the way it generally gets framed focuses on one of them that may or may not be the root cause.

 

If, for example (pulling numbers out of my ass), the top 5% of male earners are CEOs, while the top 5% of women are a mix of CEOs and doctors/lawyers because CEOs are disproportionately men, then the problem isn't that women aren't earning as much for doing the same job. It's that women are being discouraged in one way or another from getting those higher paying jobs.

 

If that's the case, then the focus should be on opening up opportunities for women rather than equal pay for equal work (which should also be happening, but may very well do little to solve the problem depending on what the leading causes of the discrepancy are at this point).

[Skeptic134]

If, for example (pulling numbers out of my ass), the top 5% of male earners are CEOs, while the top 5% of women are a mix of CEOs and doctors/lawyers because CEOs are disproportionately men, then the problem isn't that women aren't earning as much for doing the same job. It's that women are being discouraged in one way or another from getting those higher paying jobs.

 

If that's the case, then the focus should be on opening up opportunities for women rather than equal pay for equal work (which should also be happening, but may very well do little to solve the problem depending on what the leading causes of the discrepancy are at this point).

 

I believe this is definitely a part, perhaps majoritive part, of the problem.

[iNow]

Again, it's a laudable goal to move more people into better paying jobs, but those jobs at the top end of the spectrum are quite limited in number. Sure, they're good for a small few, but there simply aren't enough to address the larger problem we're here discussing, one that affects large masses.

 

We can nip at the margins this way, but clearly the bulbous middle cannot all be magically moved into the best paying jobs. Now, don't get me wrong. I support this as one piece of the larger puzzle, but must offer challenge to the suggestion that it's satisfactory in and of itself or for the large majority.

 

I'm still trying to figure out for myself how I feel about another idea I've read on this subject. I wonder what folks here think about it (in context of tangible steps we could reasonably take to eliminate the gender pay gap and improve wage equality).

 

What about unions? Perhaps they could offer the leverage and protections needed to solve this and negotiate on behalf of females facing these asymmetries? Agree, disagree, and why?

[Skeptic134]

Again, it's a laudable goal to move more people into better paying jobs, but those jobs at the top end of the spectrum are quite limited in number. Sure, they're good for a small few, but there simply aren't enough to address the larger problem we're here discussing, one that affects large masses.

 

We can nip at the margins this way, but clearly the bulbous middle cannot all be magically moved into the best paying jobs. Now, don't get me wrong. I support this as one piece of the larger puzzle, but must offer challenge to the suggestion that it's satisfactory in and of itself or for the large majority.

 

 

By trying to create environments that foster and promote oppurtunities for women to go into all fields you wouldn't just be talking about the very few jobs at the tip top of the spectrum. It would have an effect across the entire career spectrum. As an example, currently only 20% of engineers are female, while most engineering positions probably aren't in the top 5% of pay, those jobs would represent perhaps the top 25% of pay. Thus if you start increasing oppurtunities and establishing a culture that engineering is just as much for women as men, there is a large shift that can occur.

 

Similarly, only 33% of doctors are female and the same with lawyers.

 

Also interesting is that 60% of accountants are female. However, only 40% of CPAs are female. For those unfamiliar with accounting, to become a CPA you need your bachelors degree and than continuing education hours almost to the point of a masters so most just get the masters degree. Then after x years experience you take 4 subject area standardized tests.

 

Without CPA certification and accountant's pay is going to be very limited.

 

 

What about unions? Perhaps they could offer the leverage and protections needed to solve this and negotiate on behalf of females facing these asymmetries? Agree, disagree, and why?

 

I just don't see how this attacks the problem at the right end. For starters in general I don't believe unions are necessarily good or always work as intended. And in the case of trying to provide oppurtunities to increase the representation of women in engineering, medicine, law and reaching higher levels in accountanting a union doesn't help at all. It's not about creating laws or organizations that try to force companies to pay women more perhaps artificially, its about changing a culture from the ground up so that girls like math and science just as much as boys. And women go into these fields just as much as men and don't feel like an outsider.

 

Afterall, how does a union help female accountants who haven't passed the CPA exam?

[Delta1212]

Again, it's a laudable goal to move more people into better paying jobs, but those jobs at the top end of the spectrum are quite limited in number. Sure, they're good for a small few, but there simply aren't enough to address the larger problem we're here discussing, one that affects large masses.

