|
People talk about a wage gap, say that women only make 70 some odd cents to the dollar that men make. I've seen people post studies that prove it. Then I've seen other people say that's not true, and they post studies that prove it. I don't know much about things, so I got no idea who's right. I want this settled just for my own benefit. Do women really get paid less than men for the same work? And none of that "well, women tend towards lower wage jobs so," or "women don't get maternity leave so," faffery. Here's the question: "Statistically speaking, in the United States of America, in the year 2016, if a man and a woman work the same job, have the same job title, put in the same hours, etc., are they paid the same?"
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
edit: misread the question Condiv fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
edit: misread the question NoEyedSquareGuy fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
yes and no in order, glad i could help op
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
*ambiguous Indian head nod*
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
The gap is definitely smaller if you control for profession, job title, etc but it's still there. Also controlling for those variables ignores the question, why are so many men in higher paying professions, or more likely to receive promotions to work under higher paying job titles? The answer is often discrimination. e: boom boom boom posted:Here's the question: "Statistically speaking, in the United States of America, in the year 2016, if a man and a woman work the same job, have the same job title, put in the same hours, etc., are they paid the same?" Red and Black fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
My husband and I worked for the same company with the same job title. I actually had more experience than him and was doing the job longer than him when he got promoted into it and he got paid more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
There's multiple issues, basically: - Controlling for the same job position, men are paid more than women - The highest paying jobs are predominantly male (and women tend to quit these jobs faster than men) - The education tracks required to get into these high paying jobs are again predominantly male Each of these issues are related and add up to having major consequences for the wage gap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
In discussions of the wage gap I've seen previously, the people who brought up women working lower wage jobs thing did it to argue against the wage gap. "Of course a nurse is going to be paid less than a doctor", they would say. I'm surprised to see that used as an argument for the existence of a wage gap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:In discussions of the wage gap I've seen previously, the people who brought up women working lower wage jobs thing did it to argue against the wage gap. "Of course a nurse is going to be paid less than a doctor", they would say. I'm surprised to see that used as an argument for the existence of a wage gap. It's related to the active vs passive discrimination you see in other fields (racism etc). Someone going "I'm going to pay you less for the same work because you're a woman" is clearly in the wrong. Someone justifying women transferring out of jobs because of their "own personal choice" is a lot less clear, though it achieves the same effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
No, but it's also not quite as simple as advocates often make out, either because they truly believe it's a cut-and-dry situation or for rhetorical effect. It's a lot easier and more persuasive to uninformed bystanders if you rail against evil fatcats who are paying women 70% of the rate, versus a detailed explanation of complex sociological factors with no single villain and no easy solution. After all, the "easy solutions" have already been implemented, in the form of the Civil Rights Act (as toughened up by Lily Ledbetter). We already have laws that straight-up prohibit pay discrimination. It's the more subtle stuff that persists, much like housing discrimination is illegal and prosecutable but de facto segregation persists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
I thought the consensus was that gender bias manifests itself mainly in hiring and promotions. Much harder to prove that sort of gap though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:In discussions of the wage gap I've seen previously, the people who brought up women working lower wage jobs thing did it to argue against the wage gap. "Of course a nurse is going to be paid less than a doctor", they would say. I'm surprised to see that used as an argument for the existence of a wage gap. In addition to unequal pay to women compared to men doing the same job, people doing "women's work" are paid less than those working in male-dominated jobs with equivalent skills, responsibilities, and emotional and physical demands. It's not just a matter of more men tending to be doctors, or whatever. Our Employment Court ruled a couple of years ago that aged care workers were underpaid, a decision that has been upheld at every turn since: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11533228
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Can we also talk about the white-nonwhite wage gap
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Quorum posted:No, but it's also not quite as simple as advocates often make out, either because they truly believe it's a cut-and-dry situation or for rhetorical effect. It's a lot easier and more persuasive to uninformed bystanders if you rail against evil fatcats who are paying women 70% of the rate, versus a detailed explanation of complex sociological factors with no single villain and no easy solution. Pretty much this. You'd think that women would have a permanent massively lower unemployment rate and higher participation rate if they were willing to work for so much less if it were as simple as advertised.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Well, look what was just reported in the NY Times Obama Moves to Expand Rules Aimed at Closing Gender Pay Gap quote:WASHINGTON — President Obama on Friday moved to require companies to report to the federal government what they pay employees by race, gender and ethnicity, part of his push to crack down on firms that pay women less for doing the same work as men. Though since it's through executive action none of this will matter if a Republican is elected president this year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
One should probably consider the unemployment gap too, on top of the wage gap. On that front, men seem to be hit harder in recessions, which from what I can tell is only partly because of male-dominated industries being more likely to shed workers. If those jobs which do disappear in greater numbers during recessions (or the current oil glut) are in like oil and gas, which I believe pay really well given the level of education/training required, wouldn't that mean a volatile job market in those industries would have an out-sized effect on male wages? Not saying this offsets the difference necessarily, but it does make a certain kind of sense that there would be higher pay in industries where your job security is low.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:I thought the consensus was that gender bias manifests itself mainly in hiring and promotions. Much harder to prove that sort of gap though. In academia, they attempted to prove it with an experiment involving equally qualified male and female applicants in STEM fields: http://www.educationnews.org/higher-education/study-women-favored-for-stem-tenure-track-jobs/ "Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members [hiring decision-makers] from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced)" So, they ended up proving the opposite. . .
