I really hate to agree with BR, but, alas I must. Speaking as a woman, I have never experienced a wage gap based on my gender.
Another little tidbit to keep in mind when considering the statistics: a woman with a college degree makes 90% (yes, you read that right) more than a woman without a college degree. And men and women with college degress are neck and neck (sorry, didn't memorize that particular number). So you start throwing women of different educational background together and start comparing them to men, well you are going to have some skewed numbers.
And yeah, I am NOT a feminist
Do you have a college degree? If so, that might be why you've never had a problem. Look at what you've written.
Men & women with degrees are neck and neck. Fine.
Women without a degree are 90% less well off. Fine.
Men without a degree are what?
If that number is less than 90% then we have a problem.
Do you have a college degree? If so, that might be why you've never had a problem. Look at what you've written.
Men & women with degrees are neck and neck. Fine.
Women without a degree are 90% less well off. Fine.
Men without a degree are what?
If that number is less than 90% then we have a problem.
Why would you assume that? To get paid well when you aren't using a degree, you typically have to ante up something else. It could be physical work, work in an uncomfortable climate, time intensive, odd hours, dangerous, etc. If you don't ante up and get paid less, that isn't discrimination it is a personal choice.
That is why most people get upset at feminists who want to legislate comparability for jobs. Someone working as a receptionist in an air conditioned office building might have a comparable worth to the person up on the roof repairing the air conditioning, according to the advocacy group, but that doesn't seem to be true according to the marketplace.
I've seen plenty of women willing to do what it takes to get paid well. They might turn a wrench, they might work in high heat, they might be on call all the time.
Likewise I've seen plenty of women, and men too who have no desire to improve their skills and no desire to trade anything for higher pay. I'm sure if you checked the men and women stocking the shelves at Target, their wages per hour are comparable.
I'll tell you what bunge and Shawn. Why don't you anecdotally apply this in the area you know best, yourselves. Do either of you believe you are some how being paid more per hour/unit of work than your female contemporaries?
With regard to myself, I know exactly what I make as a teacher and so does everyone else since it is a contracted amount based off of years of experience and units of college. Likewise when I was working all the jobs up until this point, I know there wasn't a single woman I was making more than per hour at a comparable job title.
Can you even think of an instance where you or someone you knew made more just because they were a man?
Can you even think of an instance where you or someone you knew made more just because they were a man?
Unfortunately yes. The last place I worked was dead set on the 'old boys network' mentality. People of equivalent schooling and experience were paid more if they were men.
Yes, I could just make that up for the sake of the argument, but it's true.
Likewise, there are plenty of jobs like yours and at WalMart that are gender agnostic. That's true and I won't deny it. Unfortunately those are offset by other jobs.
Where I am now, I'd guess things are equal, but that's because I'm in an industry dominated by females. But that's telling in and of itself. When an industry is dominated by females and things are equal, but when an industry is dominated by males the men get more.
I agree that choice, society and circumstance are going to play a part. I don't expect the numbers to be exactly 100% equal. But if they're drastically different (10%?) I think there's a problem.
So Fangorn's example led me to ask a question. What are the numbers for men without degrees? If they're only 50% less well off then I think we have a problem.
You can chalk it up to 'the market', but realistically the women pushing papers for your HMO are more important than the illegal alien roofing your home. So why the disparity? Why are the jobs than men do compensated more than the jobs that women do? Gender bias definitely plays a role.
Unfortunately yes. The last place I worked was dead set on the 'old boys network' mentality. People of equivalent schooling and experience were paid more if they were men.
Yes, I could just make that up for the sake of the argument, but it's true.
Likewise, there are plenty of jobs like yours and at WalMart that are gender agnostic. That's true and I won't deny it. Unfortunately those are offset by other jobs.
Where I am now, I'd guess things are equal, but that's because I'm in an industry dominated by females. But that's telling in and of itself. When an industry is dominated by females and things are equal, but when an industry is dominated by males the men get more.
I agree that choice, society and circumstance are going to play a part. I don't expect the numbers to be exactly 100% equal. But if they're drastically different (10%?) I think there's a problem.
So Fangorn's example led me to ask a question. What are the numbers for men without degrees? If they're only 50% less well off then I think we have a problem.
You can chalk it up to 'the market', but realistically the women pushing papers for your HMO are more important than the illegal alien roofing your home. So why the disparity? Why are the jobs than men do compensated more than the jobs that women do? Gender bias definitely plays a role.
Well first I'm amazed that the last place you worked hasn't been sued out of existance.
As for the women pushing papers being more important than the man roofing my home. You have to consider the danger as well. My father's business is in a dangerous field. (trucking) He is always going on about workers compensation costs. Likewise my quite a few of my renters work for an electrical company. They have a pot of money that grows each day there isn't a mishap that causes an injury on the job site. My dad was showing me how to pay a roofer a hundred dollars, you have to contribute $42 to workmen's comp because the incidence of injury is so high.
