# Is systematic discrimination in pay against women a possibility?



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

For purposes of this thread, let's assume that it is true that women are paid 80% of what men are paid in the same field.

Is it possible that this is due to systematic discrimination against women by employers? That is, women are really just as economically productive as men, but employers just don't want to pay them as much?

No, this is not possible, at least in a society where private employers decide how much to pay their employees.

Why is this impossible?

Because if it *were *true, then any employer could make excess profits by offering women 81% of the pay that men get. Then other employers would bid away those women by offering 82%, and so on. In equilibrium, this would erase the discrepancy, but even if we assume equilibrium is never reached, it would be approached fairly rapidly in a society where profits are the main driving factor in business.

Also notice that the original assumption includes bias among employers who are women, or those female employers would hire the underpaid women for the same reason! Why would *they *be biased against female employees?

But we still need an explanation for the difference in pay rates, assuming that difference really exists.

The only explanation that holds up under examination is that women are not as economically productive as men. E.g., they may take more time off for personal reasons, not be willing to work overtime, not be willing to undertake physically hazardous jobs, among many other possible explanations for this difference.

But one explanation that cannot be true is that employers don't want to pay them as much if they are as economically productive. That just cannot happen over any significant period of time, because the profit incentive for non-biased employers would be too great.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Theoretically, I suppose if you had a bunch of bigots, then it could hold. Or if women are uninterested / unwilling to negotiate for higher wages.

But then, why wouldn't the companies all hire as many women as possible, drop prices, and kill competition that doesn't? In this scenario, rather than driving wages up, we would see men's wages drop, so they come closer to parity with those of women. This is close to what happened with black labor undercutting and out-producing white labor in the early 1900s. White folk found themselves in desperate need to reduce their wages to stay competitive. Labor unions clamored for a "minimum wage" to keep black people from undercutting whites by force of law.

But it's all just speculation. We all know that the gender pay gap is a myth. 

In the US the $0.77 on the dollar statement only takes into account aggregate earnings, not hours worked, experience, qualifications, etc. It's purely a function of "all men made X" and "all women made Y".


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Speaking from the point of view of a person who did hire women. Yes it was a possibility. Women made less because they weren't as pushy. They searched for replacement employment less. Social aspects of the workplace were more likely to lead to a female employee quitting than a better offer. 

We are capitalists. What that means in nuts and bolts is, we will charge as much as we can get for our product, and we will pay our employees as little as we can get away with. 

And, Folks, that is why this discussion is important today.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

technovelist said:


> But we still need an explanation for the difference in pay rates, assuming that difference really exists.


I've read several explanations. First, women tend to choose lesser paying jobs and careers. So we have to be very careful on how the statistics are generated. For example, women tend to be teachers far more often than men. Men in education move up to administration more often than women, possibly due to an original desire to be in administration by men. Men are more likely to pursue science, engineering, and other higher paying careers.

Women are far more likely to take off several years in their career to have and raise children. So a 45 yr old woman likely has fewer years in the workplace than a 45 yr old man. Thus even with the same credentials she will be earning less. Even when adjusted for # years working, she may have intentionally chosen jobs with less time commitment or less responsibility in order to have more time at home with children.

Women, in general, are less aggressive than men. Women may therefore be less competitive in pursuing advancement. Men may be more willing to work long hours and play hardball office politics.

In my experience in the workforce I've not seen any systemic discrimination against women. Profit is too important.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

All of my largest pay gains over many jobs in high tech came when _I_ took the initiative to leave and find better or more gainful employment. If I made more than a woman in the same job, it is because I proved myself competent to the point of being able to market my skills and negotiate salary.

Under that system, a person interested in staying put at the same organization will not make as much - no one ever gets a 30% annual pay increase regardless of the sterling nature of her performance review. It has nothing to do with entrenched discrimination or some inherently sexist pay scale. 

If women are unwilling to play that game, they will suffer from a gender pay gap.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

One thing you have to realize is how difficult it is to even get salary information at most companies.

Employees at most private companies are highly intimated about exposing their salary rates to other people. Most salaries are kept confidential and so it takes employees talking to each other about their wages to even realize what's going on.

I actually had an experience about 15 years ago where I'd regularly tell my direct employees what I made during one-on-one performance evaluations and I was brought into H.R. and told to stop it because one of my direct reports asked for a raise based on my input.

I simply asked them why I should stop being honest and I was told that if I didn't stop discussing confidential information that I would be considered unfit for future promotions. 

