# Uber and the gender pay gap



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Some surprising results and some not necessarily so surprising from a company whose driver pay policy is completely gender neutral.

7% or your opinion will be ignored for commenting without listening to the podcast.

What Can Uber Teach Us About the Gender Pay Gap? - Freakonomics Freakonomics


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

I listened the other day, if I remember correctly roughly 1/2 of the 7% was explained by men driving faster and therefore completing more trips per hour . So, speed more ladies <g>.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

anonmd said:


> I listened the other day, if I remember correctly roughly 1/2 of the 7% was explained by men driving faster and therefore completing more trips per hour . So, speed more ladies <g>.


Didn't they also say that men only drove 2% faster? As in 51 mph as opposed to 50 mph? I'm no statistician, but I found that argument pretty hard to follow.

All in all though pretty good evidence that a pay disparity can't be assumed automatically to constitute illegal discrimination.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

So I guess that this story doesn't resonate with the ladies.


For those disinclined to listen to the podcast, it explores why women make 7% less as Uber drivers when the pay system is gender agnostic. 

The punch line is that it is their choices, not all of which are in their control. It is not a woman bashing article, but a published and peer reviewed study based on over a million analyzed rides.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Cletus said:


> For those disinclined to listen to the podcast, it explores why women make 7% less as Uber drivers when the pay system is gender agnostic.
> 
> The punch line is that it is their choices, not all of which are in their control. It is not a woman bashing article, but a published and peer reviewed study based on over a million analyzed rides.


I use Uber a lot when I travel, and I can only remember one female driver. She had lots of snacks and water bottles for customers, but her car was filthy, and she seemed somewhat grumpy. That was my most disappointing trip.

The opposite was a man in Seattle who was dressed like a bank president. His car was immaculate, and he was very engaging. A+


----------



## She'sStillGotIt (Jul 30, 2016)

I have to be honest. I just don't want some strange man getting into my car no matter HOW much I'm being paid. 

I've heard numerous reports about women being attacked and/or manhandled by men either as passengers or the drivers during Uber driving jobs. No thanks to that happy horse **** no matter HOW much they pay me.

Hell, if I want to be manhandled, I'll just stay home.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I have to be honest. I just don't want some strange man getting into my car no matter HOW much I'm being paid.
> 
> I've heard numerous reports about women being attacked and/or manhandled by men either as passengers or the drivers during Uber driving jobs. No thanks to that happy horse **** no matter HOW much they pay me.
> 
> Hell, if I want to be manhandled, I'll just stay home.


That topic wasn't covered, as the paper only discusses women who did choose to drive. 

However, it might play a part in the case when a more lucrative route is seen by women as being more dangerous. They didn't discuss this. Certain routes are known to make you more money - the airport routes being well known. Men (and women) gravitate towards the places where they can make more per trip, but it takes some experience to know how this plays out in real life. Experience more men are getting because they stay on the job longer. More women drop out from attrition early - perhaps they don't want to run the risk of getting manhandled? 

I'd like to read the report and see all of the conditions that they controlled for.


----------



## FalCod (Dec 6, 2017)

Cletus said:


> That topic wasn't covered, as the paper only discusses women who did choose to drive.
> 
> However, it might play a part in the case when a more lucrative route is seen by women as being more dangerous. They didn't discuss this. Certain routes are known to make you more money - the airport routes being well known. Men (and women) gravitate towards the places where they can make more per trip, but it takes some experience to know how this plays out in real life. Experience more men are getting because they stay on the job longer. More women drop out from attrition early - perhaps they don't want to run the risk of getting manhandled?
> 
> I'd like to read the report and see all of the conditions that they controlled for.


You can ready the study here: https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Compared to a national gap of 28%, Uber's 7% looks pretty good.

Global Gender Gap Report 2017 - Reports - World Economic Forum


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

anonmd said:


> I listened the other day, if I remember correctly roughly 1/2 of the 7% was explained by men driving faster and therefore completing more trips per hour . So, speed more ladies <g>.


Lol

I think in general people drive too slow. Speed limit is +10 people! So in 50 zone, drive 60, in 100 zone, drive 110, in developing countries, drive 200, and in open country, when no one around, drive 340! (KM/H btw, not MPH.)

Rare you'll get a ticket for 10ks over as speedos could be off, that's the margin. I'm always bloody zigzaging through people -.-


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Compared to a national gap of 28%, Uber's 7% looks pretty good.
> 
> Global Gender Gap Report 2017 - Reports - World Economic Forum


That 28% number has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap - Freakonomics Freakonomics

From the same source as the Uber 7% number, including input from the leading economist on the topic who is also a woman.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

anonmd said:


> I listened the other day, if I remember correctly roughly 1/2 of the 7% was explained by men driving faster and therefore completing more trips per hour . So, speed more ladies <g>.


I wonder how much those guys pay in speeding tickets, reducing their net income. >


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Cletus said:


> So I guess that this story doesn't resonate with the ladies.
> 
> 
> For those disinclined to listen to the podcast, it explores why women make 7% less as Uber drivers when the pay system is gender agnostic.
> ...


Maybe the TAM ladies are busy right now and have not had time yet to read that entire thing. That's why I have not posted about podcast yet... I won't have the time to read it until this evening.

But.. in the case of uber drivers, the 7% difference is behavior based, then now that the facts are known, female uber drivers can change their behavior and earn more if they wish.

However, the same factors do not translate over to other career fields. For example the speed at which an software developer drives, or tipping, have no impact on software engineers.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> However, the same factors do not translate over to other career fields. For example the speed at which an software developer drives, or tipping, have no impact on software engineers.


The study predates the introduction of Uber tipping, which seems to benefit the ladies more than the men. If I remember correctly, the authors were working on a paper to address that too.

As for speed - Lines of code per day has long been a sought after metric for classifying software engineers. If anyone ever comes up with a fair way of measuring it, you can bet you backside it would be used in computing relative pay.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Cletus said:


> That 28% number has been pretty thoroughly debunked.
> .


Some will just continue to cling to the $0.77 on the dollar no matter what...



EleGirl said:


> But.. in the case of uber drivers, the 7% difference is behavior based, then now that the facts are known, female uber drivers can change their behavior and earn more if they wish.


It would be interesting to see if that does indeed happen, if the 7% gap is worth trying to change one's behavior


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Some will just continue to cling to the $0.77 on the dollar no matter what...
> 
> It would be interesting to see if that does indeed happen, if the 7% gap is worth trying to change one's behavior


They mentioned that in the podcast. Men and women seem to learn how to maximize their profit at about the same rate. Men do better because they stick with the job longer, and if the number crunchers are to be believed, because they drive 2% faster.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> That 28% number has been pretty thoroughly debunked.
> 
> The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap - Freakonomics Freakonomics
> 
> From the same source as the Uber 7% number, including input from the leading economist on the topic who is also a woman.


That anybody still repeats that number is just astounding. @wild jade, I would have hoped for better from you.

What I found most interesting in the show was that after they'd proven that discrimination wasn't the cause of the pay gap, there was still a bit of discussion about how the pay gap could be "fixed".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

EllisRedding said:


> It would be interesting to see if that does indeed happen, if the 7% gap is worth trying to change one's behavior


One way that we could "fix" the part of the Uber pay gap that's due to experience would be by making sure that both genders "stay on the platform" for the same amount of time.

I would recommend either forcing a man off every time a woman quits or not allowing a woman to quit until a man chooses to quit as well.

Yeah, that's the ticket!


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> That anybody still repeats that number is just astounding. @wild jade, I would have hoped for better from you.
> 
> What I found most interesting in the show was that after they'd proven that discrimination wasn't the cause of the pay gap, there was still a bit of discussion about how the pay gap could be "fixed".


The pay gap was part of this thread I started a few weeks ago (I had added the Uber research to the end of that thread):

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...n-debates-gender-differences-pay-gap-etc.html


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Cletus said:


> That 28% number has been pretty thoroughly debunked.
> 
> The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap - Freakonomics Freakonomics
> 
> From the same source as the Uber 7% number, including input from the leading economist on the topic who is also a woman.


I cited the World Economic Forum for that number. Are you telling me that they have no idea how to calculate a gender pay gap?

I mean, yeah, I get it. Complicated, area of work, hours, tenure, blah, blah, blah. But interestingly, according to the World Economic Forum, the US is fairly terrible at the gender pay gap and getting worse. Other countries are much better.

Also lots of analysis about how fields get devalued as women enter into them. Tons of research demonstrating that women are offered less at starting, and slower to rise through the pay ranks.

Debunked? Hardly.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

wild jade said:


> *I cited the World Economic Forum for that number*. Are you telling me that they have no idea how to calculate a gender pay gap?
> 
> *I mean, yeah, I get it. Complicated, area of work, hours, tenure, blah, blah, blah. * But interestingly, according to the World Economic Forum, the US is fairly terrible at the gender pay gap and getting worse. Other countries are much better.
> 
> ...


The number from the World Economic Forum doesn't factor in "complicated, area of work, hours, tenure, blah, blah, blah" and yet you cite it anyway.

So, no, I don't think you DO get it.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

wild jade said:


> I cited the World Economic Forum for that number. Are you telling me that they have no idea how to calculate a gender pay gap?


