Here's What The Gender Pay Gap Looks Like

[Ten oz]

Having children is a personally rewarding experience which is well worth the costs. That includes career costs. Also others should not pass judgement on how parents decided to share such burdens. It is none of the business of others. Finally, the government should not decide how society should favor such decisions. In a free society we choose for ourselves.

The Government already invests in things meant to benifit society. Every time a government bails out a failing business, provides a grant, or subsidies children's healthcare it is playing favorites. Public schools for k-12 don't benefit people like myself who don't have children yet my taxes still go toward funding them. And I am perfectly fine with that.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you and your fellow male co-workers think women have cooties? Why aren't you inviting your female co-workers to off hour social and networking events? Women are a lot of fun at such events. Are off color jokes that important to you? May I suggest that you grow up and step up.

I clearly wasn't referencing myself. I didn't not say my co-workers and I. Rather I said most of my male co-workers.

 

I actually work in an engineering support capacity for a team of about 150 people, only 3 of which are women. I am sharing what I see play out amongst that team of 150 people. The work I do is specific to myself. So I am an outside observer and not a participant. I also have a reputation as a square. People clean their behavior up when I am in the room and I have called out many for inappropriate comments about politics, religion, sex, and etc that don't belong in the work place.

 

 

Can you get into trouble doing this? Not if you make it a gathering of more than two.

 

If your management is segregating women to their own projects, you need to find a new employer. The one you are working for will soon be sued out of business. The sooner you get out, the smaller the chance you will find yourself sitting in the witness chair testifying against your company and yourself.

I did not say women were segregated to there own projects. I said the guys ensure the women are always on the same work team and the men on those teams view working with those women as a chore. They are not given different work or forced to work alone.

 

 

Now having said that, I'm wondering how many in person and/or on-line training classes you have attended on this subject. How many times has your company's legal department made sure you know that your behavior will not only get your company in trouble but that you can also personally be sued. If they haven't told you that you should be reporting your male co-workers for telling you off color jokes, they have been remiss. If your co-workers are are telling you off color jokes, who else are they telling? And you didn't do anything to stop them. What do you think is going to happen when the defendant says, "we all tell each other off-color jokes. Just ask Ten oz."

 

But you know what, it's really pretty easy. Speak to others as if you mom was listening. Then you have no worries.

We have training twice a year and you have completely or intentionally missed the point. For starters you keep saying "you" as if I am the one telling the jokes and when clearly I am providing an observation of others. Secondly it is a subtle thing. There is no rule that forces anyone to spend off time with their co-workers. Telling those up the ladder that women aren't being included in after work non work related group/personal texts, blogs, facebook, or invited to private none work related events would go no where. It doesn't violate any rules. Outside of work people can have whatever friends they want. And that is the nuance part of it all you are ignoring. That people can be segregated without being provably being denied things.

[waitforufo]

Ten oz,

Sorry if my comments were too personally directed. I haven't see the things your post references in a long time. Since the 80's really. Does your team go to disco? Last time I have seen such issues people still smoked at their desk.

 

Maybe I was just born with natural corporate sensibilities. Those women in your office just might be the boss one day. Corporations are always looking for women candidates to promote to make their EEOC numbers look better. And why not? Women are equally capable to men. So if you are going to be networking, they are the ones with which to network. I have promoted women. One of them later became my boss. At the time my upper management didn't like her. One of them told me she was a bitch. It told him she's a bitch that brings in her projects early, under budget, blow targeted COGS, and exceeding technical requirements. Let's hope we find more like that one. That is why I told my daughters that when someone calls you a bitch you're winning.

 

You see the difference between me and others on this forum is that I think individuals through there actions can change society. You don't need government. You just need to do the right thing. That woman in the office is likely supporting a family. Why not help her get ahead? When you and a co-worker are going to lunch invite her along. She is on your team right? Work is hard enough without jerks creating an uncomfortable work environment. So don't do it yourself. People make choices in their lives you don't understand. It's a free country and they have to live with the consequences. I never sat through one of those training sessions that the entire time I'm sitting there thinking "didn't people's mothers teach them this stuff?" But as a manager I have found that such training is necessary.