I don't think that is quite the case with the paper pushers at the HMO, be they men or women.
Likewise if they make more, why don't more women just go, for example, into roofing? Probably because they don't want to get hurt and would rather make less than risk their body. You know I've read on this because I posted about the glass cellar for men vs. the glass ceiling for women. If a job trades danger for pay, women avoid it like the plague. That should figure into the comparability as well, don't you think?
Well first I'm amazed that the last place you worked hasn't been sued out of existance.
Do you realize how hard it is to prove a case like this?
As for danger, I understand that. There are dangers in roofing I know. It was a weak example, but I think valid none the less. WIthout the paper pusher YOU might die. With a leaky roof you might get sick. They're valued differently but not necessarily accurately.
Do you realize how hard it is to prove a case like this?
As for danger, I understand that. There are dangers in roofing I know. It was a weak example, but I think valid none the less. WIthout the paper pusher YOU might die. With a leaky roof you might get sick. They're valued differently but not necessarily accurately.
Actually you show exactly why they are valued accurately, and at the same time show that you misunderstand how the value for the work is determined.
I know that may sound a little mean but it isn't meant to be.
There are two halves to the value equation. One is what do you have to pay to get someone to do the job, but there is a flip side to that and that is, what do I have to pay so I don't have to do the job.
Now to put it correctly of course, the paper pusher doesn't save my life. They just handle the paperwork associated with the doctor who does. The doctor pays the paper pusher because his or her time is worth far to much to deal with insurance claims, record keeping, setting appointments, etc. It is trading of value. The doctors time might be worth $200 an hour and paying someone $20 to push that paper saves money.
Now the flip side of this is of course the value of our own time. We could do the work of the paper pusher, but for pretty close to a nominal fee, we don't have to deal with any of it. If the fee associated with the paper pusher became too expensive, people would likely start offering to trade some of their own time/work to compensate for the cost of the paper pusher. (You don't have to stock the meds here, just give me a prescription and I will go get it for example)
Now with the roofer we have the same two factors, how much do you have to pay him or her to do it and likewise how much am I willing to pay so I don't have to do it. The same variables apply. However when people don't offer up enough for the roofer to do the job, people aren' confronted with the fact that they have to push some paper, they are confronted with the fact that they are going to have to strip, tar, paper and shingle a roof at time, expense and of course danger to themselves.
Again the second half of that variable is very important in pricing. It is why I see people paying what I consider ridiculous amounts of money to have someone mow their lawn. Well if the lawn takes 4 hours of their time a month, and their time is worth $50 an hour, then anything less than $200 is saving them money and time. So when they spend $100 a month on a lawn service, it is a savings to them.
I keep wanting to wander on with more examples, but the point is that salaries are determined by two variables, not just one.
We could provide anecdotes, but, with all due respect, they would be meaningless. Stories of job discrimination or the lack of don't prove anything because we're talking about averages. Although it may sound platitudinous, your success story and those of others are great to hear. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heidi Hartmann, the people who wrote the GAO report, and President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors would all agree that the gender wage gap is narrowing or has narrowed from 100 years ago to the point where success stories like yours are regularly told.
However, no one should claim that discrimination doesn't exist because of those wonderful stories. I hope no one has. In fact, the average full-time wage gap remains at 26%, while the average full time and part time wage gap remains at 38%. Of the 26%, one half to three-quarters of it can be accounted for by legitimate factors important for productivity such as education, hours worked, age, etc. 9-13 percentage points, which represent about one-quarter to one-half of the wage gap, cannot be explained by any legitimate factors at all.
BRussell pointed out that we shouldn't assume the unexplained portion automatically means discrimination. After some further reading, I think he's right. According to Explaining Trends in the Gender Gap, the 1998 report prepared by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, a variety of interpretations for the remaining unexplained portion exist. The report offers two plausible explanations: gender discrimination and the possibility of "significant unmeasured labor market skills that differ between men and women."
On further explaining the second possibility, which I believe Splinemodel and a few others might have similarly argued, the report notes "...if women?s labor market experience is less likely to be continuous (for example, due to childbearing), then just controlling for years of work may not fully control for the differential effects of experience on male and female wages. In this case, the "unexplained" differential will overstate the true effect of discrimination, because it includes the effect of relevant unmeasured factors that influence the relative productivity of male and female employees."
On further explaining discrimination, the report explains "...once differences between men and women in the relevant determinants of wages are taken into account, any remaining difference in pay must be due to discrimination. But this explanation may be too simplistic. To the extent that discrimination affects women?s educational, job, and family choices, the "unexplained" differential will understate the true effect of discrimination."
The report concludes that "while there are a variety of interpretations of this remaining "unexplained" differential, one plausible interpretation is that gender wage discrimination continues to be present in the labor market. This interpretation is buttressed by other more direct studies of pay discrimination, which also show continuing gender differences in pay that are not explained by productivity or job differences. By no means is the debate settled. While the Council of Economic Advisors acknowledges other interpretations and doesn't unequivocally accept any one factor, it seems that discrimination remains a very plausible one in the end.
