Equal Pay: The Myths and Facts of the Gender Wage Gap

[Up_Tilt_390]

This is why I will never be a CEO. I'm contracted a certain number of hours, when I reach that amount I walk out of the building. Anyone who works more than 40 hours per week by choice rather than financial necessity is to my mind an idiot.

I don't very many people, if anybody at all, would chose to work that long. But such is the nature of a Chief Executive Officer position that the company needs you to work those hours. The CEO might be seen as the greedy boss who scrounges off wealth generated by the workers (albeit only extreme anti-capitalists are likely to really think this), but ultimately every corporation needs a good CEO to depend on it's future. That's why they get paid so much, though because some perform differently some of them might be considered as overpaid.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Perhaps the whole so-called equal pay thing is a ploy to drive up wages as a means of driving up taxation revenue. Let's just say that it's probably not a conspiracy, but a conspiracy couldn't do any better if it tried.

You don't think that's perhaps taking conspiracy theories to absurd levels (although granted, you say it's probably not a conspiracy)? Firstly, there has for a long time been more than enough genuine and very serious concern about unequal pay to explain why various Governments have tried to pursue equal pay. And secondly, even the most cursory understanding of economics will tell you that equal pay is very very unlikely to drive up tax revenue significantly in real terms, because of the inevitable inflationary impact of higher wages.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You say on average they’re paid less for the same hours. But are they for the same jobs? If my post is absolute rubbish then you’re going to need more than than one vague example which hasn’t specified every factor.

If you’re so astonished to read what’s been said many times then you probably haven’t done very much research into this subject, because these statistics and their context are always pointed out every time the myth is brought up.

You might have worked in finance, but my best friend, who is more knowledable with politics than I am, works in payroll, and he doesn’t dispute my arguments the way you have.

Yes females are routinely paid less for the same hours , for the same jobs across pretty much all aspects of the business. If you continue to doubt me Google "Gender pay gap in investment banking" and check out the results. Things are not as bad as they once were but the gap is still there. None more so then when staff receive their annual bonuses.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Yes females are routinely paid less for the same hours , for the same jobs across pretty much all aspects of the business. If you continue to doubt me Google "Gender pay gap in investment banking" and check out the results. Things are not as bad as they once were but the gap is still there. None more so then when staff receive their annual bonuses.

Do bankers get paid by the hour? I’d have thought that such a position would have its salary affected by the market value or something. If a CEO salary is affected by that I’d be surprised if an investment bankers wasn’t. Then again it might only affect bonuses if anything, and speaking of which...

Having done a quick bit of research, it says that banker’s bonuses are awarded and aren’t included in the salary. It’s meant to be rewards for behaviour that does things such as increased company profits. I imagine that less women in these fields would cause huge earnings gaps when it comes to bonuses, and that’s assuming the women would be earning these bonuses.

 

[pemma]

I'm contracted a certain number of hours, when I reach that amount I walk out of the building.

Contracted hours is also an interesting point. Many people voluntary work more hours than they are contracted to even if they don't get extra pay for doing it. Possibly some people think doing over and above what they are required to gives them a better chance of getting a big pay rise or a promotion. I wonder if there's any difference in how many men do more than what they are required to and how many women do more?

 

[najaB]

The so-called gender pay gap has been debunked every time it comes up, yet the myth that women are paid less than men for the same work still perpetuates.

While the 'Free labour after November 10th' thing is a bit of theater it isn't a myth that, on average, women's reward and compensation lags behind men's.

 

[pemma]

While the 'Free labour after November 10th' thing is a bit of theater it isn't a myth that, on average, women's reward and compensation lags behind men's.

Although, in some areas men's pay actually lags behinds women's. This would mean in somewhere like Warrington men could protest that their pay is lagging behind and if someone organised some sort of action against women's pay in Warrington they'd look a bit stupid.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Contracted hours is also an interesting point. Many people voluntary work more hours than they are contracted to even if they don't get extra pay for doing it. Possibly some people think doing over and above what they are required to gives them a better chance of getting a big pay rise or a promotion. I wonder if there's any difference in how many men do more than what they are required to and how many women do more?