 

Do I think discrimination plays a part in the wage gap. Sure. I think the root cause however is that women have different goals than men. I don't see that changing. If it does change, I don't think government should have a role.

Edited May 15, 2015 by waitforufo

[Ten oz]

@ waitforufo I think the behavior is common than you're acknowledging. Look at the racist emails the DOJ found in Ferguson. Those were local government employees saying that stuff via company email. Imagine what is doing when they are out at the bar together? I have been sent to many out of town workshops and events where most of the co-workers I am with are looking to hit every bar and meet women. Having women in such group forces more sensible behavior and that isnt always welcome by those looking for a good time in Vegas on the companies dime. Perhaps you are lucky enough to work with people that maintain a higher standard. A quarter of the guys I work with spend copious amounts of time on Facebook and twitter laughing at memes.

[overtone]

Competence is essential for good employees. I'm a director. Hiring and promoting people is a regular part of my job. Confidence however is essential for leadership promotions. Those that don't demonstrate confidence won't get those jobs. That included senior and principal engineering roles. You can deny this fact all you want. You can believe its wrong all you like. It's just the way corporate employment and promotions work.

Everybody knows that exuding confidence when you don't know what you're doing and working lots of overtime impresses a certain kind of corporate management. Nobody is denying that is the most common way corporate employment in the US works these days. Everybody agrees on those facts.

 

But it's not just me who says it's an inferior way to run a business. It's the guys who have been running the numbers for a hundred years now.

 

And it's not just me who notices that this inferior kind of corporate management burdens women more than it burdens men, thereby explaining some of the pay gap - especially, that part of the pay gap conventionally registered as "personal choices".

 

 

 

 

Fine, but I still believe it is fair to ask "what are women doing wrong." The Atlantic article I posted discusses that.

It would be fair if it were two questions: 1) what are women doing differently 2) when and why is what they are doing wrong?

 

Also, the idea of making overtime, or complementary time if you are salaried, illegal is simply pissing in someone else's life choices.

No, it's the other way around: it's preventing the deluded from pissing on other people's lives as well as their own.

 

It's like requiring ten hours off duty between over the road driving stints, or mandating ear plugs in high level noise, or requiring fire extinguishers and eye wash stations in certain environments - everybody's better off, if certain tempting errors of judgment are excluded in advance. Allowing and rewarding overtime work is a famous and thoroughly documented mistake in management, and a good illustration of the kinds of barriers women face when seeking promotions, higher pay, etc, despite their "personal choices".

 

 

 

The big problem we have with productivity vis i vis other countries is that they are hungrier than we are. First literally. Second, they watch our TV and visit our web sites. They want to live like middle class Americans and will work very hard to get there.

That was true fifty years ago, when Americas led the world in per hour productivity for white collar employees. The countries passing us in productivity are generally better fed, with higher standards of living for most citizens in most respects, than America enjoys. Which is only to be expected, since high hourly productivity is the key factor in a high standard of living. Edited May 15, 2015 by overtone

[CharonY]

Actually, that part would require further inspection. Productivity in the US is still very high. According to OECD statistics (http://stats.oecd.org/) GDP per capita (PPP) is quite high in the US, surpassed only by Luxembourg and Norway. Nonetheless according to a number of statistics on standard of living there is not a huge disparity, i.e. US is always within the top 10, though rarely in the top. It seems that after a certain level of productivity there is not a strong correlation with standard of living anymore.

[overtone]

According to OECD statistics (http://stats.oecd.org/) GDP per capita (PPP) is quite high in the US, surpassed only by Luxembourg and Norway

The stat I invoked was white collar productivity per hour.

 

That was true fifty years ago, when Americas led the world in per hour productivity for white collar employees

 

 

GDP per capita has to be corrected for hours worked, at a minimum, to draw conclusions about standard of living.