I blew it off and continued the same behavior and at the same time, contacted other companies and eventually got a new job. Funny enough, during the interview, I told the person exactly why I was leaving the old place and the interviewer laughed. The company I ended up working for and still work for has a very clear and fair grading system for salaries. Based on your grade, which is defined by experience/skill criteria you get paid within a scale...the scale is very clear. So everyone gets paid equally and no one can really argue with the rating they receive...it works great. But they're also one of the few private companies using this type of system. A lot of government jobs use similar systems.

Anyway, my point being that a lot of women have zero idea that they are actually being underpaid and getting that information can be very, very tough.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Kivlor said:


> Theoretically, I suppose if you had a bunch of bigots, then it could hold. Or if women are uninterested / unwilling to negotiate for higher wages.
> 
> But then, why wouldn't the companies all hire as many women as possible, drop prices, and kill competition that doesn't? In this scenario, rather than driving wages up, we would see men's wages drop, so they come closer to parity with those of women. This is close to what happened with black labor undercutting and out-producing white labor in the early 1900s. White folk found themselves in desperate need to reduce their wages to stay competitive. Labor unions clamored for a "minimum wage" to keep black people from undercutting whites by force of law.
> 
> ...


The result would be the same either way, whether women's wages went up or men's wages went down; the "pay gap" would be (all but) erased. As long as there is no legal bar to hiring a person, that person will be hired at any wage up to (slightly less than) their economic productivity, after accounting for taxes, regulations, and other external expenses.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Mr. Nail said:


> Speaking from the point of view of a person who did hire women. Yes it was a possibility. Women made less because they weren't as pushy. They searched for replacement employment less. Social aspects of the workplace were more likely to lead to a female employee quitting than a better offer.
> 
> We are capitalists. What that means in nuts and bolts is, we will charge as much as we can get for our product, and we will pay our employees as little as we can get away with.
> 
> And, Folks, that is why this discussion is important today.


Which is why if women are underpaid, capitalists will hire women and drive up their wages until they approach the marginal productivity of those women.

In other words, it is still impossible for the supposed pay gap to be caused by discrimination against women who are as productive as men.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Cletus said:


> All of my largest pay gains over many jobs in high tech came when _I_ took the initiative to leave and find better or more gainful employment. If I made more than a woman in the same job, it is because I proved myself competent to the point of being able to market my skills and negotiate salary.
> 
> Under that system, a person interested in staying put at the same organization will not make as much - no one ever gets a 30% annual pay increase regardless of the sterling nature of her performance review. It has nothing to do with entrenched discrimination or some inherently sexist pay scale.
> 
> If women are unwilling to play that game, they will suffer from a gender pay gap.


And if that is true, it is still not discrimination by the employers against women, but is caused by the women themselves, for not doing the research necessary to figure out how to get a raise. That knowledge isn't handed to men either.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

technovelist said:


> The result would be the same either way, whether women's wages went up or men's wages went down; the "pay gap" would be (all but) erased. As long as there is no legal bar to hiring a person, that person will be hired at any wage up to (slightly less than) their economic productivity, after accounting for taxes, regulations, and other external expenses.


Of course, for all this to be true in practice, you need employees who are 1) willing to move for salary 2) aware of the pay of their peers.

#1 may certainly have a gender component.
#2 is almost universally NOT true since salary comparisons are taboo nearly everywhere.

Otherwise, no one knows their true worth in the marketplace unless they're willing to spend significant time interviewing and receiving job offers.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> And if that is true, it is still not discrimination by the employers against women, but is caused by the women themselves, for not doing the research necessary to figure out how to get a raise. That knowledge isn't handed to men either.


I have very mixed feelings on this issue.

There is no doubt that women need to be more direct and aggressive about requesting salary increases and negotiating raises.

But one thing you have to realize is that there's always a balance with being a female in certain fields...specifically ones that are traditionally male. I work in engineering and manufacturing and can tell you that you have to walk a tightrope with regards to being direct without coming off as aggressive. Men are permitted to be aggressive...women have issues when they engage this way. 