 

We can nip at the margins this way, but clearly the bulbous middle cannot all be magically moved into the best paying jobs. Now, don't get me wrong. I support this as one piece of the larger puzzle, but must offer challenge to the suggestion that it's satisfactory in and of itself or for the large majority.

 

I'm still trying to figure out for myself how I feel about another idea I've read on this subject. I wonder what folks here think about it (in context of tangible steps we could reasonably take to eliminate the gender pay gap and improve wage equality).

 

What about unions? Perhaps they could offer the leverage and protections needed to solve this and negotiate on behalf of females facing these asymmetries? Agree, disagree, and why?

I'm not saying that it is (necessarily) the entire problem, but in order to establish a pay gap in terms of women being underpayed for the same jobs, we need to look within the same field and at the same levels of responsibility rather than just at income percentiles. Because right now there are definitely a lot of very high paying positions where women are underrepresented, and that can seriously skew the percentiles from the top all the way down through the middle, because it means more men are occupying top paying positions, which pushes women further down the pay scale.

 

A quick google search (so expect the numbers to be rough): 55% percent of jobs under $10 an hour are held by women. And such jobs make up roughly a quarter of the workforce.

 

Assuming equal numbers of men and women in the workforce, that means that the bottom 30% of women are under $10 an hour, while only the bottom 20% of men are. And women make up 47% of the workforce rather than a full 50%, so that number is going to be even more skewed.

 

I've known enough people at that level of pay to know there is sometimes wiggle room in pay, but not always and never by very much. So while there may well be men getting $11 an hour to do what a woman is getting $10 an hour for, I have a suspicion that a major chunk of that is a consequence of woman being over represented in lower paying jobs, with men being over represented at the higher end. This means that at each percentile, you're basically comparing down.

 

While you're still working through male CEOs, the female CEOs have run out and you're working your way through female lawyers and doctors. By the time you've just gotten into the beginning of male lawyers and doctors, the smaller number females in that profession has already run out and you've moved down to the next tier. And it goes on and on until you get to the lower paying jobs where women outnumber men, and then the gap starts narrowing just in time to catch up at minimum wage where the bottom whatever percentile makes the same because there aren't any lower positions for anyone to occupy.

 

I don't know that this makes up the entire pay gap. I haven't seen a study that looked entirely within field and controlled for factors like experience and skill level, probably because that is difficult to do. I wouldn't be surprised to seem some pay discrepancy even in that, of course, but I have seen the statistics that show women being under represented in a lot of higher paying fields and over represented in lower paying ones, and this also represents a major issue, explains at the very least a big chunk of the pay gap, and requires a different kind of solution.

 

I'm in favor of equal pay for equal work, but I think that's still going to miss a huge chunk of the root of the current problem, and that even achieving that goal at a rate of 100% isn't going to equalize that graph unless we can pull off a major cultural shift so that women are encouraged set the same career goals as men and given the same opportunity to succeed once they have. Neither of those is currently happening and will be much more complicated to fix than simply banning gendered pay discrimination.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Delta1212

[iNow]

Afterall, how does a union help female accountants who haven't passed the CPA exam?

Again, entirely peripheral to the point. Even women who pass the CPA exam and become accountants are consistently making less than men with the exact same qualifications.

.

...right now there are definitely a lot of very high paying positions where women are underrepresented....

Same criticism.

.

 

http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

Women face a pay gap in nearly every occupation.

From elementary and middle school teachers to computer programmers, women are paid less than men in female-dominated, gender-balanced, and male-dominated occupations.

 

While more education is an effective tool for increasing earnings, it is not an effective tool against the gender pay gap.

At every level of academic achievement, women’s median earnings are less than men’s earnings, and in some cases, the gender pay gap is larger at higher levels of education. While education helps everyone, black and Hispanic women earn less than their white and Asian peers do, even when they have the same educational credentials.

.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-14/women-make-less-than-men-even-when-they-are-equally-qualified-mbas

High-achieving women are paid less than men even when they have similar levels of experience and are in the same fields, according to new Bloomberg Businessweek data. Women graduating business school this year reported an average of $14,548 less in expected annual pay than men, graduating MBAs said in a survey of 9,965 students at 112 schools, conducted as part of our recently published biennial ranking of MBA programs.