An interesting point also given that not every job pays or offers overtime. I think men are more likely or often do work more overtime than women, but that doesn't hold up on it's own when the jobs might might be different. A man might have one job and work paid overtime, while a woman might do another job and do even more overtime but not get paid for it simply because the job doesn't offer it as such. Come to think of it, are contracted hours what goes into the average number of hours worked or do they include overtime?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's easy to assert things uptilt390, but it's a shame you've chosen not to provide sources to support your assertions.

The pay gap exists, and is very very real. I have seen it with my own eyes when working in universities: men are more likely to get the top jobs, and more likely to be paid more than women when they do get them.

Some of the pay gap is blatant, some of it more insidious. Traditionally "masculine" jobs tend to pay more than traditionally "feminine" jobs: compare the wages of bin lorry staff and care staff, for instance. But then even in the same sector women are likely to be paid less. RichmomdCommuter has given you his experience of his sector. Perhaps you should listen.

Gender gap day is theatre, but it's not a myth. It is very very real.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It's easy to assert things uptilt390, but it's a shame you've chosen not to provide sources to support your assertions.

The pay gap exists, and is very very real. I have seen it with my own eyes when working in universities: men are more likely to get the top jobs, and more likely to be paid more than women when they do get them.

Some of the pay gap is blatant, some of it more insidious. Traditionally "masculine" jobs tend to pay more than traditionally "feminine" jobs: compare the wages of bin lorry staff and care staff, for instance. But then even in the same sector women are likely to be paid less. RichmomdCommuter has given you his experience of his sector. Perhaps you should listen.

Gender gap day is theatre, but it's not a myth. It is very very real.

It is easy to assert things, just like left-wing politicians asserting that women are effectively working for free from then until the end of the year. Difference is, that's not what these statistics say, and funnily enough they're the statistics that they like to blow out of proportion. https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/gender_wage_gap.pdf

Perhaps you could provide examples of jobs where men are more likely to be paid more than women when they get them? For all I know it could be a talent-based or market-based industry where there is no fixed wages. The BBC for example, they don't pay you hourly, they pay you for the ratings you get them. Maybe the salary is negotiable and the man negotiates a higher pay? MAYBE it's a salary based on experiences and not a fixed wage. There's many factors that could into it, so you need to explain these if you want to provide a stronger rebuttal of my arguments.

Bin lorry staff and care staff aren't comparable. The former occupation can be physically demanding and comes certain hazards, such as sharp materials. Care staff face different obstacles in their career, and whether they are considered masculine or feminine jobs is irrelevant since we are progressing away from that nonsense.

Perhaps I ought to listen? Clearly you've not looked at the whole thread properly, otherwise you would see that I responded to RichardCommu, to which they responded back with the suggestion of a Google search for the earnings gaps in investment banking. Now I await the response as to whether bankers are paid on the hour or affected by the market, and also suggested that more men in the industry mean more men earning bonuses to widen the earnings gaps. We both know that bonuses are where it tends to widen, but it's an EARNING gap, not wage.

Credit where it's due, their argument started off a little vague, but since elaborating RichardCommu has managed to warrant a further study into the subject on my half, even if I'm still at the same conclusions as before. What happens next depends on the answer to my question about how banker wages work.

 

[Tetchytyke]

women are effectively working for free from then until the end of the year. Difference is, that's not what these statistics say, and funnily enough they're the statistics that they like to blow out of proportion.

The statistics you quote, from the US, do show what is claimed. Women in full time work earn 79% the amount of men in full time work.

The reasons are varied, of course, but that is a simple fact. At a micro level one would expect variations based on career choices, etc. But in a balanced and fair economy these variations should disappear at the macro level. Put simply, if women working full time are overall only earning 79% of what men earn, then something has gone badly wrong.

What has gone wrong is varied. Some of it is blatant sexism in wages. More of it is insidious sexism: women don't get chosen for the highest-paying roles, and even when they do, don't get paid as much.