 

 

 

 

Nonetheless according to a number of statistics on standard of living there is not a huge disparity, i.e. US is always within the top 10, though rarely in the top

I have yet to see an official measure of living standards that fully and successfully corrects for hours worked, medical care actually received, quality of food, necessity vs luxury prices, etc. Or even the average/median problem, usually. Edited May 21, 2015 by overtone

[CharonY]

 

The stat I invoked was white collar productivity per hour.

 

 

 

 

Do you have data somewhere? Also, is there a reason why you limit it to white collar only? If productivity is an indicator of living standards, why would it only apply to a specific category (or conversely, why would white collar productivity be an indicator for the whole population?). Moreso, isn't it actually tricky to measure and as such not really that beneficial as a criterion?

 

On a general note:

The values I found were PPP so they are adjusted to some extent. But even by hour the USA is still typically comfortably close to other Western nations (though dropped a few places a while ago). http://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htm#table03

 

There was also OECD chart showing that, but I would need to dig it out. Among the G7 US is leading, though the other countries are catching up (or are too close to call).

What you may be confusing it is that the growth rate has massively diminished in recent times, though it is true for most developed nations (which kind of makes sense). Although it appears to be quite large in the US even in comparison (although Norway actually has a reduction).

Edited May 25, 2015 by CharonY

[overtone]

Also, is there a reason why you limit it to white collar only?

That was pointedly relevant to the origin of this tangent in this thread (promotion of women: promotion of false confidence and overtime work in executives, as exhibited differentially by men, was being praised as a contributor to America's superior productivity).

 

But there are other reasons, going farther astray: one is that increasing blue-collar productivity in the US is largely coincident with capital investment - automation, etc - and the returns to this have been (almost entirely) to the providers of that capital. Hourly wages are stagnant, even dropping, and have been for thirty years and more. The inequity here is obscured by mixing in white collar productivity, and publishing an overall productivity number for the entire economy.

 

And especially:

 

Moreso, isn't it actually tricky to measure and as such not really that beneficial as a criterion?

Yes, it is tricky to measure. But if you don't measure it, or at least pay very careful attention to it, you're lost - you have no idea at all what's going on a modern economy.

 

The overall cost to the economy of allowing Microsoft's monopoly, for example, may well have canceled out the expected overall gains of computerization (as opposed to bluecollar automation) through the 90s - that is a significant factor in theoretical and political discussion, not just a gripe in the Luddite backwaters of the people confronted with a blue screen when all they wanted to do was send a memo down the hall. In the official government statistics the gains from computerization were simply assumed, and I'll bet still are. I'm not joking - back in the 90s the gains in white collar productivity from computerization were measured as negative, but that was by presumption impossible, so the tricky measurement (having been proven inaccurate for some reason) was discarded, and an assumed gain (an official multiplier) estimated from the return on investment data from other capital improvements.

 

In other words, all these professional executives were scrambling to invest in computerization, so it must have been returning at least what similar investments in other such capital improvements return. This is the argument we are getting for various gender discriminating practices common to American business, such as rewarding height, overtime, aggression, and false confidence. It's the Bandarlog argument, and it's a con.

 

(The possible reference to Americans, among others, in Kipling's depiction of the Bandar-Log, is worth noticing).

Edited May 28, 2015 by overtone

[CharonY]

Sounds interesting. Do you have data on estimates, or lacking that some secondary sources? I have trouble finding data that is looking at productivity of white-collar jobs, though I am pretty sure they must be something around somewhere.

[overtone]

The 90s in white collar computerization is vanishing from my net skill horizons, but these turned up fairly easily:

https://hbr.org/1996/11/the-hollow-ring-of-the-productivity-revival

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/opinion/30ROAC.html

http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CCSWP130/ccswp130.html This describes part of the intellectual foundation behind the decision to correct the “measurement error” that showed little - or even negative - productivity gain from computerization of white collar jobs. It does not describe the eventual calculation.

https://www.ces.census.gov/docs/cache/paper_contents_101585.pdf This article argues against my take of the 90s, and claims to show a significant measured benefit - productivity gain - from white collar computerization. This shows the kind of reasoning used to calculate the official Government stats.