That's exactly what I'm telling you. Women with equivalent experience, tenure, and skills make less than men. Just no where near 28%. 

If you persist in using it, I won't have to call you a liar. You'll have done it to yourself.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Cletus said:


> That's exactly what I'm telling you. Women with equivalent experience, tenure, and skills make less than men. Just no where near 28%.
> 
> If you persist in using it, I won't have to call you a liar. You'll have done it to yourself.


And it largely only applies to a select few high education, high skilled professions that most men and women who work have never personally experienced. Which is why it continues to be a losing issue for Democrats when they present it as a cornerstone of their national platform.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> The number from the World Economic Forum doesn't factor in "complicated, area of work, hours, tenure, blah, blah, blah" and yet you cite it anyway.
> 
> So, no, I don't think you DO get it.





Cletus said:


> That's exactly what I'm telling you. Women with equivalent experience, tenure, and skills make less than men. Just no where near 28%.
> 
> If you persist in using it, I won't have to call you a liar. You'll have done it to yourself.


And really though, that is the point. The "blah blah blah" does matter. I don't think anyone here is saying that discrimination may not account for some of the gap. The question though is how much, and clearly stating 28% or close to it is based on discrimination is rather blind. I think some of the stuff I have seen said it is more likely closer to 5%. Ideally, any gap due solely to discrimination should be 0%, but still that is a far cry from 77 cents on the dollar.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> And really though, that is the point. The "blah blah blah" does matter. I don't think anyone here is saying that discrimination may not account for some of the gap. The question though is how much, and clearly stating 28% or close to it is based on discrimination is rather blind. I think some of the stuff I have seen said it is more likely closer to 5%. Ideally, any gap due solely to discrimination should be 0%, but still that is a far cry from 77 cents on the dollar.


I just computed the pay gap between me and the average neurosurgeon. I was very careful to use the same algorithm as the World Economic Forum. It's a jaw-dropping 250%.

Worse yet, using the same algorithm, the pay gap between me and my wife is a heart breaking 500%.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Cletus said:


> I just computed the pay gap between me and the average neurosurgeon. I was very careful to use the same algorithm as the World Economic Forum. It's a jaw-dropping 250%.
> 
> Worse yet, using the same algorithm, the pay gap between me and my wife is a heart breaking 500%.


In my case (a female) even if you stick to only my profession (electrical engineering) the difference between my earnings and the average male electrical engineer are "jaw-dropping" in my favor. That fact has nothing to do with gender, it's mostly because of how I chose to practice my profession ... i.e. I started businesses versus being an employee of a company. I took a personal risk and it paid off.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Red Sonja said:


> In my case (a female) even if you stick to only my profession (electrical engineering) the difference between my earnings and the average male electrical engineer are "jaw-dropping" in my favor. That fact has nothing to do with gender, it's mostly because of how I chose to practice my profession ... i.e. I started businesses versus being an employee of a company. I took a personal risk and it paid off.


Congrats!

I LOVE to hear stories like that. Entrepreneurship is risky and difficult, no matter who you are. I raise my glass to all men and women who have the vision and energy to make it happen.

Hear, hear!

You are one of my heroes.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cletus said:


> That's exactly what I'm telling you. Women with equivalent experience, tenure, and skills make less than men. Just no where near 28%.
> 
> If you persist in using it, I won't have to call you a liar. You'll have done it to yourself.


When someone quotes a 28% gender pay gap, one thing is clear.

They're more interested in talking about a problem than they are in actually solving it.

It actually's actually counter productive for them because anyone who has any actual knowledge of the situation will just tune them out.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> And it largely only applies to a select few high education, high skilled professions that most men and women who work have never personally experienced.


Great insight!


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

If people what to have a rational discussion about a pay gap they need to define what they are and are not correcting for. The details matter. 

There are many numbers - and many of them are correct because they are measuring different things.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> The number from the World Economic Forum doesn't factor in "complicated, area of work, hours, tenure, blah, blah, blah" and yet you cite it anyway.
> 
> So, no, I don't think you DO get it.


Actually, the numbers from the World Economic Forum *do* account for all the blah, blah, blah.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/pay-equality-men-women-gender-gap-report-2017

As yes, I get it that the 28% number does factor in all the various issues that make people want to dismiss gender pay gap out of hand.

Doesn't it interest you even in the slightest that there is huge differences between countries? Or that this pay gap is widening?

Or are we too busy insisting that anyone who uses the "d" word is a whiny liar making mountains out of molehills?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

wild jade said:


> Actually, the numbers from the World Economic Forum *do* account for all the blah, blah, blah.


Are we reading the same report? 

The WEF number is this: take all of the money made by women, divide by the number of women earning it. Do the same for the men. Compare.

Ok, that IS technically a gender pay gap, albeit an utterly uninformative number. Surely you realize that such a number is completely useless unless it's normalized for all of the "blah"? Or are you suggesting that even if women intentionally choose fields that pay less, choose to work fewer hours, or voluntarily remove themselves from the work force for long stretches to raise children that they should still make the same on average as the men who do not? Otherwise, the gender pay gap is no more informative than the garbage man/neurosurgeon pay gap.

I can't believe you'd be saying that, yet it is hard to come to any other conclusion. I know you're smart enough to understand this, so I am completely baffled here.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

The raw wage gap is an interesting number. So are the various numbers you get when you factor out other effects. 

The data is separate from the question of what if anything should be done to change things.


Just for fun, the average woman is significantly lighter than the average male. If we look at income per pound its pretty close. (no I'm not suggesting this, just pointing out that its not always obvious what correction factors should be used). 





Cletus said:


> Are we reading the same report?
> 
> The WEF number is this: take all of the money made by women, divide by the number of women earning it. Do the same for the men. Compare.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

uhtred said:


> The raw wage gap is an interesting number. So are the various numbers you get when you factor out other effects.


It might be an interesting number, but it is still a useless number. You cannot draw any conclusions from it and you certainly can't even begin to recommend policy from it. Until you remove the effect of women actively choosing to make less, the pay gap is completely, utterly useless.

That's the whole point of the Uber article. There is NO GENDER DISCRIMINATION WHATSOEVER in Uber's pay system, yet women still make 7% less - all of it explainable by the choices they make. There is nothing that Uber should do to fix this non-problem.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Cletus said:


> It might be an interesting number, but it is still a useless number. You cannot draw any conclusions from it and *you certainly can't even begin to recommend policy from it*. Until you remove the effect of women actively choosing to make less, the pay gap is completely, utterly useless.
> 
> That's the whole point of the Uber article. There is NO GENDER DISCRIMINATION WHATSOEVER in Uber's pay system, yet women still make 7% less - all of it explainable by the choices they make. There is nothing that Uber should do to fix this non-problem.


Though it does fit the systemic discrimination narrative quite well. As wage comparisons start to approach minimum wage, the pay gap rapidly disappears. 
The problem is, for the vast majority of Americans, when they look around at the men and women they know, and look at their own life experiences, they cannot relate because they have never experienced it personally when the majority of all jobs in the US are low wage hourly service sector jobs.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

wild jade said:


> Actually, the numbers from the World Economic Forum *do* account for all the blah, blah, blah.
> 
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/pay-equality-men-women-gender-gap-report-2017
> 
> As yes, I get it that the 28% number does factor in all the various issues that make people want to dismiss gender pay gap out of hand.


No. It doesn't.

The recap explains that "blah, blah, blah" *may* be the cause of some of the gap, but the 28% number does not control for these factors.

I can't believe that you don't understand this.


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

Yes, well, after all of this, I've forgotten the original question.

Wait. I remember it now. Something about how there is a seven percent pay difference between women and men who drive for Uber.

Personally, I use Uber a lot. Men are mostly the drivers, but lots of women too.

As a person who has an advanced degree in statistics, I can tell you that seven percent isn't a lot, and may well be within the margin of error for whatever statistical format they used. I haven't read the study, but I don't think it's anything to get worked up over.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Not useless, it just can't be applied without being combined with other information. The displacement of an engine is not useless even though by itself it will not tell you the horsepower or torque of the engine. 





Cletus said:


> It might be an interesting number, but it is still a useless number. You cannot draw any conclusions from it and you certainly can't even begin to recommend policy from it. Until you remove the effect of women actively choosing to make less, the pay gap is completely, utterly useless.
> 
> That's the whole point of the Uber article. There is NO GENDER DISCRIMINATION WHATSOEVER in Uber's pay system, yet women still make 7% less - all of it explainable by the choices they make. There is nothing that Uber should do to fix this non-problem.


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

Well, Cletus, what difference does it make what the reason is? If women actively choose to make less and that's why there is a discrepancy here (which is not at all substantiated), then so what? The difference is what's important here, not the reason, correct?

I haven't looked at this study but I do clinical research for a living and I would be surprised if any of this nonsense has any statistical value to it. So I agree with you there. You can't take this stuff at face value ever. There are so many ways to misinterpret that crap.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Cletus said:


> They mentioned that in the podcast. Men and women seem to learn how to maximize their profit at about the same rate. Men do better because they stick with the job longer, and if the number crunchers are to be believed, because they drive 2% faster.


i dont think the faster driving has much of an impact on it. driving 2% faster doesnt really equate to more trips. if two people were to drive 60 miles per hour for 24 hours straight, the 2% only puts you at the same distance about half an hour sooner. nobody drives like that though. it would take days to get one extra trip in. 

if they are completing more trips, its likely due to better route selection, which would likely come down to them having more experience.