CIPD research this year shows that only 6% of FTSE100 CEOs are female, and those female CEOs get paid, on average, about 60% of what their male equivalents get. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...n-women-income-salary-bonus-ceo-a7873506.html

I deliberately contrasted care work and bin collection because they are very similar: both involve significant manual lifting, moderate danger and unsociable hours. Yet an experienced bin collector will earn £20,000; about £4000 (or 25%) more than an experienced care worker. And gender stereotyping in employment has not gone away: I wish "we were moving away from that sort of nonsense".

The evidence is that women earn less than men. If you wish to argue this isn't the case, some evidence on your part would be helpful.

 

[headshot119]

Bin lorry staff and care staff aren't comparable. The former occupation can be physically demanding and comes certain hazards, such as sharp materials. Care staff face different obstacles in their career, and whether they are considered masculine or feminine jobs is irrelevant since we are progressing away from that nonsense.

Both occupations are physically demanding (Have you ever tried lifting a person?) sharps are also exposed to both jobs.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The statistics you quote, from the US, do show what is claimed. Women in full time work earn 79% the amount of men in full time work.

And it backed up my point that this is because of different life choices such as them being in lower paying jobs, taking more time off work, or not asking for a pay rise. What the radical left is claiming is that women are working for free from November until the end of the year which hasn't got any evidence in itself.

The reasons are varied, of course, but that is a simple fact. At a micro level one would expect variations based on career choices, etc. But in a balanced and fair economy these variations should disappear at the macro level. Put simply, if women working full time are overall only earning 79% of what men earn, then something has gone badly wrong.

What has gone wrong is varied. Some of it is blatant sexism in wages. More of it is insidious sexism: women don't get chosen for the highest-paying roles.

The variations will never completely disappear because some people just want lower paying jobs. The only way to completely close the gap is to pay everyone the same, which really isn't what we want, or to restrict people's freedom of choice and make them go into different careers because they need them to close a slight earnings gap. The gap is closing now because as the older generations go, the new generations will come in at the top, and the social standards of masculine and feminine jobs will almost disappear completely. An earnings gap isn't strictly a bad thing if it's all down to life choices.

I deliberately contrasted care work and bin collection because they are very similar: both involve significant manual lifting, moderate danger and unsociable hours. Yet an experienced bin collector will earn £20,000; about £4000 (or 25%) more than an experienced care worker.

Fair enough, I'll give you that. It's kind of like a comparison of bus drivers and train drivers with the latter earning more despite similar responsibilities of concentration and customer-focus, the safety-critical nature, and other things. But in the case of care workers and bin collectors, why don't the former try and get raises through legislation or even strike action? It'd be hard, and it's probably more complicated than that, but that's how train drivers got their high wages while bus drivers get significantly less. I don't think the bus unions are as militant.

The evidence is that women earn less than men. If you wish to argue this isn't the case, some evidence on your part would be helpful.

At no point did I argue that wasn't the case, I argued that women were not working for free from November until the end of the year like people such as Jeremy Corbyn claim. They make it out like there's some sort of institutional conspiracy to pay women less, even though if that were the case then the greedy capitalists they so despise would hire more women because they could apparently pay them less and still get the same things out of them. I argued that it's because of women making different life choices and that any problems are down to a cultural issue rather than wage issue. I've elaborated on this at several points such as CEOs being from a generation where women were secretaries and cleaners and not high executives. Perhaps you actually misunderstood my original post? Not surprising, and to worry either. It's easy to get lost when it goes on for long enough.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Both occupations are physically demanding (Have you ever tried lifting a person?) sharps are also exposed to both jobs.

Think I might've tried lifting a person before actually, and I'll tell you it isn't easy. I have a relative who works in a care home if I'm not mistaken, and while they might not do as much physically demanding things, it's a different kettle of fish to have an old person through feces at you like a Chimpanzee. (I'm not comparing the old people to Chimps, rather I am referring to the actions).