The way I deal with this is that I'm aggressive-up. Which means, I'm more aggressive with salary negotiations and dealing with issues my executive director. I'm not aggressive-equal/down....with my co-workers and/or direct reports...I'm always just super nice and try to always listen and be fair. I try hard not to piss them off and try to ensure that I don't do that. I want them to enjoy working with or for me and I get way more done when I ask kindly for their help and I'm always grateful for the people I work with...they're good people. However, I don't care as much about pissing off H.R. or my boss (not that I try to but if it happens, whatever). If my work and my groups work is strong enough, my boss has to worry about pissing me off...not the other way around. Luckily for a number of years I've been in the position that they either pay me what I'm worth or I'll just quit and the company that I work for now has very clear and concise pay scales so salary is only an issue with new position promotions.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Cletus said:


> Of course, for all this to be true in practice, you need employees who are 1) willing to move for salary 2) aware of the pay of their peers.
> 
> #1 may certainly have a gender component.
> #2 is almost universally NOT true since salary comparisons are taboo nearly everywhere.
> ...


No, all you need is *employers *who realize there is a pay gap and move to exploit it.

A 20% difference in labor costs would be more than enough to be worthy of exploiting, if it existed. The fact that this does not happen demonstrates that there is no pay gap large enough to be exploited.


----------



## Relationship Teacher (Jan 3, 2016)

technovelist said:


> For purposes of this thread, let's assume that it is true that women are paid 80% of what men are paid in the same field.
> 
> Is it possible that this is due to systematic discrimination against women by employers? That is, women are really just as economically productive as men, but employers just don't want to pay them as much?
> 
> ...


Some studies show men out-earning women. Some show the inverse. 

The whole nonsense about women earning less (approx. 20% less) is the average woman compared to the average man, not same field and level of education and experience.

They call it discrimination, but are blindly blaming women for willingly choosing different professions, many of which are more suited to motherhood. Let's face it, the working mom doesn't clock out at 5 PM.

The real difference in pay is statistically insignificant, most studies showing it within the margin of error. The real joke would be on us men anyways......as women's paychecks contribute to the total household income.

Instead of focusing on a non-problem, we should be encouraging women to enter higher paying roles AND helping out around the house more so that they are able to do so.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

technovelist said:


> No, all you need is *employers *who realize there is a pay gap and move to exploit it.
> 
> A 20% difference in labor costs would be more than enough to be worthy of exploiting, if it existed. The fact that this does not happen demonstrates that there is no pay gap large enough to be exploited.


At 20%, I might agree with this, but the actual number isn't 20% for like positions with equivalent skills and experience. That's a straw argument. 

This situation (something below 20%) already exists and it does not level pay scales across companies. 

Who's going to provide outside employers with a company's internal pay structure so they know who to recruit heavily? It takes time and money to lure an employee away from a current employer, and they NEVER come across for a flat salary exchange. Just to get that lady paid at 80% of market will probably cost you half the difference in exchange for an unknown talent quantity. Then you have to do it for every position in the organization to reap the actual reward.

There are periodic salary surveys that come out which give you ballpark geographic information for thumb-in-the-wind estimates, but that's too coarse to be useful, and you never know exactly how your skills match up. 

No, the only way it works in practice is through word of mouth, when someone with whom you worked recommends you for an opening in another organization, or when a head hunter sees your profile on LinkedIn and you get curious enough to test an offer. That's how salary competition works in the Real World.

That, and outsourcing work to a place where it is unequivocally known that "talent" can be had for pennies on the dollar - like Bangalore.

There is and will always be a gap between Mr. Smith's Invisible Hand and the dealings of Real Companies. It's never quite as dog-eat-dog as advocates seem to believe - for instance, I have never, not once in 25 years ever seen anyone fired for cause.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Whether it's an actual problem or just one of perception it's still a valuable political issue. As long as it is, we will be hearing about it.
If we ever stop hearing about the alleged wage gap it will be because the Left has found a better narrative that portrays women as victims. The truth about any of these issues is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

unbelievable said:


> Whether it's an actual problem or just one of perception it's still a valuable political issue. As long as it is, we will be hearing about it.
> If we ever stop hearing about the alleged wage gap it will be because the Left has found a better narrative that portrays women as victims. The truth about any of these issues is entirely irrelevant.


Right, because if it were an actual problem instead of just perception, we can be sure that the Right wouldn't give a flying f*ck if only women were impacted.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

The folks at Freakonomics addressed this topic and tried to make an apples-to-apples comparison for a single occupation, MBA. Here's what they found:

Freakonomics » SuperFreakonomics Book Club: Goldin and Katz on the Male-Female Wage Gap


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Cletus said:


> At 20%, I might agree with this, but the actual number isn't 20% for like positions with equivalent skills and experience. That's a straw argument.