 

Part of the reason women overall earned less is that they were more likely to go into fields with below-average salaries, like consumer products and advertising. But even within the same fields, women were paid less than men. Indeed, 17 of 22 industries that hired MBAs last year offered women less money. Women entering finance earned, on average, close to $22,000 less than men, the largest pay differential among companies that drive MBA hiring. Women were offered $12,300 less by tech companies, and $11,500 less by consulting firms than their male peers.

.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/11/18/3593232/gender-wage-gap-mbas/

This problem dogs all female graduates, not just those leaving business programs. Women who graduate college will get lower starting salaries than men in their first year even when their schools, grades, majors, jobs, and hours worked are taken into account. At any education level, a man will make more than a woman. He’ll also make more in any industry — including female-dominated ones — and virtually every job. Even women with higher high school GPAs, who should be making more, will earn less than men with lower grades.

Some of women’s choices certainly do play a role in the wage gap, a big one being the fact that they are much more likely to interrupt their careers to care for children than men. But only about 10 percent of the gap between women’s and men’s wages can be explained by different work histories, or in other words, career interruptions. Even young, childless women make less than their male peers.

Edited April 18, 2015 by iNow

[Skeptic134]

Again, entirely peripheral to the point. Even women who pass the CPA exam and become accountants are consistently making less than men with the exact same qualifications.

 

 

You have a link to studies comparing pay of equally qualified accountants male vs female? That's very specific and much more difficult to gather that data than the much more general datasets from like the OP.

 

And I'm not disputing that there are instances where equal pay isn't always given women with equal qualification in the same position. However, I think you have to figure out and address first why 60% of accountants are women but only 40% of CPAs are women and why only 20% of engineers are women. Because those are the reasons why the data in the OP are what they are, since it isn't comparing job to job, qualifcation to qualification.

[iNow]

Unsure how getting so granular helps us address an obvious and far reaching issue, but okay:

 

Women's earnings as a percentage of men's in 2013, specifically in the occupation of accountant: 81.2%

Share of females within the specific occupation of accounting: 62.3%

 

SOURCE (which itself used BLS stats to aggregate): http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-and-by-race-and-ethnicity-2013/at_download/file

 

See also:

 

http://www.glassceiling.com/wage-gap-for-accountants-persists/

Salaries for women accountants average 78% of men’s salaries in 2012, according to the latest Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) survey. The wage gap remains unchanged from 2011 but is wider than found in 2006 when women earned 80% of men’s salaries. The value of that gap in women’s pay increased to $26,470 from $25,572 in 2011.

 

The most encouraging news may be last year’s 4% increase in the number of women with annual salaries above $100,000 compared with a 3.9% increase for men. Still, 57% of male accountants’ salaries exceed $100,000 annually, compared with 34% of women.

Do you wish to maintain this path that getting women into better professions is enough to address what we are seeing in every profession at every income level?

.

?..we need to look within the same field and at the same levels of responsibility rather than just at income percentiles.

FYI - The above link addresses this request, too.

[Delta1212]

Unsure how getting so granular helps us address an obvious and far reaching issue, but okay:

 

Women's earnings as a percentage of men's in 2013, specifically in the occupation of accountant: 81.2%

Share of females within the specific occupation of accounting: 62.3%

 

SOURCE (which itself used BLS stats to aggregate): http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-and-by-race-and-ethnicity-2013/at_download/file

 

See also:

 

http://www.glassceiling.com/wage-gap-for-accountants-persists/

 

Do you wish to maintain this path that getting women into better professions is enough to address what we are seeing in every profession at every income level?

.

FYI - The above link addresses this request, too.

I'll take a look.

[Skeptic134]

Unsure how getting so granular helps us address an obvious and far reaching issue, but okay:

 

Women's earnings as a percentage of men's in 2013, specifically in the occupation of accountant: 81.2%

Share of females within the specific occupation of accounting: 62.3%

 

SOURCE (which itself used BLS stats to aggregate): http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-and-by-race-and-ethnicity-2013/at_download/file

 

See also:

 

http://www.glassceiling.com/wage-gap-for-accountants-persists/

 

Do you wish to maintain this path that getting women into better professions is enough to address what we are seeing in every profession at every income level?