A reading will reveal some problems - the restriction to manufacturing industries, the failure to separate out blue collar productivity gains, the possible bias in the selection protocol (larger plants run well enough to provide reliable and complete self-reports predominant), etc.

In the service sector, if you can get it: http://crawl.prod.proquest.com.s3.amazonaws.com/fpcache/e9956ae99a965cb1f4d61f3e7b62114f.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF7V7KNV2KKY2NUQ&Expires=1432867469&Signature=4KN1AW6hmYFM4u8aQgMGj3kURyM%3D

I'll try again as opportunity warrants.

edit in: You've probably seen this, but if you are wondering why it's hard to find the US official explicit numbers for occupational category productivity, it's because they don't publish them: http://www.bls.gov/lpc/faqs.htmquestion 13.

Also, I gave up on this but you may have more convenient access: https://books.google.com/books?id=bzBDXvGScMkC&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=bls+productivity+labor+calculation++%22white+collar%22&source=bl&ots=TZYhwN1RMk&sig=XXEXjp2SNS1RsjpMrxoU_0Cy9fo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ps9nVbb0OoOgyASDz4PoAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=bls%20productivity%20labor%20calculation%20%20%22white%20collar%22&f=false

The warning about "imputed" values for output and input is on page 84. The description of the imputations may be buried in there somewhere.

Edited May 29, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

President shined a spot light on the gender pay gap today so I figured I would check the temperature of the site.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-announce-new-rules-closing-gender-pay-gap-n506941

 

The main argument I have heard justifying the gender pay gap is that women lose time from their careers having babies. Per the Family Medical Leave Act of 93' women get up to 12 unpaid weeks of maternity leave. Of course these 12 weeks can't possibly explain the gender gap. So I assume those who deny a pay gap are calculating for multiple children and time off from work (at least committed time) to be into a few years?

 

In the United States the average number of children per women in less than two.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html

 

I had trouble finding consistent stats on the number of years the average American works. For arguement sake lets say 40yrs, 25-65yrs old. How much time do pay gap deniers assume women are missing do to maternity? Seperately what are the other arguments against actions and what are the ideas for change either way?

[Phi for All]

If we can't get the last of the misogynists to budge, maybe it can be approached from the maternity side. Give working women some kind of allowance for the time they actually take off to have actual babies, to cover expenses while being unpaid. I would hope any sane person can see the advantages of letting women have babies, and so it makes sense that the public can make that kind of investment in the future.

 

We could write that into Medicare, and do away with the age restrictions while we're at it.

[fiveworlds]

The main argument I have heard justifying the gender pay gap is that women lose time from their careers having babies. Per the Family Medical Leave Act of 93' women get up to 12 unpaid weeks of maternity leave. Of course these 12 weeks can't possibly explain the gender gap. So I assume those who deny a pay gap are calculating for multiple children and time off from work (at least committed time) to be into a few years?

 

Here's a question what if you gave the guys the 12 weeks off too. I mean it technically is their kid and studies show that the first few weeks of a baby's life is essential for forming relationships with their parents. Also according to studies women are actually getting paid more than men per hour but work fewer hours.

Edited January 30, 2016 by fiveworlds

[Ten oz]

Here's a question what if you gave the guys the 12 weeks off too. I mean it technically is their kid and studies show that the first few weeks of a baby's life is essential for forming relationships with their parents.

A lot of companies do provide time off for to fathers too and I agree that it is a terrific thing. I personally find the whole argument about women having children as a both silly and supportive of negative parenting stereotype that says fathers are not emotionally available to their children.

[fiveworlds]

A lot of companies do provide time off for to fathers too and I agree that it is a terrific thing. I personally find the whole argument about women having children as a both silly and supportive of negative parenting stereotype that says fathers are not emotionally available to their children.