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

Hope Shimmers said:


> Well, Cletus, what difference does it make what the reason is? If women actively choose to make less and that's why there is a discrepancy here (which is not at all substantiated), then so what? *The difference is what's important here, not the reason, correct?*
> 
> I haven't looked at this study but I do clinical research for a living and I would be surprised if any of this nonsense has any statistical value to it. So I agree with you there. You can't take this stuff at face value ever. There are so many ways to misinterpret that crap.


cant tell if you are being serious or sarcastic...


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

As'laDain said:


> cant tell if you are being serious or sarcastic...


Freakonomics? Seriously? And people put stock in this?

Does anyone have access to the full paper? Because I can only find the first 2 pages online and I want to read the methods.

As for serious or sarcastic.... I was being quite serious. 

The reason matters. Ever hear of confounding? That is something that affects almost all studies. It means that at least two of the variables being studied are related to each other AND related to the dependent outcome (the result). This study is all over that.

Basics of Research: Variables


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Cletus said:


> Are we reading the same report?
> 
> The WEF number is this: take all of the money made by women, divide by the number of women earning it. Do the same for the men. Compare.
> 
> ...


I agree that the raw number isn't terribly informative, but it does raise some interesting questions worth of further exploration.

-Given that we live in an "equal" society, why do women end up in lower paid positions overall?
-Why, in a country where more women are attending university , earning more degrees (more than men these days!), is this raw number increasing, rather than decreasing? 
-Given that both Canada and US are North American developed countries bordering on each other -- why is Canada closing this gap, while the US is growing it? 
-Why when we go to those countries where there are systemic policies supporting childcare for families, including maternal and paternal leaves, is this pay gap much, much smaller?

All of these questions are much more interesting than "why do neurosurgeons get paid more than garbage men", IMHO. And if the answer to all of them boils down to "American women choose to earn less", then we can still ask why do they choose to earn less? Are you really just going to assume "because they're women and different than men"?

Uber's 7% is nothing in terms of pay gap. Some of what feeds that raw 28% gap are situations with clear bias. For example, there are other peer reviewed studies showing ~40% for men and women doing equal work in the same organization- - even gov't organizations with very clear anti-discrimination policies. What about those? Do we dismiss them all because we're determined to say that women are "choosing" to be less well paid than men? Because we're women and so obviously we just want to raise kids and not work so hard? 

The US is a country where birth rates are falling, numbers of childless families increasing, and women increasingly educated and increasingly active in the work force, and the pay gap is growing. What does that add up to in your mind?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> I agree that the raw number isn't terribly informative, but it does raise some interesting questions worth of further exploration.
> 
> -Given that we live in an "equal" society, why do women end up in lower paid positions overall?
> -Why, in a country where more women are attending university , earning more degrees (more than men these days!), is *this raw number increasing, rather than decreasing? *
> ...


Define "equal work." In this context, it typically means being in an equivalent position with roughly equal experience and education. That doesn't necessarily imply equal output. One well documented difference is that women (in the aggregate, not implying anything about any individual here) take more time off for various reasons. On average, men are more aggressive about always being present so they can scoop up opportunities, and that adds up in the aggregate and definitely affects advancement, or even opportunity for raises within the position. Many of the boosts I got in my career were simply because_ I was there _when the boss needed something. After a few such instances, I earned a reputation for reliability, both in availability, and quality of my output. But I couldn't have gotten the rep for quality without first earning the rep for availability and reliability. Assuming equal work just based on equal position is folly, just like so much else in this discussion. 


If you're interested in such things, maybe you should ask Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, whose staffs showed the highest wage gaps in the Senate. (with Hillary not far behind). 

Most of your post hangs on the assertion that, despite more women in the workforce and with more education, experience, the gap is growing. But that is straight up false. The gap has been narrowing steadily since 1970. With an exception of a brief reversal during the most recent depression (which can also be explained by factors other than current bias), the gap continues to shrink. This includes new shrinkage in the most recent year for which data is available (2016), the first time that the gap has fallen below 20%. You can only make a claim that the gap is growing if you badly cherry pick a couple years, either out of random ignorance, or a deliberate misinformation attempt to support a canned narrative. 

https://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html

Gender pay gap in U.S. remains, but it?s narrowing | Pew Research Center

Census: Gender Pay Gap Shrank in 2016 | Fortune


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Define "equal work." In this context, it typically means being in an equivalent position with roughly equal experience and education. That doesn't necessarily imply equal output. One well documented difference is that women (in the aggregate, not implying anything about any individual here) take more time off for various reasons. On average, men are more aggressive about always being present so they can scoop up opportunities, and that adds up in the aggregate and definitely affects advancement, or even opportunity for raises within the position. Many of the boosts I got in my career were simply because_ I was there _when the boss needed something. After a few such instances, I earned a reputation for reliability, both in availability, and quality of my output. But I couldn't have gotten the rep for quality without first earning the rep for availability and reliability. Assuming equal work just based on equal position is folly, just like so much else in this discussion.
> 
> 
> If you're interested in such things, maybe you should ask Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, whose staffs showed the highest wage gaps in the Senate. (with Hillary not far behind).
> ...


Keep in mind as well, one of the biggest factors in the gap with occupational choice. More and more women are getting an education, but it becomes less relevant if they choose lower earning careers. Men occupy a higher percentage of the higher paying jobs, and vice versa for women on some of the lower paying jobs. Now, there could be a myriad of reasons for that of which have nothing to do with discrimination. Out by me, women make up a large portion of teachers and nurses. Now granted, teachers out by me make good money (a teacher can easily earn $100k+), but typically these are lower paying jobs with not a lot of potential wage growth. Some of the reasons women I know went this route had to do with feeling it was a better option to balance work and a family. I believe there were a few surveys done as well and on average women placed a greater importance on work/life balance than men, and this can have an impact on career choice. The good thing about this, occupational choice is entirely in the hands of the individual, so if closing the wage gap is that important, a shift in career choices would do the trick. Whether or not this is the best for families can be debated.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

LOL.

Nope, no bias whatsoever in the assumption that women aren't available, aren't committed to their jobs, and don't seize opportunities. 

No bias whatsoever in the presumption that if a man is being paid more, he must deserve it somehow. Clearly, he is a wonderfully exemplary employee, while she can't produce crap and takes too much time off. (Even though the studies referenced show quite clearly that these massive differences have zero to do with productivity or absenteeism)

No bias whatsoever in assuming that women all love the low paying job fields, never mind that there are now more women getting into medicine -- and yes, I mean doctors, not nurses -- and other lucrative fields. 

Call the growth in pay gap a "blip" if you want to. It doesn't change the fact that other countries have much, much different numbers than the US, and manage to do so with some very simple policies that aren't based on presumptions that women must take primary child care responsibilities, and because of that can't possibly be reliable or productive employees.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> https://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html
> 
> Gender pay gap in U.S. remains, but it?s narrowing | Pew Research Center
> 
> Census: Gender Pay Gap Shrank in 2016 | Fortune


The Pay Equity study you cited claims explicitly that the gap is closing very, very slowly -- half a cent a year.

And did you notice that they also linked to this article, complete with infographics, showing how men are paid more even in women-dominated fields, and even when they have less education: http://www.epi.org/publication/you-cant-mansplain-away-the-gender-pay-gap/

The Pew Research you cited is quite explicit that part of the gender pay gap could be due to discrimination.

The Fortune article links out to another article that points out that we could narrow the gap if only men took on more of the housework and child care.



So, what was that about cherry picking to support a canned narrative?


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

EllisRedding said:


> Keep in mind as well, one of the biggest factors in the gap with occupational choice. More and more women are getting an education, but it becomes less relevant if they *choose lower earning careers.* Men occupy a higher percentage of the higher paying jobs, and vice versa for women on some of the lower paying jobs. Now, there could be a myriad of reasons for that of which have nothing to do with discrimination. Out by me, women make up a large portion of teachers and nurses.* Now granted, teachers out by me make good money (a teacher can easily earn $100k+)*, but typically these are lower paying jobs with not a lot of potential wage growth. Some of the reasons women I know went this route had to do with feeling it was a better option to balance work and a family. I believe there were a few surveys done as well and on average women placed a greater importance on work/life balance than men, and this can have an impact on career choice. The good thing about this, occupational choice is entirely in the hands of the individual, so if closing the wage gap is that important, a shift in career choices would do the trick. Whether or not this is the best for families can be debated.


I'm sorry, but what fantasy land do you live in where teachers can "easily" make over $100k a year?

I'm sure a lot of teachers would appreciate that insight.

Women do not "choose" to take lower-paying jobs. It is not that simple. I know I'm only one individual, but I have eleven years of post-high school training. I have two medical degrees and a master's degree in statistics. I work as a physician and also own my own business, typically to the tune of about 90 hours a week these last few years. I am a single mom who raised three kids without a lot of help from their dad, especially this last child... who is my everything. I started my business because my youngest daughter has a serious medical illness and I needed to be flexible career-wise to take care of her.