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:In academia, they attempted to prove it with an experiment involving equally qualified male and female applicants in STEM fields: I'd be careful with what that study actually shows. The researchers didn't evaluate actual hiring practices, they set up a hypothetical situation with made-up applicants. STEM fields still have a massive underrepresentation of women, and they are constantly getting poo poo for it. It's not a stretch to assume that when the institutes were asked to participate in a study on hiring preferences, they knew what this was about and accordingly overcorrected. (The value of 4:1 female over male applicants given as the extreme in the study seems like a probable case of overcorrection to me.) There's also the problem of course that the amount of female applicants to STEM tenure track positions is so comparatively small due to how the undergrad and grad studies are structured that exclusively looking at (fictional) tenure track applicants is tenuous anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Yes OP, after statistical controls are performed the gap disappears. Problem is there are lots of poorly designed studies that fail to do this which is why you still hear about it. ANIME AKBAR posted:I thought the consensus was that gender bias manifests itself mainly in hiring and promotions. Much harder to prove that sort of gap though. Mostly in the fact that the highest paid jobs/majors like CS and engineering are almost all men. Oh and women are on average much worse at salary negotiations, if a study does show a gap it's because of that. Claverjoe posted:Pretty much this. You'd think that women would have a permanent massively lower unemployment rate and higher participation rate if they were willing to work for so much less if it were as simple as advertised. Yea, this is a great point- if the whole 70 cents on the dollar was remotely true you'd see managers falling over themselves to hire women. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yes OP, after statistical controls are performed the gap disappears. Problem is there are lots of poorly designed studies that fail to do this which is why you still hear about it. I have never seen a study that concluded there was no significant wage gap after applying controls. Where are you getting this from? Generally it comes out something like 4-9%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yes OP, after statistical controls are performed the gap disappears. Problem is there are lots of poorly designed studies that fail to do this which is why you still hear about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Hmm, thought I saw some interesting statistics/study on what happened when a formely female-dominated or male-dominated sector switched around (rather rapidly), like if there was suddenly a majority of male nurses within ~a decade, and what that meant for pay. Can't recall which sector (or country) it was though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
botany posted:I'd be careful with what that study actually shows. The researchers didn't evaluate actual hiring practices, they set up a hypothetical situation with made-up applicants. STEM fields still have a massive underrepresentation of women, and they are constantly getting poo poo for it. It's not a stretch to assume that when the institutes were asked to participate in a study on hiring preferences, they knew what this was about and accordingly overcorrected. Oh, and then these other researchers also set up a hypothetical situation with made-up applicants. They asked about lab managers instead of tenure-track faculty, and the hireability value switched to about 5:4 in favor of the male applicants.  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
I did not earn equal pay for equal work at my last job. My grad school buddy, hired 2 months after me, had the same position, in a female-dominated industry, and he still earned thousands more. The mayor of Boston thinks that holding negotiating classes for women will solve this. Meanwhile, I advocated for myself for 9 months, insisting on equal pay for equal work. I never got it. Instead I got called "pushy." So I left. My former coworkers are still not getting wage parity, years later. Arguing about statistical trends and the validity of experimental results is a red herring devised to excuse bad behavior on the part of large corporations. You don't need to prove what the aggregate percentage difference is (and by extension how smart and scientific you are) in order to hold employers accountable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:I did not earn equal pay for equal work at my last job. My grad school buddy, hired 2 months after me, had the same position, in a female-dominated industry, and he still earned thousands more. If you don't mind me asking, why didn't you report your employer to the government? Or sue them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yes OP, after statistical controls are performed the gap disappears. Problem is there are lots of poorly designed studies that fail to do this which is why you still hear about it. quote:Oh and women are on average much worse at salary negotiations
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
The wage gap is the opposite for people under 30 though. Millennial women are paid more than men and have a higher percentage of college degrees. Men, especially black men, are being left behind.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Hmm, thought I saw some interesting statistics/study on what happened when a formely female-dominated or male-dominated sector switched around (rather rapidly), like if there was suddenly a majority of male nurses within ~a decade, and what that meant for pay. There is also evidence of a "glass escalator." Men in female dominated professions are promoted much faster because of these gendered expectations. That is, even when a man wants to be an elementary school teacher, he will get promoted to administration much faster than women, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Akumu posted:I have never seen a study that concluded there was no significant wage gap after applying controls. Where are you getting this from? Generally it comes out something like 4-9%. The "significant control" is "understanding that women belong in lower-paying jobs than men."