The number all the feminists use is 77 cents on the dollar. If you agree that can't possibly be anywhere near correct, then we are in agreement on the main point.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Cletus said:


> Right, because if it were an actual problem instead of just perception, we can be sure that the Right wouldn't give a flying f*ck if only women were impacted.


Ted Kennedy drowned one. Bill Clinton was accused of sexually assaulting and even raping women. Jesse Jackson knocked up his mistress. Shall we continue? 

What's good for the country is naturally also good for women. High taxes and high unemployment are actually worse for women than for men. High fuel costs adversely impact women more than men. Strict gun control leaves women (and minorities) far more vulnerable to violent crime than it does white males. I'd suggest you quit worrying about who you perceive "cares" the most and focus on which party does the most good and which causes the most harm.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Let the record reflect that Republicans are most responsible for giving women (and African Americans) the right to vote. 

When the House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment in May 1919 it did so by 304 votes to 89, with Democrats only 104 to 70 in favor but Republicans 200 to 19. In the Senate, Democrats were in favor only by 20 to 17 but the GOP voted for it by 36 to 8.

In 2014, Republican female candidates had more success than female Democrat candidates. Anyone who might be tempted to believe Dems honor women should recall how lovingly they treated Palin and Condi Rice. Your female presidential candidate was head of controlling Bimbo eruptions not so very long ago.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
to address the economics in the original post. In a perfectly efficient market the OP is correct, companies that acted in the most efficient manner would out compete the inefficient (eg biased) ones.

The problem with the argument is that the market is far from efficient. Just as an example (sorry for the Forbes post):

Forbes Welcome

highly paid CEOs are NOT better at managing companies in a measurable way than are their lower paid colleagues. 


At most job levels, evaluating employee performance in a quantitative fashion is very difficult. This is especially true for high level positions. So a manager may honestly believe that they are fairly compensating their employees when they are in fact not doing so. 

If the economy were static, in the very long term, the unbiased businesses would win - but its not static. Industries grow, change, shrink. I believe this happens too quickly for the advantages of non-discrimination to make themselves felt.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Male or female, you are getting a fair wage. You know this because you're still on the job. You are working for the wage you are obviously willing to accept and your boss figures he's getting enough work out of you to justify your pay. If you believe you are worth more, quit your job and go to work for someone who will treat you fairly. Why would you want to work for a dishonest boss? If you can't sell your labor for the wage you want, your opinion of your own value is unreasonably inflated.


----------



## JohnA (Jun 24, 2015)

You might want to dig up a recent thread on the same subject. @EleGirl posted a powerful rebuttal to OPs thesis. The problem I believe is real in many cases. Finding out how often, where and when is a messy business. My SIL 30 plus years ago approached me to ask for help finding a part time job with an accounting firm when she was a junior in college. She had intern at one of the big 7 and experienced every horror story out there to one degree or another. It shook her and crushed her self esteem. So I help grt her a job with a CPA firm with two partners. She became the youngest person in her state to become a CPA. The firm grew to 15 partners and she is the managing partner. 

So I've seen both sides of the coin. 

Oh and to the poster who referenced how wonderful dems are: who said my enemy I have no fear of, but only God can protect me from well intentioned friends ?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

"The report, titled The Myth of the Ideal Worker, followed the career paths of more than 3,000 recent MBA graduates from top universities over a 10-year period as they transitioned into a traditional career path.

Of those, about half of the graduates tracked by the study authors exemplified a set of advancement strategies attributed to so-called ideal workers -- such as gaining access to influential administrators, making their achievements visible, and developing new skill sets through training courses and workshops.

However, while the study found there was no significant difference in the proportion of high-potential men and women who asked for increased compensation or a promotion after they moved on from their first post-MBA job, the rewards were vastly different.

In fact, women who either initiated such conversations or changed jobs experienced a slower rate of compensation growth compared to women who stayed at their original position. Meanwhile, men who changed companies or negotiated for higher salaries ultimately earned more than those who stayed put at their first job.

It has long been argued that 'women don't ask,' the report states. We found little evidence to support this claim when considering career advancement strategies that rely on asking for opportunities. Women were more likely than men to ask for a variety of skill-building experiences, to proactively seek training opportunities, and to make achievements visible, including asking for feedback and promotions.

Women Judged by Performance, Men by Potential


The results of the study are unsurprising to women's advocacy groups who have been fighting against the nation's formidable gender wage gap for decades. Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, told the International Business Times that the Catalyst study simply validated other reports that suggest the wage gap between men and women is rooted in discrimination.