I worked my ass off for what I have. Money means nothing to me (because I have it, I suppose), and the only thing it's done for me is to make me a target for catfish on dating sites.

Something is causing this wage gap, but THIS particular study proves nothing. I agree with wild jade though. What it DOES say is that there is something going on, and it's not as simple as "women are choosing to take lower-paying jobs". Other countries (eg, Canada) have plans put in place to make the transition between parenting (both men and women) and working easier. Something is wrong in this country. Understatement. 

It has nothing to do with women "choosing" to take lower-paying jobs. If they do choose that option, it's because that's all that has been offered to them, and THAT is the problem. And it has nothing to do with women not putting in the effort to be "available". I have been "available" for the last 27+ years as a physician to take care of people who needed medical care on Christmas eve and day and every other holiday. While everyone else was celebrating with family. And I know many colleagues (female) who have done the same. That always gets forgotten.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> The Pay Equity study you cited claims explicitly that the gap is closing very, very slowly -- half a cent a year.
> 
> And did you notice that they also linked to this article, complete with infographics, showing how men are paid more even in women-dominated fields, and even when they have less education: You can?t mansplain away the gender pay gap | Economic Policy Institute
> 
> ...


I cherry picked nothing. Nothing in the body of work presents anything to contradict my central point that overall the gap is narroiwing (I never said it would happen overnight, or that it would close completely) and nothing contradicts my central point that MOST of the gap has nothing to do with currently occurring discrimination.

Yes, it said it is closing slowly. Thank you for acknowledging that it isn’t getting bigger, which is what you falsely claimed.

And, as you say, the Pew study indicates that PART of the gap COULD be due to discrimination. Nobody here, me included, has asserted there is no discrimination. But throwing out the whole number while ignoring that at least most of it may be accounted for by nondiscriminatory causal factors is as disingenuous and misleading as cherry picking a couple years and asserting that as the overall trend when the overall trend is actually the opposite.

And your last paragraph may well be right and true, but we’re talking strictly about workplace performance here. The employer had no place trying to compensate for decisions made in the home.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> LOL.
> 
> Nope, no bias whatsoever in the assumption that women aren't available, aren't committed to their jobs, and don't seize opportunities.
> 
> ...


Your anger has you reading a lot int things I never said.

I never said that women aren’t fully capable. I never said they “produce crap” or even implied anything even remotely like that. 

That women take more time off is well and thoroughly documented. That is not bias. EVERY study that has looked at that has said the same thing.

Now, there may well be unfair reasons women tend to take more time off, and we as a society may need to address that, but those are societal factors, not in-workplace discrimination, which is what I was addressing.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Hope Shimmers said:


> It has nothing to do with women "choosing" to take lower-paying jobs. If they do choose that option, *it's because that's all that has been offered to them*, and THAT is the problem.


Wait a minute ... no one gets "offered" anything as far as jobs and education choices. Most so-called "high paying" careers are a matter of choice (and hard work) for men and women, i.e. choose the education needed for the field you choose to pursue.

I read somewhere that there are now more women MD's than men and the US Bureau of Labor statistics support that. There has been a huge increase in women entering computer software fields in recent decades ... that's not always a "high paying" career but it will put you solidly into the middle class. Those are all *choices *made by women.

On the down side there has been no increase at all (ever) in women entering engineering fields ... they don't get the degrees and therefore don't get those careers (very high paying). That is also a *choice* made by women.

If you have the motivation, intellect and education you can *choose *to enter whatever field you like. That's the way it works in the US.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

I make 500% of my wife's salary.

We're both college educated. She chose teaching as a profession because she wanted to work with children, become a stay-at-home mom for a time, then work the same hours as those children when they got older. These choices were not forced upon her. She was and continues to be grateful for having the opportunity to shape her work-life balance exactly as she wanted. 

I chose engineering.

9 out of 10 of her fellow workers are women. About the same proportion for me are men. You do the math. Capitalism has decided that my skill set is worth more on the open market than is hers for a variety of reasons including scarcity and specialization. She could have chosen the same career I did and made similar money, but we'd both be equally unhappy with those choices. You do the math.

At any rate, I picked the Uber study for a thread because it holds the most important variable in a gender pay gap discussion constant - it removes the gender part of the compensation entirely. Now if women do not like making less than their male counterparts for the same job as an Uber driver, they can adapt. The authors even gave them the recipe in the analysis. 

But you don't get to blame the partiarchy for this study.

I would guess that most people don't choose a career that maximizes their earning potential. I wouldn't choose hedge fund manager with a gun to my head. If a college educated woman decides that the joy of being present to parent her children is worth an economic loss, especially one that can be made up for with a spouse, more power to her. But when that choice is made, it's going to show up in the data.


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

Red Sonja said:


> Wait a minute ... no one gets "offered" anything as far as jobs and education choices. Most so-called "high paying" careers are a matter of choice (and hard work) for men and women, i.e. choose the education needed for the field you choose to pursue.
> 
> I read somewhere that there are now more women MD's than men and the US Bureau of Labor statistics support that. There has been a huge increase in women entering computer software fields in recent decades ... that's not always a "high paying" career but it will put you solidly into the middle class. Those are all *choices *made by women.
> 
> ...


And that's exactly what I said in my post. I worked my ass off to become a physician and a pharmacist, and no one handed me anything.

As far as women entering engineering fields, that is changing. My daughter's ex-girlfriend (she is bisexual) just had this fight with her parents. She has four moms and no dad, by the way. She is very intelligent and she was pushed towards going to med school by her moms but instead chose to go to engineering school. The parents were (and are) appalled.

My oldest son went to MIT and University of California Berkeley for a degree in computer engineering. He is making a fortune right now working for a big-name company in San Francisco. He is only 23 years old and has already seen more money than I ever did.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Cletus said:


> It might be an interesting number, but it is still a useless number. You cannot draw any conclusions from it and you certainly can't even begin to recommend policy from it. Until you remove the effect of women actively choosing to make less, the pay gap is completely, utterly useless.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the whole point of the Uber article. There is NO GENDER DISCRIMINATION WHATSOEVER in Uber's pay system, yet women still make 7% less - all of it explainable by the choices they make. There is nothing that Uber should do to fix this non-problem.




But what about the socio-economic society and politics that conditions some women to want to make less? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Hope Shimmers said:


> *I'm sorry, but what fantasy land do you live in where teachers can "easily" make over $100k a year?*
> 
> I'm sure a lot of teachers would appreciate that insight.
> 
> ...


Lol, where i live they can based on experience, tenure, etc... I would hope you would understand it would depend on where you live, but I guess by your response this isn't so obvious. Keep in mind as well, where i live cost of living is high (amongst highest in the nation), so $100k here is nowhere near the same as $100k in Wyoming. My friend and his wife, both mid 30s, both teachers, make around $190k combined. The higher salaries at the public schools is also part of the reason why property taxes by me are actually among the highest in the nation when looking at counties. My mom was a teacher, I know many others here who are teachers, etc... So my suggestion for teachers looking for insight (as you put it) on how to make more, do your research and move to an area where teachers make more (although it doesn't mean you will have more disposable income)... Then again, I guess it must be nice living in Fantasy land, talk about a rush to judgment lol

So now when women go to college and choose what they want to major it, is is based on what is offered to them??? I'm sorry, but if you are going to a college that is choosing that, maybe you should be spending your money elsewhere...

The uber study proves exactly what it intended to prove, there are other factors beyond discrimination that account for a gap in earnings between genders. This "gap" could indeed be narrowed or done away with by choice or adjusting one's habits.

Once again, I don't see anyone here claiming that somehow men are better then women. The point of these various studies is to provide factors for why the gap that goes beyond the simplistic "it must be discrimination" idea. My sister is a lawyer and makes very good money. I am not a lawyer and make a lot more then her. Throw us both into the study and it would make the wage gap expand, yet it has zilch to do with either of our genders or what careers we were "made to choose".


----------



## Hope Shimmers (Jul 10, 2015)

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, where i live they can based on experience, tenure, etc... I would hope you would understand it would depend on where you live, but I guess by your response this isn't so obvious. Keep in mind as well, where i live cost of living is high (amongst highest in the nation), so $100k here is nowhere near the same as $100k in Wyoming. My friend and his wife, both mid 30s, both teachers, make around $190k combined. My mom was a teacher, I know many others here who are teachers, etc... So my suggestion for teachers looking for insight (as you put it) on how to make more, do your research and move to an area where teachers make more... Then again, I guess it must be nice living in Fantasy land, talk about a rush to judgment lol
> 
> So now when women go to college and choose what they want to major it, is is based on what is offered to them??? I'm sorry, but if you are going to a college that is choosing that, maybe you should be spending your money elsewhere...
> 
> ...


Then maybe you should learn how to spell "than".


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Hope Shimmers said:


> Then maybe you should learn how to spell "than".


Lol, someone got triggered by my post, typical dismissive/defensive response. However, if that post was your moment of empowerment, please don't let me ruin it for you. Trying to be a grammar nazi on an internet forum lol


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I cherry picked nothing. *Nothing in the body of work presents anything to contradict my central point that overall the gap is narroiwing *(I never said it would happen overnight, or that it would close completely) and nothing contradicts my central point that MOST of the gap has nothing to do with currently occurring discrimination.
> 
> Yes, it is said that it closing slowly. Thank you for acknowledging that it isn’t getting bigger, which is what you falsely claimed.
> 
> ...