Like the Council reported, if discrimination is a factor, it is more widespread than what cannot be accounted for in the unexplained portion of the gender wage gap. That explanation more or less corroborates a part of the GAO Report (PDF) I linked to before. I quoted the section on discrimination in a previous post, which raised the question of "whether decisions that women make to manage work and family responsibilities are freely made or influenced by underlying discrimination." Diana Furchtgott-Roth, supply-side economist at the conservative, pro-business American Enterprise Institute, claims that women do freely make choices.
But then again, that's more of a hallucination to think that we are free to act without society influencing both women and men. The GAO report identifies "societal norms about gender roles" as "societal discrimination" -the fact that women and men tend to cluster around certain jobs, and the fact that women and men tend to major in certain fields during college. It goes on in other areas that I won't rehash here.
To summarize, I just want to prove 1) that the average full time wage gap is 26% and 2) that widespread discrimination can be a plausible explanation for it. I hope this was a conciliatory and fair-minded post. I spent some time on it.
In fact, the average full-time wage gap remains at 26%
that may be true, but they key is that this number is not related to gender. of that 26%, over half is actually related directy to education and time worked at a job. those two variables alone account for almost 60% of the gap their talking about.
it's annoying to have them refer to a 26% gender gap when their own studies show that two simple variable knock out half of the supposed gender biased gap, when those two variable have nothing to do with gender.
from what i read, of the approx. 11% gap left, hours worked were not taken into account. that 11% gap still considers 35 hours to be the same as 60 hours. until they account for that massive variable, i'm not going to buy into even an 11% gap.
then to top it off, all of these comparisons were done by straight up:
education
years worked
hours worked (35+, yes or no)
i want to see in that calculation pay/total hours worked (not a yes or no to full time)
also, a per job break down. i don't want a cashier with a highschool degree to be compared to a brick layer with a highchool degree. even if both match up perfectly on every single variable, i expect to see a large difference in pay betweeen the cashier and bricklayer, with a bricklayer making more.
if you can find a study that includes both per job break down, along with actual hours worked, then i'll be ready to talk turkey.
if a good study included those variables and there was still a significant gender gap, then i'd be the first in line to say there's a problem.
Amen Alcimedes. Unless shawn wants to be totally dishonest, I don't see how he can disagree with what you have said. How can you disagree with the premise that one must compare salaries for each specific job with the same exact education, hours worked, et cetera?
that may be true, but they key is that this number is not related to gender. of that 26%, over half is actually related directy to education and time worked at a job. those two variables alone account for almost 60% of the gap their talking about.
it's annoying to have them refer to a 26% gender gap when their own studies show that two simple variable knock out half of the supposed gender biased gap, when those two variable have nothing to do with gender.
from what i read, of the approx. 11% gap left, hours worked were not taken into account. that 11% gap still considers 35 hours to be the same as 60 hours. until they account for that massive variable, i'm not going to buy into even an 11% gap.
then to top it off, all of these comparisons were done by straight up:
education
years worked
hours worked (35+, yes or no)
i want to see in that calculation pay/total hours worked (not a yes or no to full time)
also, a per job break down. i don't want a cashier with a highschool degree to be compared to a brick layer with a highchool degree. even if both match up perfectly on every single variable, i expect to see a large difference in pay betweeen the cashier and bricklayer, with a bricklayer making more.
if you can find a study that includes both per job break down, along with actual hours worked, then i'll be ready to talk turkey.
if a good study included those variables and there was still a significant gender gap, then i'd be the first in line to say there's a problem.
Be prepared to say there is a problem.
With all due respect, you're absolutely wrong about those two important facts. According to the Hartmann article I first posted, "the figures from IWPR's report Equal Pay for Working Families given at the outset take into account differences in years of education, age, and hours worked between women and men and thus control for some of the productivity-related differences between women and men in the labor market" So differences in hours worked and other factors you mention were taken into account. Also, occupation and industry were taken in account. Respectfully, read The Pay Gap by Occupation ( U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2002,"_September 2003. Report 972.) and weep.
That led to the smaller figure of 9-13 percentage points remaining, of course. All of this given. The two government reports (GAO and COEA) corroborate my numbers, as do probably most economists, sociologists, etc.
The figures from IWPR's report Equal Pay for Working Families given at the outset take into account differences in years of education, age, and hours worked between women and men and thus control for some of the productivity-related differences between women and men in the labor market.
do you have a link to that report? if not i can probably dig it up, but i'm heading out for lunch.
second, does that report compare from job to job?
(as in pay based on the same job, not just age, educations etc.)
part of what bothers me with that report is that their own numbers are all over the place. when they refer to wage gap, are they referring to their 26% claim, their 6.5% claim, their 13% claim?
you can never tell.
in that one article alone they say the wage gap is anywhere from 6.5% to 26%.
do you have a link to that report? if not i can probably dig it up, but i'm heading out for lunch.
second, does that report compare from job to job?