It is abundantly clear that women are treated differently than men in the workplace. There's a general feeling that it's okay to discriminate against women, or offer them less, because they won't do anything about it, she said.

While workers are often encouraged to look out for opportunities at other companies to increase their chances for advancement, the study suggests that women are paid for their proven performance, while men are compensated for their perceived potential. On average, Catalyst found that men who moved on to their second post-MBA employer earned about $13,743 more by 2008 than those stayed at their first job. Meanwhile, compensation growth for female job-hoppers (those that changed jobs two or more times following completion of their MBA) was approximately $53,400 less than those who stayed with their first employer.

The study also discovered differences in men and women's negotiating skills depending on how many jobs they held after receiving their degree. For instance, men were considerably more likely to counter their first job offer by asking for a higher salary -- 50 percent compared to 31 percent. But, among men and women who had moved on from their first position, 63 percent of women asked for higher pay, compared to 54 percent of men, indicating that women's negotiating skills improve considerably with experience.

In fact, the study authors offer another theory -- the problem is not that women don't ask, but that men don't have to.

Are men being rewarded without even having to ask? Do women have to raise their hands and seek recognition to an even greater extent than men do to receive the same outcomes? the report asks.

That seems to be the case. According to the study, advertising their achievements -- by ensuring their manager was aware of their accomplishments and asking for feedback and credit -- was the only behavior associated with compensation growth for women.

In comparison, rather than making achievements known, men most effectively increased their salary by conducting external scans to stay on top of their market value, and indicating a willingness to work long hours.
."

Women Ask for Raises, Promotions as Often as Men, but Receive Less: Study


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

“An AAUW analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey data found that overall, women in computer and mathematical occupations were paid 87 percent of what their male counterparts were paid. And in engineering and architecture, women were typically paid 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid, or about $65,000 annually, compared to $79,000 for men. It seems that entering a high-paying field like engineering or computing still does not protect women against the pay gap.”

Even in High-Paying STEM Fields, Women Are Shortchanged: AAUW


"Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science. "

Science faculty?s subtle gender biases favor male students


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

It is a real problem in Australia, I truly doubt that it is any better elsewhere.



> Gender pay gap in Australia
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Cletus said:


> The folks at Freakonomics addressed this topic and tried to make an apples-to-apples comparison for a single occupation, MBA. Here's what they found:
> 
> Freakonomics » SuperFreakonomics Book Club: Goldin and Katz on the Male-Female Wage Gap


From your link....

"We do find that even women without children and with no career interruptions earn about 12% less than the observationally equivalent men (the “apples to apples” comparison) both at the beginning of their careers and 10 to 16 years after obtaining their MBA."

Now I expect someone to reply with "that's not 77%"

The 77% is an average difference across all men and all women.

The 12% difference is between apples and apples... equivalent men and women.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Don't get me wrong. This is not the women's fault. Even though some allowed it to happen. An ethical capitalist employer would still monitor wages and ensure fairness. It is easy to take advantage of people you have power over, that doesn't make it right.

My field is male dominated, manual, and spatial relations centered. This tints my experience. Also many of my Female employees came to us after a first career as SAHM. This impacted their "pushyness". I'm sure that my experience is not true across the board. In my opinion SAHM returning to the workforce underestimate their potential. I no longer hire or determine wages. I'm now an outsider. I guess What I'm saying is that I did pay less and was encouraged to fix that problem. In doing so I gained a viewpoint that researchers may not be privy to. 

When Men quit it was I've got a better opportunity, or I have a dream to chase. When women quit it was I can't work with so and so any longer. That kind of Loyalty is valuable to an employer in Dollars and cents. It means you don't have to train a replacement. It should be rewarded. Eventually I stopped rewarding Men for finding better opportunities. I encouraged them to pursue career advancement elsewhere. Eventually I had a loyal staff of well trained people who got along. 

I'm not proud of my history. I made mistakes. I only bring it up to say that I know it happened.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Mr. Nail said:


> Don't get me wrong. This is not the women's fault. Even though they allowed it to happen. An ethical capitalist employer would still monitor wages and ensure fairness. It is easy to take advantage of people you have power over, that doesn't make it right.


I'm not sure why you think that women allowed it to happen.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I think that the way my employees negotiated allowed me to be Less fair. I should have fixed the problem sooner. I even think that some insecurity on their part kept them from complaining. I also tend not to disturb the pond. What I'm saying is that the general oppression of female workers, helped perpetuate wage discrimination. And it was women who have brought about the cures. I'm in favor of speaking up.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> I'm not sure why you think that women allowed it to happen.