.

FYI - The above link addresses this request, too.

 

 

Yes, getting women into the higher paying professions will combat the gap that the OP was showing. I don't think you can disagree with that because it was a comparison of income at a percentile by gender not income in the same position with same qualifications by gender.

 

I'm not naive enough to think there is never a difference in pay between equally qualified men and women in the same position but I believe there is much more to the gender pay gap than simple pay discrimination. I believe it is a cultural issue of promoting and presenting the same oppurtunities to females as males in certain areas and the fact that women are represented in the higher pay careers much less than men.

 

What also can't be ignored is when you have 2 or 3 men for every women in certain professions than obviously statistically speaking it is more likely the raises and promotions will go to men all things being completely equal.

 

 

I asked for the specific data because you made a very definitive remark that seemed to dimiss the very real quantifiable reality that even though there are more women accountants there are fewer women CPAs than men. Clearly that will have an effect on average industry pay. If the data comparing equally qualified male to female accountant pay does exist, I'd love to see it.

 

Likewise, your latest link doesn't compare qualifications, so it isn't comparing CPAs to CPAs and entry level to entry level, so the data isn't going to properly show gender gap. If 60% of CPAs are men but only 40% of accountants are men of course the pay for male accountants will be higher on average even if there was zero discrimination.

 

I guess my point is that instead of attacking at what IMO is the wrong end, why don't we make sure we first understand why female representation in higher paying careers is so small. Then we can go after the cultural changes to try and address the issues.

 

Because IMO I don't think the solution for example is to simply get higher pay for the 20% of engineers that are women but instead figure out why only 20% of engineers are women in the first place.

[iNow]

I guess my point is that instead of attacking at what IMO is the wrong end, why don't we make sure we first understand why female representation in higher paying careers is so small.

Because that's a different issue than the one under discussion, and even when females get into those higher paying careers they're being paid less than males, and this remains true even when you control for education, experience, and efficacy.

 

Any others willing to share thoughts on whether or not unions could help?

[moth]

The dockworkers' union will let us know how they feel the 22nd of next month, but it looks pretty sweet.

 

From the Post:

 

 

employers’ “last, best and final” offer. It included maintenance of nearly no-cost health coverage, an $11,000 ­increase in the maximum pension benefit to $91,000 a year, and a $1-per-hour wage increase over each of the five years. Though dockworker wages vary by job and skill level, the average exceeds $50 per hour, according to the maritime association.

 

 

 

If the members demanded it, unions could probably pressure management for more gender fairness in pay and promotions during contract negotiations

but there could be a chicken or egg dilemma if most union members are men.

Edited April 19, 2015 by moth

[iNow]

Any other thoughts on the concept of unionization potentially helping here?

 

In the meantime, on the subject of minimum wage, some insightful data:

 

[overtone]

They are making a personal choice that they accept the consequences of as well as the positive, which is focus on career. - - shouldn't the individual accept both the positive and negative of that decision too?

The issue is what those consequences should be. Of course everyone should accept the consequences of their choices, known when they made the choices - but some consequences for some choices should be disallowed, for the betterment of the entire society and economy.

 

Child labor, selling oneself into slavery, selling one's organs for cash, famous examples. The question here is whether the current systematic attachment of significant negative consequences to time taken by women for childbirth and care should be allowed.

 

Notice this:

 

As an example, currently only 20% of engineers are female, - - -

Similarly, only 33% of doctors are female and the same with lawyers

- - - - -

I guess my point is that instead of attacking at what IMO is the wrong end, why don't we make sure we first understand why female representation in higher paying careers is so small. Then we can go after the cultural changes to try and address the issues.

In the old Soviet Union doctors were often women, doctoring was considered women's work in many respects - and the pay was not that great. Meanwhile, in the great rugmaking centers of the Middle East, it was common knowledge that men possessed naturally greater abilities as weavers - and being men's work, it paid pretty well. Where weaving is women's work, it pays very little. In the US road construction is men's work, and pays pretty well - road crew machinery operator earns more than LPN, more than schoolteacher, which are women's jobs now and paid accordingly. In the Soviet Union, road construction is women's work and pays comparatively less.