 

[Starmill]

I am surprised that Up_tilt_390 has done a peer reviewed study into this, published in a reputable journal, to back up their claims. I would have thought I would have spotted it.

Certainly the people they chide so much have some evidence to back their point up - it may not be very conclusive but a gender pay gap is what the evidence points to.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And it backed up my point that this is because of different life choices such as them being in lower paying jobs, taking more time off work, or not asking for a pay rise.

So why are women over-represented in low paying jobs and why are they under-represented in high-paying jobs?

As I said, "career choices" can explain things at a micro level. But were not talking at a micro level, we're talking at a macro level. At that level, "career choices" should balance themselves out. As should assertiveness levels in asking for a rise.

Yet 94% of FTSE100 companies have a male CEO, and 77% of FTSE100 companies don't have a single female executive. Those female CEOs get paid just over half what the men do. So how does that happen?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So why are women over-represented in low paying jobs and why are they under-represented in high-paying jobs?

Because of the cultural issues of where some of the higher ups are from generations where women were secretaries and cleaners rather than high executives. As long as these kind of people rule the roots it won't change because of the values they grew up with.

As I said, "career choices" can explain things at a micro level. But were not talking at a micro level, we're talking at a macro level. At that level, "career choices" should balance themselves out. As should assertiveness levels in asking for a rise.

You're saying this should happen. Well guess what, it doesn't, and even at macro level, it too could easily be down to career choices. On such a wide scale women aren't suddenly going to be going into higher paying work, because like men they would've grown up at the the time when they were cleaners and secretaries. If it's a male-dominated field (which by the way has happened through the generations) then women might feel less comfortable going into them. Because the millennial generation grew up at a time where their sex no longer defines their careers, they're going to be the first ones to close the gap.

Yet 94% of FTSE100 companies have a male CEO, and 77% of FTSE100 companies don't have a single female executive. Those female CEOs get paid just over half what the men do. So how does that happen?

If only 6% of the companies have women CEOs, you can't expect the woman's average wages to be at the same level as men's. Different companies also pay different wages, and CEOs have their salaries affected by the market. If a CEO can add value to the company, they get more, and as such the overwhelming amount of male CEOs are bound to have a great deal of them who can earn these bonuses. Even if the female CEOs get bonuses, the fact that they make up on a small number of CEOs will make it very difficult to even the average wages of them CEOs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

f only 6% of the companies have women CEOs, you can't expect the woman's average wages to be at the same level as men's.

Why can't I? If we're in a meritocracy it should happen. So why doesn't it?

The average is the amount all the CEOs earns divided by how many of them there are. It's pretty basic mathematics. Are you dense or are you trolling?

"Women make bad career choices" doesn't quite cut the mustard here.

As for the issue around pay in similar roles, I can only assume you are wilfully avoiding the point in order to troll.

 

[NSEFAN]

So how do we actually solve this problem? As has been said, there should be a gradual improvement in the male-female ratio for the higher-paid jobs as time goes by, as the learned sexism of the older generations moves out of the job market into retirement.

In terms of actual salaries, how can we stop women being paid less for the same CEO roles? Because this is highly negotiable pay, I can't think of an easy way of doing this, except by making it less negotiable and creating a standard rate in what a CEO and other managerial roles are paid, which applies to all companies (for example, x% of annual company profit or turnover?).

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Why can't I? If we're in a meritocracy it should happen. So why doesn't it?

"Women make bad career choices" doesn't quite cut the mustard here.

As for the issue around pay in similar roles, I can only assume you are wilfully avoiding the point in order to troll.

Because as I've already stated, there's an overwhelming amount of men, and as such there are much more of them to be able to increase their salary because of their merits. It sounds like you're saying that because we're in a meritocracy, these women CEOs who make up a small minority of them should earn the same as the overwhelming amount of male CEOs, regardless of whether they earned it. Doesn't sound like a meritocracy to me.

I also never said "women make bad career choices", I said they make different choices. Strawman argument on your half.

Just because roles are similar doesn't mean they will pay the same.