(as in pay based on the same job, not just age, educations etc.)
part of what bothers me with that report is that their own numbers are all over the place. when they refer to wage gap, are they referring to their 26% claim, their 6.5% claim, their 13% claim?
you can never tell.
in that one article alone they say the wage gap is anywhere from 6.5% to 26%.
that's a HUGE variance.
No, unfortunately. You have to pay $12 for the report on their site. (Which is useless- the information should be made freely available). And, yes, I believe the report accounts for differences in occupation and industry as one of the legitimate known factors.
As far as the numbers go, I don't think there is any confusion. The average full-time wage gap is 26%. The average full time and part time wage gap is 38%. The average unexplained portion of the average full time wage gap is 9-13 percentage points (or about 1/4 to 1/2 of the average full time wage gap). I mean I think it's clear that the numbers are correct. The debate is really about what those numbers mean...and that's certainly something to debate.
do you have a link to that report? if not i can probably dig it up, but i'm heading out for lunch.
second, does that report compare from job to job?
(as in pay based on the same job, not just age, educations etc.)
part of what bothers me with that report is that their own numbers are all over the place. when they refer to wage gap, are they referring to their 26% claim, their 6.5% claim, their 13% claim?
you can never tell.
in that one article alone they say the wage gap is anywhere from 6.5% to 26%.
that's a HUGE variance.
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No, unfortunately. You have to pay $12 for the report on their site. (Which is useless- the information should be made freely available). And, yes, I believe the report accounts for differences in occupation and industry as one of the legitimate known factors.
As far as the numbers go, I don't think there is any confusion. The average full-time wage gap is 26%. The average full time and part time wage gap is 38%. The average unexplained portion of the average full time wage gap is 9-13 percentage points (or about 1/4 to 1/2 of the average full time wage gap). I mean I think it's clear that the numbers are correct. The debate is really about what those numbers mean...and that's certainly something to debate.
Shawn, you have the unique ability to dismiss anything you don't agree with, and repeat yourself ad-infinitum.
BR's report mentions that with all variables equal the wage gap is very small.
Quote:
The wage gap shrinks dramatically when multiple factors are considered. Women with similar levels of education and experience earn as much as their male counterparts. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, economics professor June O'Neill found that, among people ages twenty-seven to thirty-three who have never had a child, women's earnings are close to 98 percent of men's. Professor O'Neill notes that "when earnings comparisons are restricted to men and women more similar in their experience and life situations, the measured earnings differentials are typically quite small."
Then this...
Quote:
Many studies link increased numbers of children with decreased earnings. Professor Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University compared the gap in wages between men and women with the same education for two groups, mothers and women without children. She found that in 1991, women without children made 95 percent of men's wages, but mothers made 75 percent of men's wages. The difference can be explained by choices of occupations and hours worked, two variables which were not included in her study.
You dismiss both of these, not because their numbers are wrong, because they are being comparitive instead of equal, etc. You dismiss them because of where the author works.
Quote:
* The author, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, is a supply-side economist who works at the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.
* Civil Rights Journal is reputable- that's given. However, a rebuttal piece by feminist economist Heidi Hartmann exists IN THE SAME ISSUE. (I believe it is also in the viewpoint section)
I mean how credible do you expect to be when your argument boils down to, "But I don't like your author."
Now your author justifies a larger number and is even nice enough to say why.
Quote:
The common use of the wage gap as a measure of inequality reflects an understanding that, in a perfect world, where all children could get as much education as they wanted in an environment free from stereotyping and where women had as much freedom as men to choose occupations regardless of family responsibilities (because men did an equal share of child care and because subsidized high-quality child care and paid family leave were available to all), women and men would pursue more similar educational tracks and make more similar choices about how much time to spend in and out of the labor market. In other words in a more perfect world, men's and women's choices and opportunities would be more equal and their wages would also be more equal. In fact, a 100 percent wage ratio between women and men is a reasonable goal to work toward. As a society, beginning with a wage ratio of 57 percent in 1959, we are nearly two-fifths of the way toward achieving this goal (since the wage ratio now stands at 74 percent, and 74 percent is about two-fifths of the way from 57 percent to 100 percent).
Now do we see the assumptions here? This is why I claimed the questions being asked were loaded. In this assumption we see that women want to earn more, want men to work less and assume more of the domestic roles.
Yet only your author would take women from three choices, work full time, part time or not at all, to one choice, work full time with an equal earning and nurturing partner, and consider that empowering. Fewer choices = more power? Likewise it assumes all women want this choice and all consider it their definition of success.
The one choice is again, the only definition of success. All other definitions are discrimination, less than perfect worlds, etc. Anyone women who don't choose that definition contributes to the wage gap.