Yes, the gap *was* closing, until the past couple of years. The stats I pulled from the World Economic Forum were from 2017. Your research ended in 2015. 

The reality is that almost everything in that pay equity site that you posted contradicts your claims

If you control for field choice, you will find that men are still paid higher. (I know it's tough to believe, but not all men are engineers and neuroscientists, some actually choose lower paying fields.)

And if you control for those fields traditionally occupied by women, you will find that men in those fields are paid more. (Yes, men actually do become teachers, nurses, social workers, community service sector, etc.)

And if you control for occupation, you will find that men in the exact same occupations are paid more. 

And if you control for education, you will find that men with less education are paid more than women with more education.

And if you do blind studies with the same resume, but change names on them, you will find that men are assessed to be more qualified, more likely to be interviewed, and more likely to be thought suitable for a promotion/management track.

And in certain industries, even those with clear anti-discrimination policies have been shown to have very massive pay gaps for equivalent jobs. When you control for productivity and absenteeism, these do not explain the gaps.

And I notice you are very carefully ignoring all of the stats from other countries that might influence an analysis of what this means. 

I'm very sorry that you are interpreting my observations of the research as anger. Let me assure you that I'm not in the slightest bit angry. I'm just pointing out that the whole narrative of women choosing to be underpaid, work in low paying sectors, unavailable, unproductive, and not committed to their careers doesn't account for the pay gap.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Your anger has you reading a lot int things I never said.
> 
> I never said that women aren’t fully capable. I never said they “produce crap” or even implied anything even remotely like that.
> 
> ...


Yes, there is definitely a "motherhood penalty". While fathers gain -- with more career and remuneration opportunities available to them than to single men, mothers almost invariably suffer in terms of pay, promotion opportunities, etc.

This is one of the main reasons why countries with childcare policies that allow for adequate maternal AND paternal leave have much narrower gaps than the US. 

Wonder if there might be something to be learned from that .....


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Cletus said:


> At any rate, I picked the Uber study for a thread because it holds the most important variable in a gender pay gap discussion constant - it removes the gender part of the compensation entirely. Now if women do not like making less than their male counterparts for the same job as an Uber driver, they can adapt. The authors even gave them the recipe in the analysis.
> 
> But you don't get to blame the partiarchy for this study.


So, coming full circle to my original thought. Let's agree that 7% of the pay gap is explained by experience, speed, and location.

What about the rest?

The numbers do show clearly that *part* of the pay gap is explained by these sorts of things in the larger world. But nowhere near what you surmise.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

To be honest I find this whole debate about paygap a little narrow minded. 
I am not sure what it is both sides are trying to prove.

Even if women do choose lower paying jobs either deliberately or due to wanting to do other things more (taking care of kids etc): somebody in the family does and SHOULD take care of kids. They are not going to grow up all by themselves (I mean they will, physically, but raising a family entails more).

Are the paygapers worried their worth is not recognised holding onto the wider gap numbers? Can one place monetary value on raising children or having other responsibilities within the family or outside the family?
The capitalist system is not perfect but so far it is the least worst system we have tried.

My wife is a teacher and it is true that teachers, nurses, firemen etc are all underpaid. I make almost hundred fold what my wife makes (her salary is currently minuscule because she is CHOOSING to work only two half days a week and the rest is taking care of our three small kids).
I would say that overall she works harder than me.

This can’t really be a sensible discussion without broadening the subject beyond this narrow ‘pay gap’ subject. 

The other side of the coin is that men are ‘expected’ to provide financially. They get pretty much shafted if they don’t fulfil this stereotype and they get criticised for being too ambitious, ending up earning more.

As things stand, I think we should stand back and look at the whole of the picture, as far as it is possible, and go beyond the raw numbers that tell us only so much. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

wild jade said:


> So, coming full circle to my original thought. Let's agree that 7% of the pay gap is explained by experience, speed, and location.
> 
> What about the rest?
> 
> The numbers do show clearly that *part* of the pay gap is explained by these sorts of things in the larger world. But nowhere near what you surmise.


I surmise nothing. I haven't discounted that there is a gender pay gap - but I have discounted the 28% number as being hopelessly naive. The only gender pay gap that I care about is the one where a woman is paid less than a man for equal skills, training, tenure, and productivity in the exact same job. I don't have any interest in a conversation about the portion of a problem that is self created. 

That career flexibility that women are reported to seek more than men has paid great benefits to my wife and my family. What was lost in compensation was made up for with having one of my children's parents home for the first 10 years of their life. 

I intentionally picked the study to discuss as an example of how the answer is rarely as simple as the purists want to make it. Closing the gender pay gap is undoubtedly a good thing, but it's just not my crusade. I promise that if I ever find myself in a position to determine anyone's salary, I will do so gender blind.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Cletus said:


> I don't have any interest in a conversation about the portion of a problem that is self created.



‘Self created’ is not quite accurate though. I actually wasn’t completely joking before when I mentioned socio-economic factors. 
Technically, yes, getting pregnant and raising kids is partially a self created reason. But humans are supposed to procreate (or so I was told). And somebody has to put in the hours afterwards. 
So there is a small paygap discrepancy which is mostly circumstantial: so what? Are we to ignore the circumstances completely and only to focus on the final numbers?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> ‘Self created’ is not quite accurate though. I actually wasn’t completely joking before when I mentioned socio-economic factors.
> Technically, yes, getting pregnant and raising kids is partially a self created reason. But humans are supposed to procreate (or so I was told). And somebody has to put in the hours afterwards.
> So there is a small paygap discrepancy which is mostly circumstantial: so what? Are we to ignore the circumstances completely and only to focus on the final numbers?


I'm not blind to the socio-economic factors. No woman should be penalized for the potential to become pregnant, but it's hard to make a case that actually leaving the workplace to raise children should have no economic consequences. 

If there's a perfect solution, I haven't heard it. If you wish to continue working after having children, then that choice should be available and it should have no repercussions. My bosses wife is a pediatrician. The only choice for them that made sense was for him to become a stay at home dad. And he has paid the price in earning potential - as he should compared to me, who has worked 30 years uninterrupted.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Cletus said:


> I'm not blind to the socio-economic factors. No woman should be penalized for the potential to become pregnant, but it's hard to make a case that actually leaving the workplace to raise children should have no economic consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a perfect solution, I haven't heard it. If you wish to continue working after having children, then that choice should be available and it should have no repercussions. My bosses wife is a pediatrician. The only choice for them that made sense was for him to become a stay at home dad. And he has paid the price in earning potential - as he should compared to me, who has worked 30 years uninterrupted.



Yes I agree. The ‘penalty’ is in some countries more than others (depending how many weeks maternity leave the work will give you).
What I meant more is that I noticed women tend to get offended in these discussions because perhaps of the way the issue is phrased or where the focus is (on pure numbers).
For example if you tell somebody who has had a major accident and is incapacitated that they are lot a productive member of society anymore: technically it will be true in some sense but you don’t really say that kind of thing for many reasons. (Because in other sense, it is not true).

I’m not comparing a pregnancy with not being ‘productive’ anymore (quite the opposite), but we can’t really also not discuss or acknowledge the other factors.

It’s the two extremes on both ends that are causing the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> Yes, the gap *was* closing, until the past couple of years. The stats I pulled from the World Economic Forum were from 2017. Your research ended in 2015.
> 
> The reality is that almost everything in that pay equity site that you posted contradicts your claims
> 
> ...


No -- only one source ended in 2015. The other continued on as far as data is available. 2016 saw yet another rise, not a fall. 

And yes, your post comes across as angry. When you falsely attribute things to me which I have not said, it is indicative of underlying emotion. When you turn to highly emotionally charged language--which I have never used, it appears emotional. 

I will grant you that there is bias. How widespread, I don't know. Clearly, the current situation still carries the residual effects of past bias. Unfortunately, that will take years to work out. But little, if anything, indicates current bias. 

Everything you've said indicates your ultimate goal is elimination of the gap -- which may or may not be just. My ultimate goal is that everyone be paid according to what they have earned, regardless of gender--which is by its very definition just. If women outperform men, they should earn more and I won't ***** if they do--I will applaud. Heck, I don't even ***** about the fact that new university entrants are slanted at around 60/40 in favor of women--even though some of that can clearly be attributed to so much being done to target and favor women. (and I know clearly of what I speak here having put three kids in college in the last 4 years, and seeing the opportunities presented to each). 