Many jobs seem to pay more because they are men's work, reserved by various mechanisms for men. Get a lot of women into them, the pay may well drop.

As far as how these jobs exclude women and maintain their pay standards, here's one clue: above, there is a post in which the engineer who goes home at 5 every day is compared with the engineer who comes in early and stays late to get the job done. That second engineer is assumed to have earned more money, faster promotion, etc - that second engineer is also less likely to be a woman with family responsibilities.

One way to level the playing field, then, would be to disallow routine overtime. Make it illegal, for the same reason that unsafe or unhealthy working conditions are illegal (it is, after all, unsafe and unhealthy in many ways).

And there would be very little penalty for this, if the workplace efficiency research of the 1900s has any validity at all. It was discovered long ago, and was common knowledge until the 1980s I think, that overtime is a symptom of managerial screwup rather than employee conscientiousness - in general, past the first week the net productivity from 50 hours a week is no more (and often less) than that from 40 in any job involving the least bit of skill or attention. Forty was found to be the breakover, the point where the returns diminish to zero in most jobs. Beyond 40, the employer is spinning their wheels at considerable expense.

And that is a rule of thumb good by presumption for most of these women's issues. Whatever is excluding women from a given job or profession is probably worth getting rid of on productivity and profit grounds alone. There are exceptions, but bet with the odds.

And as evidence, we can point to the generally higher shareholder return on investment for companies in which these exclusionary barriers seem to have been reduced - companies with female CEOs, higher percentages of women at the higher pay grades, etc. Like this: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258193125_Ceo_gender_and_firm_performance

Edited May 1, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

As far as how these jobs exclude women and maintain their pay standards, here's one clue: above, there is a post in which the engineer who goes home at 5 every day is compared with the engineer who comes in early and stays late to get the job done. That second engineer is assumed to have earned more money, faster promotion, etc - that second engineer is also less likely to be a woman with family responsibilities.

One way to level the playing field, then, would be to disallow routine overtime. Make it illegal, for the same reason that unsafe or unhealthy working conditions are illegal (it is, after all, unsafe and unhealthy in many ways).

And there would be very little penalty for this, if the workplace efficiency research of the 1900s has any validity at all. It was discovered long ago, and was common knowledge until the 1980s I think, that overtime is a symptom of managerial screwup rather than employee conscientiousness - in general, past the first week the net productivity from 50 hours a week is no more (and often less) than that from 40 in any job involving the least bit of skill or attention. Forty was found to be the breakover, the point where the returns diminish to zero in most jobs. Beyond 40, the employer is spinning their wheels at considerable expense.

Okay, I let the above sit for a few days just to see if anyone besides me would call bullsh*t on it. I can't read it without busting out laughing.

 

I have been a salaried engineer for 30+ years. At least a decade of those years was working 10 hour days six days a week. Since I'm salaried I don't get paid overtime. Why did I do it? For success. How do you think I got to be a director. Why do you think I'm paid as much as I am? I remember once being in the work cafeteria just after the IEEE publish its salary survey. The survey results include a chart showing years of experience after a bachelors degree to income. Income included plots for mean and two standard deviations above and below the mean. One of my coworkers who was hired the same week I was at the same title but every day did his eight and skate complained that his income wasn't even on the chart. So I took a look, smiled, and said "mine isn't either." Two year later during my performance review I was complaining that my raise wasn't big enough based on performance and my boss told me that It wouldn't be fair to give me more money because I liked to work more than my peers. So a month later when I turned in my resignation for a job that paid 15% more the next manager up the line called me and asked why I was leaving. So I told him because of my bosses comment about liking to work harder than others. So the next day I was offered 25% more pay and my boss was reassigned.

 

I love being an engineer and I like even more the greater pay that hard work brings. I love it when my managers screw up schedules. It gives me the opportunity to shine. Twenty one patents, promotions, and big raises. That hard work turned in to college educations for my kids, vacations all over the world, new cars and motorcycles, and in general a fabulous life.

 

The reward for hard work is more pay. The reward for being a slacker is more slack time. You get out what you put in.

 

But Overtone would make that illegal. If you are going to make that illegal why stop there. Why not make studying more illegal. Those jerks are skewing the grade curve. How about practicing sports more. Those a-holes are getting all the major league starting positions. Or how about practicing playing music more. Symphonies are full of those jerks.