Now your author does attempt to address the 98% figure, and in the meantime, shows how women put expectations on men to work full time, earn more money and basically empower women or do without love.
Quote:
And what of Women's Figures' 98 percent figure -- the much ballyhooed claim that young women earn only 2 percent less than young men? This figure is misleading at best. It is based on a comparison of women and men age 27-33 who have never had a child, from unpublished research by economist June O'Neill--a summary of which appeared in an opinion piece she wrote for the Wall Street Journal five years ago. In her unpublished paper, O'Neill claims that these groups of young men and women who never had a child are similar in unmeasurable qualities related to their productivity, such as commitment to their job and work intensity. But are they? Women who have never had a child by that age are likely to be especially committed to work and career since the median age for a first childbirth is 23.9 years in the United States. Men without children by that age may be more likely than the women to be drop-outs, low rather than high achieving males, since for men, having a family and children is a mark of their economic success. So this figure probably does not compare equals at all, but rather highly committed and work-oriented women to much less committed men. Perhaps, in the absence of discrimination these women should be earning more than the men to which they are inappropriately compared!
Now take a look at the widely accepted double standard here. Women who are 23.9 years old are career oriented when they choose to have or not have a child. Men however are low achieving. We have no proof they are low achieving, she uses the word "may". Better yet she reaffirms what I have repeatedly said. If a man does not earn, he is not worthy of love. This is evidence of the fact, as your author mentioned, that a wife and children are A MARK OF ECONOMIC SUCCESS. No economic success no wife, no children, and most of all, no love.
The withholding of love is a powerful incentive for men to take more dangerous jobs, work as hard as they can to earn as much as they can and literally work themselves to death or die trying.
Why would I say that? Because of life expectancy. The life expectancy of men and women was roughly equal in 1920. (An important year since women gained sufferage that year.) It now stands at a full 7 year gap of women outliving men. Men are 93% of all work place deaths. They are, at a minimum, 85% of the workers in those jobs. What happens if a man is not able to earn enough. Simple, he gets no love. He is a deadbeat father, his wife (if he had one in the first place) is justified in leaving him. Likewise he just kills himself as men commit suicide 300-500% more than women depending upon who's numbers you use.
Work yourself to death, have someone else spend it, and die sooner as a result. This is called "empowered." Women exercising three choices regarding jobs is societal discrimination. Men exercising one choice is empowered.
Claim: When looking at hourly earnings, women make 83% of men's earnings, even before accounting for differences in education, experience, and occupation.
Response: It is important to keep in mind that hourly earnings are also subject to critique. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports hourly earnings for those occupations in which people earn an hourly wage (only about 72 million workers, or roughly half of the labor force). Thus, the figure is not representative of all workers.
so for half the workforce, the "wage gap" is 17%, not 24%, and that doesn't take anything else into account. i swear these people are high on crack. basically when they actually count the hours, the "wage gap" is pummeled.
Quote:
In Los Angeles, for example, social workers were found to be comparable to probation officers in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. Even so, social workers were paid less.
this actually serves as a perfect example. they consider social worker and probation officer to be equal jobs. i'm sorry but that's not the case at all. i'd put any dollar amoutn down that if faced with a choice of doing social work or dealing with released prisoners all day, most women would go with social work.
social work ≠ probation officer.
you have to wonder at the agenda behind people who really think that those two jobs are equal, or what criteria they use to judge equality.
edit: actually, if you look back where they say that accounting for education and years in the work force drops the wage gap to 11%, then add in that taking actual hours worked into account is another 7% for half the population (3.5%) overall.
now that leaves you with 7.5% unaccounted for.
then take into account that these studies consider non equivelent jobs as equal, and there's the rest of your pay gap. (or at least hte majority, IMO)
i'd put any dollar amoutn down that if faced with a choice of doing social work or dealing with released prisoners all day, most women would go with social work.
Just a quick anecdote: my female cousin was a social worker and became a parole officer. Her husband is still a social worker.
Not that I even really understand what a social worker actually does all day.
so for half the workforce, the "wage gap" is 17%, not 24%, and that doesn't take anything else into account. i swear these people are high on crack. basically when they actually count the hours, the "wage gap" is pummeled.
I'm not following your argument. If roughly half the workforce has an average wage gap of 17%, then the other half should have an average wage gap of more than 24%. Maybe around 31%. \ With all due respect, I mean, what were you trying to say there?
edit: actually, if you look back where they say that accounting for education and years in the work force drops the wage gap to 11%, then add in that taking actual hours worked into account is another 7% for half the population (3.5%) overall.
now that leaves you with 7.5% unaccounted for.
then take into account that these studies consider non equivelent jobs as equal, and there's the rest of your pay gap. (or at least hte majority, IMO)
Where did you find that? The GAO and COEA Report both place the unaccounted for portion between 9-13 percentage points.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
They like to take it in the ass from other guys.
The following post may cause liquid refreshment to run out of your nose, and may make it impossible to properly remain in your chair.