Because they stayed put either for a long time or longer than they should have. Any particular employer is not "the market", only when the average employee moves around when unhappy are market forces brought to bear and do differences even out. 

I've been at the same employer for 20 years, all but the first few in a position to see exactly what goes on since I am in an area of finance at a small enough place (400'ish total employees) that I must see the data even though my positions were originally quite junior to now very senior. 

I can't say the same for the entire labor market because I only have personal experience with a tiny subset. But I do think the OP's point is pretty close to actuality most places in the present time. Was it always so, no of course not. Can there be pockets where women are paid less, absolutely. But those are the exception and in the grand scheme of things the market will crush those differences over a long enough time horizon. 

Honestly, within professional type ranks in a workplace there are far bigger differences attributable to general worker attitude than due to sex. 

I've got folks who are what I call small minded and work very hard. 

I've got folks with no ability to think and learn new tasks on their own who take every available vacation and sick hour and schedule it at the busiest time of year. When they are actually on the job they do their work. 

I've got folks who are intellectually curious, look for problems that need solving, and follow those problems outside their immediate area of responsibility and suggest solutions. 

Salaries over time and promotional opportunities tend to be different between those three. They are also not neatly divided between male and female, I've got both in all three groups. 

When hiring these days there is a serious look at diversity within the pool of applicants and if your pool is not diverse enough you go back and advertise more. There are no quota's for who you hire but it sometimes seems a bit surprising if a white male is hired. 

And BTW, the most likely time for the salary of a position to be "adjusted to market" in a big way, is when you do a search, find a non white male candidate, and find what you are offering is insufficient. We do do salary market analysis from time to time and make adjustments over and within groups of employees but these are relatively smaller adjustments. The big 10K, 20K or more adjustments happen in a search situation.

My point on the last paragraph is if you are a women and feel you are being taken advantage of pay wise there are other employees that will actively bid for you. It might even be your current employer after you vote with your feet and leave.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

If you mean systematic as is "always occurs" or "occurs in every career field" the answer is no.

At this point in society everyone has been discriminated against and it's wrong in all forms. What we need to remember is we do have a choice to leave and make different decisions where we work.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

unbelievable said:


> Let the record reflect that Republicans are most responsible for giving women (and African Americans) the right to vote.
> 
> When the House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment in May 1919 it did so by 304 votes to 89, with Democrats only 104 to 70 in favor but Republicans 200 to 19. In the Senate, Democrats were in favor only by 20 to 17 but the GOP voted for it by 36 to 8.
> 
> In 2014, Republican female candidates had more success than female Democrat candidates. Anyone who might be tempted to believe Dems honor women should recall how lovingly they treated Palin and Condi Rice. Your female presidential candidate was head of controlling Bimbo eruptions not so very long ago.


This a ridiculous argument and always has been. There was a fundamental shift in the parties in the 1960's when the hippies took over the Democratic party and the old Southern Democrats bolted and became Republicans. The biggest drivers of the old time Democrat party were Southernors, as evidenced by their beef with Lincoln, who was a Republican. How does the South vote now? Almost without exception Republican.

The ideology that existed in the Republican party at the time to pass those measures exists today in the Democratic party.

I can't believe anyone still makes this argument.....a basic history lesson should be all you need to know the parties have flipped in their ideologies from pre-1960's.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> This a ridiculous argument and always has been. There was a fundamental shift in the parties in the 1960's when the hippies took over the Democratic party and the old Southern Democrats bolted and became Republicans. The biggest drivers of the old time Democrat party were Southernors, as evidenced by their beef with Lincoln, who was a Republican. How does the South vote now? Almost without exception Republican.
> 
> The ideology that existed in the Republican party at the time to pass those measures exists today in the Democratic party.
> 
> I can't believe anyone still makes this argument.....a basic history lesson should be all you need to know the parties have flipped in their ideologies from pre-1960's.


Ignorance is bliss. You are believing the re-write of history...


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> Ignorance is bliss. You are believing the re-write of history...


Yes, ignorance is bliss. If you wish to ignore basic history that's on you.

It's not very hard to see that all of the old South used to be Democrat; Lincoln was a Republican and wanted to free the slaves. Who did not want that to happen? The south! 

Strom Thurmond, Phil Graham, they were all Democrats. Phil Graham became a Republican as the ideologies of the parties switched.