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:If you don't mind me asking, why didn't you report your employer to the government? Or sue them? As far as why didn't you sue them, I had neither the money, the time, nor the desire to lose my job and be blackballed from the industry. If you get called pushy for talking about equal pay, imagine what will happen when you bring suit against a multibillion $ company because you felt you deserved a few extra bucks. This is why there needs to be mandatory salary reporting (sounds like Obama's EO is working on that) a confidential tipline, and actual enforcement with fines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
I know this is very anecdotal, but in my last job (in which I spent 4 years) I was part of the director's board, the company had about 50 employees. Half the director's board was women in their 30s-40s, but the owner of the company and single investor was a massive misogynistic prick. Like, he literally told some of these female directors that they were subhuman. In a joking tone, but it was still very repulsive and one of the reasons I left. I hired a lot of people, and had access to most financial records so I knew how much everyone made, and yes, there was a wage gap. The problem seems very complex though - women applicants, when asked to provide a pretended remuneration, always gave lower numbers than men with similar or lower experience. There was also massive underrepresentation of women in certain high-paying fields (programming, IT) and overrepresentation in other low-paying ones (sales), but this was just one of many factors and, when corrected, the gap was still there and still noticeable. During my time there I was exposed to tables full of old rich white guys (owner's friends) and they were all male, white, old, and made fun of women. So yeah it's all terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yes OP, after statistical controls are performed the gap disappears. Problem is there are lots of poorly designed studies that fail to do this which is why you still hear about it. A common meme foisted around the Internet by the academically illiterate. When pressed for sources, they invariably link to something like the Bush admin. CONSAD study, which admits that even after all feasible statistical controls are applied, roughly a third of the gap persists. That's just raw discrimination, it still leaves open the questions of the social pressures women face that lead them into lower paying career decisions and if we can do anything about them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
It is important to emphasize that the women already in the STEM/high paying fields are still much more likely to switch out of those fields than men, and that's primarily due to the work culture. So like a bunch of companies complain about the "pipeline" where they aren't getting enough female applicants, but even if that were fixed there's still major issues in the work environment that cause women to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:The wage gap is the opposite for people under 30 though. Millennial women are paid more than men and have a higher percentage of college degrees. Men, especially black men, are being left behind. That is, as far as I can tell, based on one study in the UK that was much hyped. Minority women are still far below everyone else in income even when controlling for credentials in the US. The higher percentage of college degrees doesn't do much to address the wage gap, since the main reasons for that are still related to how relatively closed skilled trade occupations still are for women (think plumbers, electricians, etc) and how low paying female dominated majors are (social work, nursing, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Lotta people making claims with zero evidence in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Short answer: it's complicated. http://freakonomics.com/2016/01/07/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:If you don't mind me asking, why didn't you report your employer to the government? Or sue them? It's not illegal to pay women less than men unless you can prove that the pay gap is specifically because of gender, rather than because they're "not assertive enough" or "don't seem as committed to their job" or something. Phyzzle posted:In academia, they attempted to prove it with an experiment involving equally qualified male and female applicants in STEM fields: Except for the bit at the bottom where they note that another study done a year or two before with somewhat different methodology had totally opposite results! Also, that study you link only describes likelihood of being hired, not wages upon hire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Except for the bit at the bottom where they note that another study done a year or two before with somewhat different methodology had totally opposite results! Also, that study you link only describes likelihood of being hired, not wages upon hire. Oh, and these are tenure track positions at a university, not an average company.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:56
|
|