I'm not ignoring stats for other countries--I simply have little interest there. I'm curious about what is happening in the country in which I live. I also know that much of what is happening in other countries is indicative of what I speak. Forcing equality of outcome is never indicative of a move toward justice. Just as you seem to assume that a gap must imply discrimination, you assume that a narrower gap indicates greater justice. I disagree. For instance, other countries have mandated far longer periods of paid maternity leave. However, _that is unfair to everyone else, including the *women *who choose not to have babies_, or who choose to have fewer babies. When someone is getting paid not to work, everyone else is left to pick up the slack, and less money is available to pay those who are actually doing the work. And this is not a gender-based complaint. Some countries have also offered paternity leave, and I make the exact judgment for the men as the women. Some countries allow for up to a year of maternity leave, not all paid, but after which the worker must by law be reinstated to their previous position with accompanying raises and seniority. That is ridiculous. So I don't buy into the automatic assertion that a lower gap is by itself better.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> Yes, there is definitely a "motherhood penalty". While fathers gain -- with more career and remuneration opportunities available to them than to single men, mothers almost invariably suffer in terms of pay, promotion opportunities, etc.
> 
> This is one of the main reasons why countries with childcare policies that allow for adequate maternal AND paternal leave have much narrower gaps than the US.
> 
> Wonder if there might be something to be learned from that .....


And again, that is choice based. Traditionally, for couples who have decided one should raise kids, it usually ends up being the mom. But that too is changing. I meet more and more house dads all the time. I saw the trend growing particularly strong when I was in the military where frequent relocation further damages the spouses ability to have a career. The bottom line here is that any DAD who expands his role in the home is likely to suffer resulting career limitations as a mom.

I have already addressed maternal/paternal leave above. People *(either gender) *who choose not to have kids should not be forced to pay for those who _CHOOSE_ to have kids/more kids. The only thing we can learn from that is that too many people think others should pay for their choices. We should all get similar benefits--how we choose to use them is up to us, and the resultant effect is our own responsibility.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

@Rocky Mountain Yeti, friend, putting forth an argument for a POV is not a sign of anger. And no, I didn't falsely attribute anything to you. You made it quite clear that the reason you deserve your higher earnings was your choice of career, and your availability, your commitment to your job. Perhaps you didn't say this explicitly, but by implication, your POV most certainly was that women fare less well in pay because they are not as productive and not as available. 

Then you backed this up by claiming that EVERY (all caps, yours!) study shows that women are less available and productive. 

So, just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that you and @Cletus are absolutely right, that there isn't any real bias, and that the gender pay gap is entirely because women prefer low paid jobs, in low paid careers. 

Why do you think American women make these choices, when women in other parts of the world do not?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Here is an interesting, related article, focusing on STEM:



> *The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM
> A new study explores a strange paradox: In countries that empower women, they are less likely to choose math and science professions.*
> 
> Though their numbers are growing, only 27 percent of all students taking the AP Computer Science exam in the United States are female. The gender gap only grows worse from there: Just 18 percent of American computer-science college degrees go to women. This is in the United States, where many college men proudly describe themselves as “male feminists” and girls are taught they can be anything they want to be.
> ...



https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> @Rocky Mountain Yeti, friend, putting forth an argument for a POV is not a sign of anger. And no, I didn't falsely attribute anything to you. You made it quite clear that the reason you deserve your higher earnings was your choice of career, and your availability, your commitment to your job. Perhaps you didn't say this explicitly, but by implication, your POV most certainly was that women fare less well in pay because they are not as productive and not as available.
> 
> *Then you backed this up by claiming that EVERY (all caps, yours!) study shows that women are less available and productive.
> *
> ...


See... right here in the bolded is additional proof of you making false attribution. I said that every such study has shown that in the aggregate, *women take more time off*--that is not the same thing as saying they are less productive. 


And my mention of the professional success I've enjoyed was based on my performance, not my gender, which is the whole point here. I was always there when the boss needed me. And having been there in the past is how my bosses (often a woman, btw) knew they could count on me. I outperformed my male colleagues, especially those who took lots of time off--but again, the data show that, in general, women take more time off than men. 

To say that being there and not being there should be rewarded equally makes no sense. 

Now my success level hasn't been consistent, especially in the period from about 8 years ago to the current time. Because, I chose to shift my work/life balance away from work and more to life. I wanted to spend a lot more time with my family--to the point of actually turning down very lucrative promotions and relocation opportunities. And in doing so, I suffered the exact same career consequences that so many seem to complain about women supposedly being the only ones to suffer.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

@Rocky Mountain Yeti I've been paying for other people's kids my whole life. (You're welcome!) Taxes for education, covering work for absentee parents, you name it. But you know what? It's not that terrible. Better to have a world where kids are well taken care of than not, IMHO.
@inmyprime
The point of noticing the pay gap isn't to reduce it to zero, it's to acknowledge systemic biases, and consider whether we should do something about it. Why should women, for example, experience a penalty for having children when fathers experience a boon? 
@Cletus
I don't think there are any purists as you imagine them. We all know that if you're a newbie in a position, you will earn less. If you're out of the workforce for extended periods of time, your paycheck will suffer. It's just interesting, don't you think, that it's always women who are in this position -- even in women dominated fields? And that when women infiltrate these male dominated fields, paychecks go down? Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> To say that being there and not being there should be rewarded equally makes no sense.


Of course not. But here's where I'm getting confused. We're talking about a gender pay gap, and you're telling me that you were rewarded for your exemplary performance.

Isn't the implication from that women who are paid less aren't performing as well?

My only point is that when you look at the actual research, women's poor performance is not the reason for the pay gap.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> @Rocky Mountain Yeti I've been paying for other people's kids my whole life. (You're welcome!) Taxes for education, covering work for absentee parents, you name it. But you know what? It's not that terrible. Better to have a world where kids are well taken care of than not, IMHO.
> 
> Comparing education to extended maternity/paternity leave is apples/oranges. Again, we should all get the same benefits, but how we use them is up to us. If someone gets an extended maternity/paternity leave, then the person who has no kids should not be denied the same leave with which they could do something else. People become parents because they want to have kids. Most say it is the most rewarding thing they've ever done in their lives. That is reward enough. To ask for others to cover for them while they do something they find rewarding is unconscionable. You pose a false dilemma by implying kids would not be taken care of... they most definitely would, but it makes no sense that those who choose to do so should be subsidized for doing so.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> Of course not. But here's where I'm getting confused. We're talking about a gender pay gap, and you're telling me that you were rewarded for your exemplary performance.
> 
> Isn't the implication from that women who are paid less aren't performing as well?
> 
> My only point is that when you look at the actual research, women's poor performance is not the reason for the pay gap.


You're missing the link here. This is a two part premise.
1. My performance was based on my always being available; in part always being on the spot to pick up those critical short notice taskings that had to be done NOW. These sudden must dos are often high visibility tasks in which a worker can really make a name for him/herself.
2. The data indicate that women take more time off. Everything from personal time to sick time to family time. In every category, women do it more. 

So no, I make no implication whatsoever that women can't, or don't perform as well as men. The connection is that, since women aren't there as much as men, they don't have as much opportunity to prove their performance as men. Again, this is very broad aggregate stuff and there are tons of anecdotal examples to the contrary. But the trend is broad enough to account for at least part of the pay gap.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

wild jade said:


> @
> [MENTION=269370]inmyprime
> The point of noticing the pay gap isn't to reduce it to zero, it's to acknowledge systemic biases, and consider whether we should do something about it. Why should women, for example, experience a penalty for having children when fathers experience a boon?


Why not reduce it to zero though? I thought that's the whole point for people making a big thing out of it? Otherwise it looks like those people would rather complain about it than do something about it.

I think there is a 'cost' for everything. I don't think women experience a 'penalty', they just don't get the benefit of some of the opportunities that are awarded to those that prioritize work instead. I could for example turn it around and say why should men work so hard and not experience the benefit of raising a child and stay at home instead.

If SAHDs (or part time SAHDs) would get the same pay as the ones who worked 11 hour days then what's the incentive for the latter?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

wild jade said:


> @Rocky Mountain Yeti, friend, putting forth an argument for a POV is not a sign of anger. And no, I didn't falsely attribute anything to you. You made it quite clear that the reason you deserve your higher earnings was your choice of career, and your availability, your commitment to your job. Perhaps you didn't say this explicitly, but by implication, your POV most certainly was that women fare less well in pay because they are not as productive and not as available.


Isn't there 'preferential treatment' when it comes to maternity leave versus paternity leave? There was in the UK, until very recently I think. I think it would be helpful to look at family as as a whole with regards to advantages versus disadvantages otherwise people will be abusing loopholes.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

Gender gap.
Well they might as well fix the gap within genders as well at the
same time.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> And this statement begins with an assumption that it is caused by "systemic biases." For the most part, the reasons women take the hit and men get the boon is because that is the choice the couple has made-that the man focus on the career. I freely acknowledge, that in the past, that was largely because society presented greater earning potential to men than to women, so it just made economic sense that the man focus on the career. But now, even that is changing and I suspect we will reach an equilibrium very different than what it is now. But what will you do if it never gets to totally equal? Will you continue to cry "systemic bias," or acknowledge that maybe... just maybe... in the aggregate, women may tend to put greater emphasis on family than men?


For some reason, you seem to be ignoring most of what I post. Not sure why? 

But let me nutshell it for you,
(1) Your point about maternity and paternity leave is well taken. And that is why countries who have policies that properly and equitably allow for adequate maternity AND paternity leave have lower gender pay gaps. Are you opposed to such policies? 
(2) You claim that women aren't available now -- but this isn't borne out by the research. Turns out, men take time off too, and while women do take more time for child care duties, men take more time for vacation. Add it all up and absenteeism rates for women do not account for the gender pay gap. 
(3) I call it systemic bias because it is systemic. See point 1 and 2 above. Women are the main breadwinners in some 40% of families now, are on the way to being more educated on average than men, and yet the gap remains stubbornly large. And still people are saying "oh it's because they choose that lifestyle."