I can't control your thoughts, so I can't truly stop you from thinking that I'm trying to troll. But let's just go over something. Rather than actually try to provide a reasonable rebuttal of my arguments like RichardCommu has, you have instead just kept asking the same questions and tried to poke holes in my arguments aside from the ones you've chosen to conveniently ignore, as well as saying what you think should be happening. You've also strawmanned my arguments about different life choices by making it out like I'm saying women make bad choices. I'm not saying you are one, but if anybody could be considered a troll here, I'd say people would be right in assuming it is you. Not just because of your name either.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because as I've already stated, there's an overwhelming amount of men, and as such there are much more of them to be able to increase their salary because of their merits.

Huh?

If you get to be a FTSE 100 CEO you have merits, and lots of them. So why does the CEO of Imperial Tobacco earn half what the CEO of British American Tobacco does?

"Career choices"? "Less talent"? Answers on a postcard.

 

[pemma]

The statistics you quote, from the US, do show what is claimed. Women in full time work earn 79% the amount of men in full time work.

The reasons are varied, of course, but that is a simple fact. At a micro level one would expect variations based on career choices, etc. But in a balanced and fair economy these variations should disappear at the macro level. Put simply, if women working full time are overall only earning 79% of what men earn, then something has gone badly wrong.

What has gone wrong is varied. Some of it is blatant sexism in wages. More of it is insidious sexism: women don't get chosen for the highest-paying roles, and even when they do, don't get paid as much.

CIPD research this year shows that only 6% of FTSE100 CEOs are female, and those female CEOs get paid, on average, about 60% of what their male equivalents get. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...n-women-income-salary-bonus-ceo-a7873506.html

I deliberately contrasted care work and bin collection because they are very similar: both involve significant manual lifting, moderate danger and unsociable hours. Yet an experienced bin collector will earn £20,000; about £4000 (or 25%) more than an experienced care worker. And gender stereotyping in employment has not gone away: I wish "we were moving away from that sort of nonsense".

The evidence is that women earn less than men. If you wish to argue this isn't the case, some evidence on your part would be helpful.

My brother works in a role where 80% of his colleagues doing the same role are female. They all earn the same. It's possible the role is undervalued but if that was the case why would it be gender discrimination?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Huh?

If you get to be a FTSE 100 CEO you have merits, and lots of them. So why does the CEO of Imperial Tobacco earn half what the CEO of British American Tobacco does?

"Career choices"? "Less talent"? Answers on a postcard.

Could it be down to the market shares of the respective companies? Could it be down to the fact that the CEO of the higher earning company negotiated a higher payment? Could it be because said CEO has managed to get more experience over years and used it to get a pay rise? Could it be, just maybe, because Imperial Tobacco only has a net income of £0.69 billion, while British American Tobacco has £4.65 billion, and therefore can pay the CEO more based on not only the company earnings, but also maybe because the CEO managed to help the company earn that revenue?

 

[pemma]

An interesting point also given that not every job pays or offers overtime. I think men are more likely or often do work more overtime than women, but that doesn't hold up on it's own when the jobs might might be different. A man might have one job and work paid overtime, while a woman might do another job and do even more overtime but not get paid for it simply because the job doesn't offer it as such. Come to think of it, are contracted hours what goes into the average number of hours worked or do they include overtime?

HMRC have named companies for breaching the minimum wage when they paid employees the minimum wage multiplied by number of hours worked a week multiplied by 52. (Of course not every year has exactly 260 weekdays.) I don't know if HMRC automatically detect that or whether it's down to knowledgeable employees reporting their employers. If HMRC can detect it then maybe they do know exactly how many hours employees are paid for working.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

HMRC have named companies for breaching the minimum wage when they paid employees the minimum wage multiplied by number of hours worked a week multiplied by 52. (Of course not every year has exactly 260 weekdays.) I don't know if HMRC automatically detect that or whether it's down to knowledgeable employees reporting their employers.

Good to know there's at least some way of catching those kind of companies out.