Nick
Originally posted by Fangorn
I really hate to agree with BR, but, alas I must. Speaking as a woman, I have never experienced a wage gap based on my gender.
Another little tidbit to keep in mind when considering the statistics: a woman with a college degree makes 90% (yes, you read that right) more than a woman without a college degree. And men and women with college degress are neck and neck (sorry, didn't memorize that particular number). So you start throwing women of different educational background together and start comparing them to men, well you are going to have some skewed numbers.
And yeah, I am NOT a feminist
Do you have a college degree? If so, that might be why you've never had a problem. Look at what you've written.
Men & women with degrees are neck and neck. Fine.
Women without a degree are 90% less well off. Fine.
Men without a degree are what?
If that number is less than 90% then we have a problem.
Originally posted by bunge
Do you have a college degree? If so, that might be why you've never had a problem. Look at what you've written.
Men & women with degrees are neck and neck. Fine.
Women without a degree are 90% less well off. Fine.
Men without a degree are what?
If that number is less than 90% then we have a problem.
Why would you assume that? To get paid well when you aren't using a degree, you typically have to ante up something else. It could be physical work, work in an uncomfortable climate, time intensive, odd hours, dangerous, etc. If you don't ante up and get paid less, that isn't discrimination it is a personal choice.
That is why most people get upset at feminists who want to legislate comparability for jobs. Someone working as a receptionist in an air conditioned office building might have a comparable worth to the person up on the roof repairing the air conditioning, according to the advocacy group, but that doesn't seem to be true according to the marketplace.
I've seen plenty of women willing to do what it takes to get paid well. They might turn a wrench, they might work in high heat, they might be on call all the time.
Likewise I've seen plenty of women, and men too who have no desire to improve their skills and no desire to trade anything for higher pay. I'm sure if you checked the men and women stocking the shelves at Target, their wages per hour are comparable.
I'll tell you what bunge and Shawn. Why don't you anecdotally apply this in the area you know best, yourselves. Do either of you believe you are some how being paid more per hour/unit of work than your female contemporaries?
With regard to myself, I know exactly what I make as a teacher and so does everyone else since it is a contracted amount based off of years of experience and units of college. Likewise when I was working all the jobs up until this point, I know there wasn't a single woman I was making more than per hour at a comparable job title.
Can you even think of an instance where you or someone you knew made more just because they were a man?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Can you even think of an instance where you or someone you knew made more just because they were a man?
Unfortunately yes. The last place I worked was dead set on the 'old boys network' mentality. People of equivalent schooling and experience were paid more if they were men.
Yes, I could just make that up for the sake of the argument, but it's true.
Likewise, there are plenty of jobs like yours and at WalMart that are gender agnostic. That's true and I won't deny it. Unfortunately those are offset by other jobs.
Where I am now, I'd guess things are equal, but that's because I'm in an industry dominated by females. But that's telling in and of itself. When an industry is dominated by females and things are equal, but when an industry is dominated by males the men get more.
I agree that choice, society and circumstance are going to play a part. I don't expect the numbers to be exactly 100% equal. But if they're drastically different (10%?) I think there's a problem.
So Fangorn's example led me to ask a question. What are the numbers for men without degrees? If they're only 50% less well off then I think we have a problem.
You can chalk it up to 'the market', but realistically the women pushing papers for your HMO are more important than the illegal alien roofing your home. So why the disparity? Why are the jobs than men do compensated more than the jobs that women do? Gender bias definitely plays a role.
Originally posted by bunge
Unfortunately yes. The last place I worked was dead set on the 'old boys network' mentality. People of equivalent schooling and experience were paid more if they were men.
Yes, I could just make that up for the sake of the argument, but it's true.
Likewise, there are plenty of jobs like yours and at WalMart that are gender agnostic. That's true and I won't deny it. Unfortunately those are offset by other jobs.
Where I am now, I'd guess things are equal, but that's because I'm in an industry dominated by females. But that's telling in and of itself. When an industry is dominated by females and things are equal, but when an industry is dominated by males the men get more.
I agree that choice, society and circumstance are going to play a part. I don't expect the numbers to be exactly 100% equal. But if they're drastically different (10%?) I think there's a problem.
So Fangorn's example led me to ask a question. What are the numbers for men without degrees? If they're only 50% less well off then I think we have a problem.
You can chalk it up to 'the market', but realistically the women pushing papers for your HMO are more important than the illegal alien roofing your home. So why the disparity? Why are the jobs than men do compensated more than the jobs that women do? Gender bias definitely plays a role.
Well first I'm amazed that the last place you worked hasn't been sued out of existance.
As for the women pushing papers being more important than the man roofing my home. You have to consider the danger as well. My father's business is in a dangerous field. (trucking) He is always going on about workers compensation costs. Likewise my quite a few of my renters work for an electrical company. They have a pot of money that grows each day there isn't a mishap that causes an injury on the job site. My dad was showing me how to pay a roofer a hundred dollars, you have to contribute $42 to workmen's comp because the incidence of injury is so high.