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Isn't there 'preferential treatment' when it comes to maternity leave versus paternity leave? There was in the UK, until very recently I think. I think it would be helpful to look at family as as a whole with regards to advantages versus disadvantages otherwise people will be abusing loopholes.


For a long time, men weren't entitled to any paternity leave at all, and even still it's way less than women. So realistically speaking, men didn't even have the option of taking on more childcare duties.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Why not reduce it to zero though? I thought that's the whole point for people making a big thing out of it? Otherwise it looks like those people would rather complain about it than do something about it.
> 
> I think there is a 'cost' for everything. I don't think women experience a 'penalty', they just don't get the benefit of some of the opportunities that are awarded to those that prioritize work instead. I could for example turn it around and say why should men work so hard and not experience the benefit of raising a child and stay at home instead.
> 
> If SAHDs (or part time SAHDs) would get the same pay as the ones who worked 11 hour days then what's the incentive for the latter?


It is well established that the opportunities for mothers go down, while the opportunities for fathers go up. Men are literally rewarded for having children, with promotions, pay raises etc. Women are penalized with fewer opportunities, lower pay, and so on. 

This picture changes, though, when both are actually responsible for childcare.

The point of analyzing pay gaps isn't necessarily to reduce them to zero. It's to highlight where there are systemic biases that can't be accounted for things like field choice, education levels, etc. There has been quite a lot of research that shows pay gaps on the order of 40% for equivalent jobs in some industries. It's numbers like these that turn a very low gap as seen in the Uber study to a 28% in the aggregate. And those latter are the real area of concern.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

wild jade said:


> @
> So, just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that you and [MENTION=38163]Cletus are absolutely right, that there isn't any real bias, and that the gender pay gap is entirely because women prefer low paid jobs, in low paid careers.



Insofar as you seem to be unable to stop putting words in my mouth that I not only did not say, but said the polar opposite, I give up. 

Here, just in case you're having trouble finding it:



cletus said:


> I surmise nothing. I haven't discounted that there is a gender pay gap - but I have discounted the 28% number as being hopelessly naive.



Come back when you've figured out how to argue with some intellectual honesty.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

This is from Prager U based on a study done by Georgetown. I think the study is several years old so the percentages may have changed.



> Georgetown University compiled a list of the five best-paying college majors, and the percentage of men or women majoring in those fields:
> 
> Number 1 best-paying major: Petroleum Engineering: 87% male
> Number 2: Pharmaceutical Sciences: 48% male
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

wild jade said:


> For some reason, you seem to be ignoring most of what I post. Not sure why?
> 
> But let me nutshell it for you,
> (1) Your point about maternity and paternity leave is well taken. And that is why countries who have policies that properly and equitably allow for adequate maternity AND paternity leave have lower gender pay gaps. Are you opposed to such policies?
> ...


I haven’t ignored anything here. All your points have been addressed. I’ll reiterate here for your benefit in hopes that, while I know you won’t agree, at least understand that each point is covered.

1. I am not opposed to policies that are equal in nature .... which is why I am opposed to exceedingly liberal maternity/paternity leave. They grant extra time off to those who have more kids at the expense of those who don’t. There is nothing equitable about that. 
2. Actually it is quote well documented. Just google do women take more time off than men and you will immediately get an unopposed barrage of studies from multiple independent sources across a number of nations and cultures. There’s absolutely no denying this.
3. But, as previously noted, the gap continues to close. You continue to refuse to acknowledge the non discriminatory causal factors. Many traditional decisions remain, even in the face of nontradional arrangements. Just because a woman may be the main breadwinner doesn’t mean she isn’t taking more time off— that hasn’t changed. And again, to what degree bias is a root cause, it can be attributed to the lingering residual effects of past systemic bias, not current bias. You have little to prove CURRENT and ongoing systemic bias is to blame for anything? Other than your assumption that it’s the only possible explanation, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

wild jade said:


> It is well established that the opportunities for mothers go down, while the opportunities for fathers go up. Men are literally rewarded for having children,


But that's where you seem to be confusing things. Men aren't rewarded for having children, they are rewarded for choosing to put all their attention onto their job.



wild jade said:


> This picture changes, though, when both are actually responsible for childcare.
> 
> The point of analyzing pay gaps isn't necessarily to reduce them to zero. It's to highlight where there are systemic biases that can't be accounted for things like field choice, education levels, etc. There has been quite a lot of research that shows pay gaps on the order of 40% for equivalent jobs in some industries. It's numbers like these that turn a very low gap as seen in the Uber study to a 28% in the aggregate. And those latter are the real area of concern.


They are only a concern because there is incomplete understanding of how that number is derived.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Cletus said:


> Insofar as you seem to be unable to stop putting words in my mouth that I not only did not say, but said the polar opposite, I give up.
> 
> Here, just in case you're having trouble finding it:
> 
> ...


LOL, This entire thread is about discounting the significance of the gender pay gap, and in it, you've called me a liar, insinuated that I was naive, and are now telling me I'm intellectually dishonest, all the while ignoring pretty much everything I've said. 

Is that your model for an intellectually honest conversation?

Now, if you just want the conversation to revolve around Uber, perhaps we can unveil its track record of discrimination against women?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/uber-travis-kalanick-scandal-pr-disaster-timeline


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> But that's where you seem to be confusing things. Men aren't rewarded for having children, they are rewarded for choosing to put all their attention onto their job.
> 
> 
> 
> They are only a concern because there is incomplete understanding of how that number is derived.


Do you think that fathers put more attention on their job than single men? 

The pay gap is an issue because the numbers show quite clearly that there is in fact systemic bias that *cannot* be explained away by anything other than bias. 

All through this thread, it has been assumed that male dominated fields are engineering, tech, etc., But agricultural worker, fork lift operator, taxi cab driver are also male dominated, and among the lowest paying jobs out there. 

All through this thread, it has been assumed that men are more educated, more available, more committed to their jobs than women are. 

Interestingly, these are the exact same assumptions underlying the peer review studies that conclusively show that even when the resumes are equal, men are more likely to be interviewed, thought qualified, put on the promotion track, and so on.

Just coincidence, I'm sure. :wink:


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

wild jade said:


> Do you think that fathers put more attention on their job than single men?


Of course not  Working hard has nothing to do with being a 'father'*. Nor does it imply that mothers cannot work hard. You tend to do quite a bit of extrapolation and it makes it harder to discuss those things (if you don't mind me saying). I can see why it's easy to extrapolate, given the complex nature of the subject, but I think it aggravates some people. Just as the 'raw numbers' without proper context probably aggravate the other side.

*Although a father under pressure of having to support the family financially may or may not work harder than someone single who doesn't really have other lives dependent on him. It's certainly plausible and common that the more pressure one is put under, the harder people tend to work. Just look at the pyramids  The latter is not really what I am discussing. There are all kinds of indirect consequences unrelated or barely related to the root cause.

I don't know of a useful analogy...But it's basically the same mechanism how people come up with conspiracy theories. They confuse things...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

wild jade said:


> Do you think that fathers put more attention on their job than single men?
> 
> The pay gap is an issue because the numbers show quite clearly that there is in fact systemic bias that *cannot* be explained away by anything other than bias.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's 'assumed'. I thought everyone acknowledges that there is some bias (there always is, it doesn't have to be gender-based but sometimes it is). Just that the bias is much MUCH smaller than the raw numbers imply and that some feminists keep holding onto (not you).
And some seem even afraid to look under the hood, in case there is an actual explanation because it will take away a reason to complain about stuff! (happens on both sides of the genders, just about different subjects :wink2:


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> *Of course not  Working hard has nothing to do with being a 'father'*.* Nor does it imply that mothers cannot work hard. You tend to do quite a bit of extrapolation and it makes it harder to discuss those things (if you don't mind me saying). I can see why it's easy to extrapolate, given the complex nature of the subject, but I think it aggravates some people. Just as the 'raw numbers' without proper context probably aggravate the other side.
> 
> **Although a father under pressure of having to support the family financially may or may not work harder than someone single who doesn't really have other lives dependent on him. *It's certainly plausible and common that the more pressure one is put under, the harder people tend to work. Just look at the pyramids  The latter is not really what I am discussing. There are all kinds of indirect consequences unrelated or barely related to the root cause.
> 
> I don't know of a useful analogy...But it's basically the same mechanism how people come up with conspiracy theories. They confuse things...


I asked the question because, as I posted earlier, men who are fathers are given more opportunities, promotions and higher paychecks than single men. 

This is well established.

*If fathers are under more pressure to work harder than single men, why can't the same be said of women?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> I don't think it's 'assumed'. I thought everyone acknowledges that there is some bias (there always is, it doesn't have to be gender-based but sometimes it is). Just that the bias is much MUCH smaller than the raw numbers imply and that some feminists keep holding onto (not you).
> And some seem even afraid to look under the hood, in case there is an actual explanation because it will take away a reason to complain about stuff! (happens on both sides of the genders, just about different subjects :wink2:


The bias is both smaller ....and bigger ....than the raw numbers apply. A lot depends on what industry you're looking at, which organization, and so on.
@Cletus picked an industry that had a very low gap that was accounted for by other factors. One that is also a gig economy, and so no one gets any benefits at all either way. 