 

[najaB]

My brother works in a role where 80% of his colleagues doing the same role are female. They all earn the same.

Then your brother's employer is part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Up_Tilt_390, the US statistics specifically control for job and for experience. That is they are directly comparing people in the same job with the same experience, and finding that women earn about 10-20% less on average.

Vox.com, as usual, has an excellent explainer at https://www.vox.com/2017/9/8/16268362/gender-wage-gap-explained

Nearly 10,000 people graduated with MBAs from University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business between 1990 and 2006.

In 2009, three economists decided to study a quarter of those graduates. They asked a detailed set of questions about the jobs they’d held since graduation, how many hours they worked, where they worked, and what they had earned each year.

Women earned an average salary of $115,000 right out of graduate school, while men earned $130,000. Men also averaged a few more weekly hours and a bit more prior experience as they entered the workforce.

Nine years into their careers, women saw their salaries rise to an average of $250,000 — while men's salaries averaged out at $400,000. Men were earning 60 percent more than women.

There are usually fair pay laws which state that you can't discriminate based on gender, but you also have laws which make it problematic for workers to ask each other how much they earn. One of Obama's first legislative victories was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was over the fact a woman discovered at retirement that she was earning only about 2/3 of her male coworkers, but was denied the right to sue because of how long the discrimination had been going on for - obviously if you don't know you earn less you can't complain about it. Then women are less able to work unsociable or flexible hours (which in turn is because of gendered roles in childcare and housework).

 

[najaB]

There are usually fair pay laws which state that you can't discriminate based on gender, but you also have laws which make it problematic for workers to ask each other how much they earn.

Not only law, but also company policies. I recently started working for a US-based company and it's actually (strictly speaking) a sackable offence to talk with anyone about salaries or the amount of any bonus!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Up_Tilt_390, the US statistics specifically control for job and for experience. That is they are directly comparing people in the same job with the same experience, and finding that women earn about 10-20% less on average.

Vox.com, as usual, has an excellent explainer at https://www.vox.com/2017/9/8/16268362/gender-wage-gap-explained




There are usually fair pay laws which state that you can't discriminate based on gender, but you also have laws which make it problematic for workers to ask each other how much they earn. One of Obama's first legislative victories was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was over the fact a woman discovered at retirement that she was earning only about 2/3 of her male coworkers, but was denied the right to sue because of how long the discrimination had been going on for - obviously if you don't know you earn less you can't complain about it. Then women are less able to work unsociable or flexible hours (which in turn is because of gendered roles in childcare and housework).

Wow, a surprisingly informative read. Well done! If I've not misunderstood what I've been reading, it seems that this is the case:

Companies disproportionally reward those who work the longest, least flexible, and the most particular hours in some jobs compared to those who work regular hours. If the burden of childcare (or blessing if you wish) is still placed on the women, then they're less able to work those hours, and therefore they won't earn as much money. If the ones that aren't married and have no children have a very little gap to their male counterparts compared with those who had children, I think it shows that the women who take less time off work can earn more. I think the reason the gap might close in the 40s and 50s might be because children are usually more grown up then, because people usually have children in their 20s and 30s. Considering that the women get pregnant and carry the child for nine months, therefore needing all the doctors appointments and treatments, then the employer probably won't want to negotiate a higher pay given that they don't think they'll get their money worth.

If I have interpreted that correctly it kind of comes down the hours worked and the availability, and that women are less likely to work the long hours because the childcare is hoisted upon them the majority of the time. It's not just a social expectation, it is somewhat expected by the law given that maternity leave is much longer than paternity leave. It seems to be a case of not strictly sexism, but more disproportinate incentives. If I've misunderstood then do correct me.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not only law, but also company policies. I recently started working for a US-based company and it's actually (strictly speaking) a sackable offence to talk with anyone about salaries or the amount of any bonus!

A sackable offence to discuss salary?! How on earth does that work?

I'd suggest you can talk about whatever you wish to with your colleagues and your employer has no legal basis to prevent you from doing so.