I don't think that is quite the case with the paper pushers at the HMO, be they men or women.
Likewise if they make more, why don't more women just go, for example, into roofing? Probably because they don't want to get hurt and would rather make less than risk their body. You know I've read on this because I posted about the glass cellar for men vs. the glass ceiling for women. If a job trades danger for pay, women avoid it like the plague. That should figure into the comparability as well, don't you think?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Well first I'm amazed that the last place you worked hasn't been sued out of existance.
Do you realize how hard it is to prove a case like this?
As for danger, I understand that. There are dangers in roofing I know. It was a weak example, but I think valid none the less. WIthout the paper pusher YOU might die. With a leaky roof you might get sick. They're valued differently but not necessarily accurately.
Originally posted by bunge
Do you realize how hard it is to prove a case like this?
As for danger, I understand that. There are dangers in roofing I know. It was a weak example, but I think valid none the less. WIthout the paper pusher YOU might die. With a leaky roof you might get sick. They're valued differently but not necessarily accurately.
Actually you show exactly why they are valued accurately, and at the same time show that you misunderstand how the value for the work is determined.
I know that may sound a little mean but it isn't meant to be.
There are two halves to the value equation. One is what do you have to pay to get someone to do the job, but there is a flip side to that and that is, what do I have to pay so I don't have to do the job.
Now to put it correctly of course, the paper pusher doesn't save my life. They just handle the paperwork associated with the doctor who does. The doctor pays the paper pusher because his or her time is worth far to much to deal with insurance claims, record keeping, setting appointments, etc. It is trading of value. The doctors time might be worth $200 an hour and paying someone $20 to push that paper saves money.
Now the flip side of this is of course the value of our own time. We could do the work of the paper pusher, but for pretty close to a nominal fee, we don't have to deal with any of it. If the fee associated with the paper pusher became too expensive, people would likely start offering to trade some of their own time/work to compensate for the cost of the paper pusher. (You don't have to stock the meds here, just give me a prescription and I will go get it for example)
Now with the roofer we have the same two factors, how much do you have to pay him or her to do it and likewise how much am I willing to pay so I don't have to do it. The same variables apply. However when people don't offer up enough for the roofer to do the job, people aren' confronted with the fact that they have to push some paper, they are confronted with the fact that they are going to have to strip, tar, paper and shingle a roof at time, expense and of course danger to themselves.
Again the second half of that variable is very important in pricing. It is why I see people paying what I consider ridiculous amounts of money to have someone mow their lawn. Well if the lawn takes 4 hours of their time a month, and their time is worth $50 an hour, then anything less than $200 is saving them money and time. So when they spend $100 a month on a lawn service, it is a savings to them.
I keep wanting to wander on with more examples, but the point is that salaries are determined by two variables, not just one.
Nick
We could provide anecdotes, but, with all due respect, they would be meaningless. Stories of job discrimination or the lack of don't prove anything because we're talking about averages. Although it may sound platitudinous, your success story and those of others are great to hear. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heidi Hartmann, the people who wrote the GAO report, and President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors would all agree that the gender wage gap is narrowing or has narrowed from 100 years ago to the point where success stories like yours are regularly told.
However, no one should claim that discrimination doesn't exist because of those wonderful stories. I hope no one has. In fact, the average full-time wage gap remains at 26%, while the average full time and part time wage gap remains at 38%. Of the 26%, one half to three-quarters of it can be accounted for by legitimate factors important for productivity such as education, hours worked, age, etc. 9-13 percentage points, which represent about one-quarter to one-half of the wage gap, cannot be explained by any legitimate factors at all.
BRussell pointed out that we shouldn't assume the unexplained portion automatically means discrimination. After some further reading, I think he's right. According to Explaining Trends in the Gender Gap, the 1998 report prepared by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, a variety of interpretations for the remaining unexplained portion exist. The report offers two plausible explanations: gender discrimination and the possibility of "significant unmeasured labor market skills that differ between men and women."
On further explaining the second possibility, which I believe Splinemodel and a few others might have similarly argued, the report notes "...if women?s labor market experience is less likely to be continuous (for example, due to childbearing), then just controlling for years of work may not fully control for the differential effects of experience on male and female wages. In this case, the "unexplained" differential will overstate the true effect of discrimination, because it includes the effect of relevant unmeasured factors that influence the relative productivity of male and female employees."
On further explaining discrimination, the report explains "...once differences between men and women in the relevant determinants of wages are taken into account, any remaining difference in pay must be due to discrimination. But this explanation may be too simplistic. To the extent that discrimination affects women?s educational, job, and family choices, the "unexplained" differential will understate the true effect of discrimination."