[iNow]

Two year later during my performance review I was complaining that my raise wasn't big enough based on performance and my boss told me that It wouldn't be fair to give me more money because I liked to work more than my peers.

Lol. What an idiot. Hopefully they didn't make him a VP at your company like they would at some others.

 

My schedule and environment is pretty similar to yours. More or less, if I'm awake, I'm working, but I enjoy what I do and I'm good at it and (like you) I do it for the success it will bring me and the security it will bring for my family.

 

I think it's different for hourly folks, though. I also think it would be different were you a single father trying to care for those same children with whom you've traveled and enjoyed great vacations and sent to school. Clearly, those 10 hour days six days per week (sometimes more on large projects) you mention would have taken you away from your family and forced you to deprioritize work. That would have lowered your earnings and prevented you from climbing the corporate ladder as quickly or as high.

 

That's okay, though. That's a choice, and it's one women in the workforce have to make more often than men. I'm not sure that's the key issue we should collectively look to tackle or fix in terms of gender pay inequality, though. Basically, I'm not a fan of overtones suggestion, either. I frankly think we'd get more bang for our buck with less overall disruption by focusing elsewhere. I noted several potential focus areas I n earlier posts.

 

We should collectively acknowledge, however, that there are many people out there who work just as hard as you and me (potentially even harder) who for various reasons still struggle to get by. More of them tend to be female than male,and regardless of gender not everyone is as lucky as us to have their hard work rewarded.

 

Yes, luck favors the prepared mind and opportunity the willing worker, but perhaps we could find a way to do better by those who still struggle despite equal effort and ability and give them ways to get ahead with fewer obstacles? Surely the current state / status quo isn't the best we can do / most optimized situation at a macro level.

Edited May 6, 2015 by iNow

[overtone]

I have been a salaried engineer for 30+ years. At least a decade of those years was working 10 hour days six days a week. Since I'm salaried I don't get paid overtime. Why did I do it? For success. How do you think I got to be a director

Congratulations. You obviously evaluated your employer's level of insight and comprehension, and correctly chose the right path for promotions and earnings from them.

 

Your employers, meanwhile, appear to have chosen to ignore fifty years of research and findings that at one time were common knowledge. And in their benighted state, they have (as a side effect) created an engineering workplace biased against women. But this is not your fault. It is managerial incompetence.

 

If you are going to make that illegal why stop there. Why not make studying more illegal.

Because that would interfere with learning and achievement, to no one's benefit. And because that would constrain individual effort, rather than corporate imposition. And so forth.

 

You have mistaken hours put in for work put out. It's a common mistake. It damages the lives and careers and aspirations of women more than it does of men. So by disallowing it, we can improve the career possibilities of women at a net gain to our economy and society as a whole.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that's the key issue we should collectively look to tackle or fix in terms of gender pay inequality, though

It's just one suggestion. It was meant to illustrate the kinds of changes involved, and the kinds of barriers to success women face, by noting an obvious absurdity of our current US work environment and pointing out a simple fix.

 

I've seen others. Truck driving - used to be a man's job, a harsh and dirty and noisy environment requiring physical strength of a particular kind possessed by men, long hours over the road at a moment's notice, etc. And when women started looking for work outside the home, the trucking company owners had an opportunity to change that - which they missed. But over the years all those changes happened anyway - because they improved performance. Power steering, double cylinder self-adjusting air brakes, comfortable and adjustable seats, quiet cabs, security and communication - injuries and sick time went down, retirements went down, accidents went down, damages went down, expenses went down, breakdowns and downtime went down, theft went down, on time deliveries went up, customer satisfaction went up, gas mileage went up, profits went up. And all from changes that could have been made simply to make the job more accessible to women.

 

All my life I've held jobs that essentially no women did, and few could even attempt, at the same time as jobs that women primarily or commonly did - the more macho the work environment, the dumber the setup. Guys who refused to wear earplugs in loud places or gloves in rough work, guys who drove with absolutely filthy windshields and made a spittoon of the cab floor, guys who cranked the radio volume continuously and never put their gear away in good order, they did not do good work. They often worked long hours - loved that overtime - but the employer did not benefit. They got into accidents, alienated customers, broke equipment, made mistakes, screwed up documentation, got sick and hurt, and so forth.