 

I find that men often have far less rights when it comes to their children than women do. Western countries give their women more rights than most of the rest of the world. There was a time here where men were expected to be the breadwinners and work. Yet when it came to that man's children he had next to zero rights. For instance there was a famous case of a man whose wife left for Australia because she wanted to. The state would not allow that man custody of his kids and placed his children in an orphanage. So the man had to go to court and fight for his children all the way to the european court of justice.

[Phi for All]

 

Here's a question what if you gave the guys the 12 weeks off too.

 

Because it's unpaid leave. How many couples could afford to have both earners on unpaid leave?

 

Also according to studies women are actually getting paid more than men per hour but work fewer hours.

 

Link? I've not heard this.

[fiveworlds]

Because it's unpaid leave. How many couples could afford to have both earners on unpaid leave?

 

I think the being able to afford it is irrelevant many couples could afford it if they wanted to. But at the moment men don't have the option of taking time off if they wanted to.

 

Link? I've not heard this.

 

 

[Phi for All]

I think the being able to afford it is irrelevant many couples could afford it if they wanted to. But at the moment men don't have the option of taking time off if they wanted to.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you can arrange with your employer that you'll be taken back after leave, you're usually able to take as much unpaid leave as your employer will agree to. I also disagree with your assumption that many couples could afford to do without any income streams for 3 months. Especially right after paying for a new baby to come into the world.

 

And that video is very lean on facts and figures. Prager University isn't exactly an intellectual powerhouse. The founder was asked to leave his service with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum by the Mayor of NYC due to his controversial views. That woman uses some very fancy spin to do exactly what she accuses feminists of doing. That kind of video puts the pro in propaganda.

[ydoaPs]

If we can't get the last of the misogynists to budge, maybe it can be approached from the maternity side. Give working women some kind of allowance for the time they actually take off to have actual babies, to cover expenses while being unpaid. I would hope any sane person can see the advantages of letting women have babies, and so it makes sense that the public can make that kind of investment in the future.

 

We could write that into Medicare, and do away with the age restrictions while we're at it.

Don't most industrialized nations do that?

Here's a question what if you gave the guys the 12 weeks off too. I mean it technically is their kid and studies show that the first few weeks of a baby's life is essential for forming relationships with their parents. Also according to studies women are actually getting paid more than men per hour but work fewer hours.

A lot of industrialized nations do that too.

 

 

The US is just a really backward country in a lot of respects.

[Ten oz]

 

I think the being able to afford it is irrelevant many couples could afford it if they wanted to. But at the moment men don't have the option of taking time off if they wanted to.

 

 

 

You were asked for a link to support your claim that "according to studies women are actually getting paid more than men per hour" and instead produce a video of Christina Hoff Summers (an American author and former philosophy professor) sharing her opinions? Nothing is provided in your video other than more claims about more studies. No actual studies are even cited.

 

The overall theme of the video is borderline insulting. The agrument opens with basically saying that women have come a long way so they should be thankful and not complain. Such an attitude grades equality on a curve. Compared to slavery black people had it good during segregation. The video then dimisses any number of ways women are treated unequally in society by merely claiming that some study (not cited) says so.

 

Can we deal with actual studies and not merely the claim of studies:

 

- Blind resume study. Identical STEM field resumes but on one reads Jennifer and the other reads John. Jennifer was offered less money and her resumes, though identical, was evaluated as less.

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

 

- male and female expected wages upon graduation differ greatly: while young male college grads earn an average hourly wage of $19.64 early in their careers, their female counterparts earn an average hourly wage of just $16.56, or 18.6 percent less than men.

http://www.epi.org/publication/same-education-different-pay/

Edited January 31, 2016 by Ten oz

[physica]

And that video is very lean on facts and figures. Prager University isn't exactly an intellectual powerhouse. The founder was asked to leave his service with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum by the Mayor of NYC due to his controversial views. That woman uses some very fancy spin to do exactly what she accuses feminists of doing. That kind of video puts the pro in propaganda.