And if we wanted to nit-pick further, we could point out that only 30% of the sample were actually women, that taxi cab driving is a male dominated industry for a reason (more than one!), and when you think through all of that the Uber pay gap is about as close to zero as is possible.

But something out there is driving the numbers up -- and it really isn't because men are more educated, experienced, committed, harder working, and only employed in lucrative industries. 

Especially those industries where the pay gap is 40% for equivalent positions.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

wild jade said:


> The bias is both smaller ....and bigger ....than the raw numbers apply. A lot depends on what industry you're looking at, which organization, and so on.
> 
> 
> *Especially those industries where the pay gap is 40% for equivalent positions.*


So sue, discrimination based on sex is illegal. 

Google is in quite a bit of hot water at the moment from ALL sides <g>. 

If you work at a place where you have a job and a guy has the same job, works the same hours and you are paid 40% less get a lawyer or file a complaint with the government.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

I do wonder, let's say 2 people work in the same position and have equivalent experience (male and female). One makes 20% more than the other, and the reason for that is that person pushed for a raise whereas the other person did not. So by this very basis, there is a wage gap of two people doing the same job. It seems like the two logical solutions (given you want to eliminate a gap) would be either give the other person the same raise (why should the other person benefit?) as well or you don't give a raise to either, all in the name of equality. Clearly the latter option would be the most attractive to an employer. 

I am not saying this is always the case by any means, but people doing the same job and same/similar experience does not automatically imply some sort of discrimination or unfair play if there is a pay gap.

I would be more than happy to bring my group all down to one flat salary so there is no debate over pay. Even better, I guess I could just replace all the males with females since apparently it would save me money only having to pay 77 cents on the dollar ...

A quick note, i wrote this post quickly while trying to play with my daughter and get dinner done. As such, I have not had an opportunity to do a thorough grammar and spell check. I can see that i didn't capitalize the letter "i", so please be gentle


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

EllisRedding said:


> I do wonder, let's say 2 people work in the same position and have equivalent experience (male and female). One makes 20% more than the other, and the reason for that is that person pushed for a raise whereas the other person did not. So by this very basis, there is a wage gap of two people doing the same job. It seems like the two logical solutions (given you want to eliminate a gap) would be either give the other person the same raise (why should the other person benefit?) as well or you don't give a raise to either, all in the name of equality. Clearly the latter option would be the most attractive to an employer.
> 
> I am not saying this is always the case by any means, but people doing the same job and same/similar experience does not automatically imply some sort of discrimination or unfair play if there is a pay gap.
> 
> ...


Actually, this phenomenon is prevalent and acknowledged. 

Research indicates women are not as aggressive in salary negotiations, either initially or for subsequent raises. 

So there most definitely is discrimination here. Discrimination specifically in favor of the more aggressive negotiators/against the less aggressive negotiators. And that is the basis of the discrimination, not gender. That there is a correlation between gender and aggressive negotiation is not the emplors fault or responsibility. The employer is controlling expenses and is doing so in part by finding cost effective labor, whoever may provide it. That more women seem willing to do so is no evidence of gender bias on the part of the employer.

A quick note: I don’t believe you are playing with your daughter and preparing dinner. You are a man and men leave all the child nurturing and meal preparation to women, so that they can’t focus on careers and thus perpetuate the pay gap.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Actually, this phenomenon is prevalent and acknowledged.
> 
> Research indicates women are not as aggressive in salary negotiations, either initially or for subsequent raises.
> 
> ...


I believe that was part of what Jordan Peterson was saying, that in a general sense women were more accepting. To add, this was his observation based on his own research and experience as a clinical psychologist. I only point this out so my post doesn't get spun around as if I am saying something that I am not.

At my first job, the firm brought everyone in at the same salary. After the first year, your salary got bumped up to 1 of 2 levels based on performance. The next year, the same thing. This made it easy for the firm to manage salaries. This as well helps to mitigate any sort of gap. As an employee I found this rather discouraging. IDK though, if you are running a large company now, it seems like this is probably the safest bet, although you will have a hard time retaining the best talent.

I will say, I deal with a lot of clients in large institutions and it is fairly equal in terms of the male/female ratio that I deal with, and these are people who are in higher positions. Granted, it is not like they list their salaries in the email signature so I can't say what their comp is, only that there is good representation by both genders. 

As far as dinner, well, my W did actually prepare and put in the oven, I just happened to take it out when the timer went off and served myself since she isn't home right now lol. I am playing a mean game of Super Mario Bros with my daughter  I am also blowing her mind solving a rubix cube (Ummm...using an online Rubik's Cube Solver lol)


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

wild jade said:


> Especially those industries where the pay gap is 40% for equivalent positions.


The obvious answer is no such industry exists. When you factor out type of job, it cuts the supposed pay gap by more than 1/2. Just that factor alone (compare teachers to teachers, engineers to engineers, doctors to doctors, and so on).


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

wild jade said:


> But something out there is driving the numbers up -- and it really isn't because men are more educated, experienced, committed, harder working, and only employed in lucrative industries.



What do you think it is?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

wild jade said:


> I asked the question because, as I posted earlier, men who are fathers are given more opportunities, promotions and higher paychecks than single men.
> 
> This is well established.
> 
> *If fathers are under more pressure to work harder than single men, why can't the same be said of women?


Fathers are *given* more opportunities, promotions and higher paychecks than single men?

Okay guys, how let's share stories about how great it was to get all this stuff when we became fathers.

I'll go first......

OK, that didn't happen to me or anyone I know.

When men become fathers, they feel more responsibility (and their wives often feel that they have more responsibility) to make money and support the kids. So, they take full advantage of new opportunities, seek promotions and work more hours.

When women become mothers, they tend to feel more responsibility towards their children. They tend to work less hours and pass on opportunities that require too much commitment to work.

Any men or women who are unhappy with this are free to flip it around, both pursue careers (and hire a nanny) or both work less to focus on the family.

But, before requiring all women to focus more on their career (substitute "job" if talking about the hoi polloi) and evenly split the child care with their husbands, are we going to ask if it's okay with them? Or do we just force them to do the "right" thing?


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

naiveonedave said:


> The obvious answer is no such industry exists. When you factor out type of job, it cuts the supposed pay gap by more than 1/2. Just that factor alone (compare teachers to teachers, engineers to engineers, doctors to doctors, and so on).


Ya, sorry, maybe I should've said 30%.

Where doctors' pay is the highest and the lowest - Jan. 27, 2016


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Buddy400 said:


> But, before requiring all women to focus more on their career (substitute "job" if talking about the hoi polloi) and evenly split the child care with their husbands, are we going to ask if it's okay with them? Or do we just force them to do the "right" thing?


I recall the uproar when the female CEO of Pepsi chose to resign her position to spend more time with her family. The extreme feminists lambasted her for betraying the sisterhood and setting back the cause.

The hypocrisy of course was that a group who claimed to stand for creating a bias free world in which a woman could do anything she wanted to do, then slammed a woman for doing exactly what she wanted to do.


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

anonmd said:


> So sue, discrimination based on sex is illegal.
> 
> Google is in quite a bit of hot water at the moment from ALL sides <g>.
> 
> If you work at a place where you have a job and a guy has the same job, works the same hours and you are paid 40% less get a lawyer or file a complaint with the government.


Yep, agreed! That's why it's important to talk about these things. Knowledge is power.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

There can be cases where women behave differently in a way that reduces their pay relative to men, but where that behavior doesn't actually change their job performance, so they wind up under-payed relative to their productivity. 

In my group I've noticed that women tend to be quieter and seem less self-assured. This meant that some have come in with substantially lower pay than men despite having the same productivity. I've been fixing that - both out of fairness, and because they are less likely to leave if they are paid better.

Its a tricky problem though to figure out how to correctly compensate for differences in behavior.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

There's a million reasons why one person would get pay 40% less than someone else.
To say it's just solely gender, at anytime, itself is extremely uninformed.


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> There can be cases where women behave differently in a way that reduces their pay relative to men, but where that behavior doesn't actually change their job performance, so they wind up under-payed relative to their productivity.
> 
> In my group I've noticed that women tend to be quieter and seem less self-assured. This meant that some have come in with substantially lower pay than men despite having the same productivity. I've been fixing that - both out of fairness, and because they are less likely to leave if they are paid better.
> 
> Its a tricky problem though to figure out how to correctly compensate for differences in behavior.


As a business owner myself, I'd caution you to stay away from fairness as that's an impossible hill to climb.
I'd say tread them as individuals, all of them, pay them by merit and production.

Oh yea...then there's the thing no one or living thing can avoid. The Parito's Principle.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Just to throw some randomness into the mix: tall people earn more money than short people do: Why tall people make more money - CNN.com as an example. Its on the order of $1000/year per inch. 

US men are on average 5" taller than US women. That would suggest that $5000 of the pay gap could be explained by human's irrational (monkey brain) willingness to pay tall people more.


----------