 

The rule of thumb is: Whatever is making a job uncongenial to women, change it: odds are your profits will go up, whether or not a single woman ever hires on. And working regular overtime is exhibit A.

Edited May 6, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

You have mistaken hours put in for work put out. It's a common mistake. It damages the lives and careers and aspirations of women more than it does of men. So by disallowing it, we can improve the career possibilities of women at a net gain to our economy and society as a whole.

I'm glad to see the dark heart of liberalism so clearly on display. What is that dark heart? It's the belief that if society fails one person it should fail all people. It is what the dark side of liberalism calls fairness.

Edited May 6, 2015 by waitforufo

[overtone]

I'm glad to see the dark heart of liberalism so clearly on display. What is that dark heart? It's the belief that if society fails one person it should fail all people. It is what the dark side of liberalism calls fairness.

You mistake me for an idealist. You won't find a single reference to "fairness" in my posting.

 

You won't find much "liberalism" either, in this matter - although I am very definitely liberal. What I posted is hard core economics, profit and loss, getting paid for being productive and not otherwise.

 

The fact that you also would benefit, that what I advocate yields a better and more prosperous society for everyone, that your ugly little world doesn't actually function very well, that a rising tide lifts all boats, is not my first concern.

Edited May 6, 2015 by overtone

[Arete]

At least a decade of those years was working 10 hour days six days a week....my kids

 

 

I'm going to guess that your significant other's career took a back seat while you worked 60 hour weeks and raised children.

[waitforufo]

You mistake me for an idealist. You won't find a single reference to "fairness" in my posting.

 

You won't find much "liberalism" either, in this matter - although I am very definitely liberal. What I posted is hard core economics, profit and loss, getting paid for being productive and not otherwise.

 

The fact that you also would benefit, that what I advocate yields a better and more prosperous society for everyone, that your ugly little world doesn't actually function very well, that a rising tide lifts all boats, is not my first concern.

You believe that what you "advocate yields a better and more prosperous society for everyone" but at the same time you claim that you are not making reference to "fairness." Interesting.

 

What in fact you advocate is holding back high performers to no benefit to society or anyone. You seem to think that people like myself simply hang out at work unproductively, while looking busy in order to wrongly receive accolades, promotions, and raises at the detriment of others. What a joke. My peers and coworkers beg to have me on their projects. My projects are successful. They share in the success. That success benefits my company and thereby society in general. What you advocate is reduced productivity thereby producing less for society increasing suffering. You are happy to do that as long at it closes the gender pay gap so you can feel better about yourself.

 

 

 

I'm going to guess that your significant other's career took a back seat while you worked 60 hour weeks and raised children.

I have been married for 35 happy years. My significant other sits in the driver seat of a new car of her choice. Our marriage has produced happy, intelligent, ambitious, college educated children. They are ambitious because they have seen the benefits of ambition. Yet you find fault in that. Says a lot about you.

[Arete]

I have been married for 35 happy years. My significant other sits in the driver seat of a new car of her choice. Our marriage has produced happy, intelligent, ambitious, college educated children. They are ambitious because they have seen the benefits of ambition. Yet you find fault in that. Says a lot about you.

 

I never "found fault in it" but nice strawman anyhow.

 

The point was that your own anecdotal experience is a prime example of the historical context of the gender pay gap - you spent extra time and effort at work, which was afforded to you by your female spouse taking on the bulk of the domestic duties. Your earning potential was increased by her not earning an equivalent sum. Yet you carry on with silly posts about a "tax on men" and implications that women just don't work hard enough, clearly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

 

Women in the same roles, working the same hours earn less than their male counterparts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

 

A resume with a male name is more likely to be considered competent, offered more pay and more career mentoring than a identical resume with a female name on it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1

 

You can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's not an actual phenomenon because it suits your ideology to imply that your success had nothing to do with your socioeconomic status and was entirely down to your own efforts.

 

My wife and I are both college professors, but I have no illusions that my circumstances led to me being where I am at least as much as the effort I put in. To try and suggest that everyone can be just as successful as everyone else with identical effort is utterly delusional.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Arete