So we are not going to go into specifics or disprove certain facts we are going to just appeal to authority and ad hominem. I find it amazing that gender differences where women are victims seem to make rational people irrational.

 

The conversation on maternity leave has been fairly one-dimensional so far. Maternity leave isn't the only thing that impacts on the career...... children still need raising and looking after even though they are 12 months old or more. This means that one person usually takes a back seat. Not staying late so they can pick up the kids and do school runs or not doing extra hours at the office for the promotion will also affect the career progression. Again people here have been very relaxed. I am going to keep consistent with the philosophy of science and the science forum. The hypothesis is that women are being discriminated against in terms of pay simply because of misogyny. It is up to the people claiming this causation to provide the evidence. Once again because it's female victimhood people have done an 180-degree turn on their scientific standards and we have people producing evidence why this is not the case. Remember to take into account risk when providing evidence for your hypothesis. Men are more likely to take risk. We all shrug our shoulders when men are likely to develop and addiction or become homeless but we start making stuff up when men take risky behaviour that pays off like dropping out of college to start companies like Mircosoft.

 

At least Ten oz has been consistent with his scientific approach.

 

- Blind resume study. Identical STEM field resumes but on one reads Jennifer and the other reads John. Jennifer was offered less money and her resumes, though identical, was evaluated as less.

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

 

 

Sadly this link doesn't give any methodology. Most psychological studies are not reproducible and it doesn't tell us how they measured it or how they came up with the payment value. For example if John's CV was sent to New York city and Jenifer's was sent to New Hampshire the pay gap could be simply down to regional differences. You'd be amazed what researchers do for funding for a campaign. As this thread has shown us it's easy to get rational people to behave irrationally when gender is involved. If you want money gender gap and race baiting are the easiest. Remember the 1 in 5 women being raped on campus. When they looked at the methodology they classed rape as if the women regretted sleeping with the guy or was given the impression that there would be a serious chance of a long term relationship? Obama pushed the stat as well, it's because it's easy money. Rational people like the people on this thread act irrationally when it's women victimhood.

 

 

- male and female expected wages upon graduation differ greatly: while young male college grads earn an average hourly wage of $19.64 early in their careers, their female counterparts earn an average hourly wage of just $16.56, or 18.6 percent less than men.

http://www.epi.org/publication/same-education-different-pay/

This doesn't take into account choice of occupation. What's slightly comical is that this comes after your point that women are underrepresented in STEM fields which usually pay well. Your previous point discounts this point. It didn't take into account university attended or major choice. What they have in common they are young and have college degrees. WOW would you have these standards for any other subject that you're posting on?

 

In conclusion there has been no evidence posted on this thread that women are paid less simply because of their gender. Rememeber it's your hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you.

[iNow]

All of this has already been discussed and addressed here, less than a year ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88627-heres-what-the-gender-pay-gap-looks-like/

[Ten oz]

 

In conclusion there has been no evidence posted on this thread that women are paid less simply because of their gender. Rememeber it's your hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you.

 

It is fair to expect proof. However I think you are being a little ambigious about what you would like proof of. Men do statistically make more than women. That is a fact we all come into this knowing. So the thread is about why. I have not made a hypothesis as to why. Rather I merely stated that the argument that it is because women take maternity leave is a weak one.

 

Clearly in all cases men do not make more. In the military for example pay is based on rank. A male and female of the same rank would make the exact same amount of money. The issue is not universal. So the challenge is to prove that there is bias, meaningful enough to broadly impact women, in our job market.

 

Here is the actually study my previous link referenced.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf

Edited January 31, 2016 by Ten oz

[ydoaPs]

I wonder how much the social stigma of not discussing your wages plays into this. If you know that you're making half as much as the opposite sex at your job, you can raise a ruckus. If you don't, you can't raise a ruckus for your pay specifically (though you still can, and should, fight the issue in the general case).

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Recent thread merged with older thread