If you want to keep drinking the Kool Aid that's up to you.

And I'm not even a Democrat, I'm a registered Libertarian.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> Yes, ignorance is bliss. If you wish to ignore basic history that's on you.
> 
> It's not very hard to see that all of the old South used to be Democrat; Lincoln was a Republican and wanted to free the slaves. Who did not want that to happen? The south!
> 
> ...


Both parties suck, they actually are so close to the same thing, it is comical. But Republicans 100 years ago were the one's who freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote and they were 'conservative'. The current 2 major parties are progressives and the progressive movement is killing the western culture, bit by bit. The progressives are re-writing history.......


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> Both parties suck, they actually are so close to the same thing, it is comical. But Republicans 100 years ago were the one's who freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote and they were 'conservative'. The current 2 major parties are progressives and the progressive movement is killing the western culture, bit by bit. The progressives are re-writing history.......


That is true but what it means to be conservative has changed. You can't just grab someone from 200 years ago and declare that you both called yourself conservative so you must be the same. 

The term progressive refers to one who wants to change the status quo, and today that is the Democrats. It's not always a good thing to change the status quo ad sometimes it ain't broke, so to speak, and progressives have been known to see issues that aren't there.

Republicans are generally the ones who like the status quo.....our current medical system is fine (pre aca), marriage is traditional, their is no inequality, we don't need more regulation etc. Not saying they're always wrong, just that this is the position they take.

The Republicans of today are not the Republicans of Lincoln. The whole south was democrat at the time, now it doesn't get any more red than the south.

Oh, and Strom Thurmond was a Democrat from the 1940's until 1964 when he became a Republican. Right when the big ideology flip happened.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

IMO, the republicans today are progressives as well (or at least many of them are). 

I disagree with you that the parties flipped. All you have to do is look at the policies of the democrats and the impact they have on the black community to see those policies are actually worse than Jim Crow laws.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> IMO, the republicans today are progressives as well (or at least many of them are).
> 
> I disagree with you that the parties flipped. All you have to do is look at the policies of the democrats and the impact they have on the black community to see those policies are actually worse than Jim Crow laws.


Disagree. The ideologies did flip, but sometimes progressive solutions to a real problem are wrong. Their policies have not worked for the black community because handing people stuff for free never does.

Sometimes these terms are thrown around as well. Democrats are labeled liberal but it's not always a bad thing to be liberal. Liberals are responsible for greatly improved factory safety, among other things. But they aren't perfect and sometimes their positions don't work. 

Republicans can be progressive and sometimes their solutions are good and sometimes they're not. 

Education and criminal justice come to mind as places liberals are wrong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

lifeistooshort said:


> This a ridiculous argument and always has been. There was a fundamental shift in the parties in the 1960's when the hippies took over the Democratic party and the old Southern Democrats bolted and became Republicans. The biggest drivers of the old time Democrat party were Southernors, as evidenced by their beef with Lincoln, who was a Republican. How does the South vote now? Almost without exception Republican.
> 
> The ideology that existed in the Republican party at the time to pass those measures exists today in the Democratic party.
> 
> I can't believe anyone still makes this argument.....a basic history lesson should be all you need to know the parties have flipped in their ideologies from pre-1960's.


Not very long ago, y'all buried Robert Byrd, a Democrat Senator when he died and a former klan leader. That myth about Dixiecrats all turning Republican is another slice of Liberal equine scatology. The great majority of them remained Democrats. If you are a Dem you are still in the party of racism. How many groups with a color or race in their name support the DNC? Basically all of them.


----------



## Justinian (Mar 7, 2015)

Cletus said:


> Of course, for all this to be true in practice, you need employees who are 1) willing to move for salary 2) aware of the pay of their peers.
> 
> #1 may certainly have a gender component.
> #2 is almost universally NOT true since *salary comparisons are taboo nearly everywhere.*


Under the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935, private-sector employees have the right to engage in "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."

The language is somewhat antiquated, but it means that you and your co-workers get to talk together about things that matter to you at work.

Compensation is one of those things you can talk about. The National Labor Relations Board has long held that these pay secrecy policies that many employers have in writing violate the National Labor Relations Act.

Even if an employee signs a nondisclosure agreement with an employer, the employee would still be protected when talking about salary.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Justinian said:


> Under the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935, private-sector employees have the right to engage in "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."
> 
> The language is somewhat antiquated, but it means that you and your co-workers get to talk together about things that matter to you at work.
> 
> ...


in this day and age, I really doubt that folks under 40 really don't know where they stand relative to their peers.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> “An AAUW analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey data found that overall, women in computer and mathematical occupations were paid 87 percent of what their male counterparts were paid. And in engineering and architecture, women were typically paid 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid, or about $65,000 annually, compared to $79,000 for men. It seems that entering a high-paying field like engineering or computing still does not protect women against the pay gap.”


I am female and I take issue with this in regards to my field … electrical engineering. I don’t see how they could get their data set to even come to such a conclusion. There are not enough women in my field to reach a concise answer.

I have been in the same industry for 33 years, working for/with many different companies in the United States and parts of Western Europe. In that time I have either been the only female, in a few cases one of two females and in one case where there were three females. How can you derive a valid data set from so few numbers (compared to the men in the same field)?

The other factor that I wonder about is do they collect this data based on the type of degree the person has or _do they actually look at the type of work they are doing_. I say this because there are a large percentage of degreed electrical engineers that end up in software development and, software development is much lower paying than true electrical engineering.

It has been my experience that not many women go into my field and it’s not because of lack of intelligence or discouragement rather because _they are not interested_. I graduated from a top ten university (for my major) and there were only 4 women in my graduating class. Twenty years ago I started my own company (30 engineers employed) and to this day I have been unable to recruit a qualified female because I can’t find them, there are simply too few of them in existence.

You can encourage/mentor people toward an engineering career in any manner you like but _you can’t force interest in the field_. And BTW, my field pays very (very) well but you do work long hours (it’s not a 9 to 5 type job).


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
In a real sense I don't think it matters. What people called themselves decades ago isn't important. Very few people who were active in either party in 1960 are still active now. 

Its interesting if as you say, the ideologies switched between the parties at some point, but I don't see any relevance to modern politics. I care about what the parties currently support, not what organizations of the same name, but different people supported a long time ago. 







lifeistooshort said:


> This a ridiculous argument and always has been. There was a fundamental shift in the parties in the 1960's when the hippies took over the Democratic party and the old Southern Democrats bolted and became Republicans. The biggest drivers of the old time Democrat party were Southernors, as evidenced by their beef with Lincoln, who was a Republican. How does the South vote now? Almost without exception Republican.
> 
> The ideology that existed in the Republican party at the time to pass those measures exists today in the Democratic party.
> 
> I can't believe anyone still makes this argument.....a basic history lesson should be all you need to know the parties have flipped in their ideologies from pre-1960's.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> In a real sense I don't think it matters. What people called themselves decades ago isn't important. Very few people who were active in either party in 1960 are still active now.
> 
> Its interesting if as you say, the ideologies switched between the parties at some point, but I don't see any relevance to modern politics. I care about what the parties currently support, not what organizations of the same name, but different people supported a long time ago.


Absolutely true, I don't care either. But the argument was made that it was republicans that gave women the vote and freed the slaves, which has no relevance today because of the ideology switch.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

We also don't treat fat ugly sweating unpleasant people the same. 

The fact is, is that women are more successful in business according to how more more male they behave. I am sure Oprah is a ball breaking micromanaging control freak b^itch in the office now matter what her public persona is.


----------



## Kivlor (Oct 27, 2015)

Red Sonja said:


> I am female and I take issue with this in regards to my field … electrical engineering. I don’t see how they could get their data set to even come to such a conclusion. There are not enough women in my field to reach a concise answer.
> 
> I have been in the same industry for 33 years, working for/with many different companies in the United States and parts of Western Europe. In that time I have either been the only female, in a few cases one of two females and in one case where there were three females. How can you derive a valid data set from so few numbers (compared to the men in the same field)?
> 
> ...


These stats are aggregate pay. They do not compare qualification. They do not compare experience. They do not compare *hours worked* And as such, it is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from them.

They are perpetuated constantly, because many folks think if you repeat a lie often enough it will become the truth.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Runs like Dog said:


> We also don't treat fat ugly sweating unpleasant people the same.
> 
> The fact is, is that women are more successful in business according to how more more male they behave. I am sure Oprah is a ball breaking micromanaging control freak b^itch in the office now matter what her public persona is.


Wow ... who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Red Sonja said:


> Wow ... who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?


Knowing Dog, he pissed in his own Cheerios.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Red Sonja said:


> Wow ... who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?


Nice people are nice to be around but they're rarely at the top of the corporate monkey house.


----------