The report concludes that "while there are a variety of interpretations of this remaining "unexplained" differential, one plausible interpretation is that gender wage discrimination continues to be present in the labor market. This interpretation is buttressed by other more direct studies of pay discrimination, which also show continuing gender differences in pay that are not explained by productivity or job differences. By no means is the debate settled. While the Council of Economic Advisors acknowledges other interpretations and doesn't unequivocally accept any one factor, it seems that discrimination remains a very plausible one in the end.
Like the Council reported, if discrimination is a factor, it is more widespread than what cannot be accounted for in the unexplained portion of the gender wage gap. That explanation more or less corroborates a part of the GAO Report (PDF) I linked to before. I quoted the section on discrimination in a previous post, which raised the question of "whether decisions that women make to manage work and family responsibilities are freely made or influenced by underlying discrimination." Diana Furchtgott-Roth, supply-side economist at the conservative, pro-business American Enterprise Institute, claims that women do freely make choices.
But then again, that's more of a hallucination to think that we are free to act without society influencing both women and men. The GAO report identifies "societal norms about gender roles" as "societal discrimination" -the fact that women and men tend to cluster around certain jobs, and the fact that women and men tend to major in certain fields during college. It goes on in other areas that I won't rehash here.
To summarize, I just want to prove 1) that the average full time wage gap is 26% and 2) that widespread discrimination can be a plausible explanation for it. I hope this was a conciliatory and fair-minded post. I spent some time on it.
In fact, the average full-time wage gap remains at 26%
that may be true, but they key is that this number is not related to gender. of that 26%, over half is actually related directy to education and time worked at a job. those two variables alone account for almost 60% of the gap their talking about.
it's annoying to have them refer to a 26% gender gap when their own studies show that two simple variable knock out half of the supposed gender biased gap, when those two variable have nothing to do with gender.
from what i read, of the approx. 11% gap left, hours worked were not taken into account. that 11% gap still considers 35 hours to be the same as 60 hours. until they account for that massive variable, i'm not going to buy into even an 11% gap.
then to top it off, all of these comparisons were done by straight up:
education
years worked
hours worked (35+, yes or no)
i want to see in that calculation pay/total hours worked (not a yes or no to full time)
also, a per job break down. i don't want a cashier with a highschool degree to be compared to a brick layer with a highchool degree. even if both match up perfectly on every single variable, i expect to see a large difference in pay betweeen the cashier and bricklayer, with a bricklayer making more.
if you can find a study that includes both per job break down, along with actual hours worked, then i'll be ready to talk turkey.
if a good study included those variables and there was still a significant gender gap, then i'd be the first in line to say there's a problem.
Compare apples to apples people.
Originally posted by alcimedes
that may be true, but they key is that this number is not related to gender. of that 26%, over half is actually related directy to education and time worked at a job. those two variables alone account for almost 60% of the gap their talking about.
it's annoying to have them refer to a 26% gender gap when their own studies show that two simple variable knock out half of the supposed gender biased gap, when those two variable have nothing to do with gender.
from what i read, of the approx. 11% gap left, hours worked were not taken into account. that 11% gap still considers 35 hours to be the same as 60 hours. until they account for that massive variable, i'm not going to buy into even an 11% gap.
then to top it off, all of these comparisons were done by straight up:
education
years worked
hours worked (35+, yes or no)
i want to see in that calculation pay/total hours worked (not a yes or no to full time)
also, a per job break down. i don't want a cashier with a highschool degree to be compared to a brick layer with a highchool degree. even if both match up perfectly on every single variable, i expect to see a large difference in pay betweeen the cashier and bricklayer, with a bricklayer making more.
if you can find a study that includes both per job break down, along with actual hours worked, then i'll be ready to talk turkey.
if a good study included those variables and there was still a significant gender gap, then i'd be the first in line to say there's a problem.
Be prepared to say there is a problem.
With all due respect, you're absolutely wrong about those two important facts. According to the Hartmann article I first posted, "the figures from IWPR's report Equal Pay for Working Families given at the outset take into account differences in years of education, age, and hours worked between women and men and thus control for some of the productivity-related differences between women and men in the labor market" So differences in hours worked and other factors you mention were taken into account. Also, occupation and industry were taken in account. Respectfully, read The Pay Gap by Occupation ( U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2002,"_September 2003. Report 972.) and weep.
That led to the smaller figure of 9-13 percentage points remaining, of course. All of this given. The two government reports (GAO and COEA) corroborate my numbers, as do probably most economists, sociologists, etc.
Turkey time.
The figures from IWPR's report Equal Pay for Working Families given at the outset take into account differences in years of education, age, and hours worked between women and men and thus control for some of the productivity-related differences between women and men in the labor market.
do you have a link to that report? if not i can probably dig it up, but i'm heading out for lunch.
second, does that report compare from job to job?
(as in pay based on the same job, not just age, educations etc.)
part of what bothers me with that report is that their own numbers are all over the place. when they refer to wage gap, are they referring to their 26% claim, their 6.5% claim, their 13% claim?
you can never tell.
in that one article alone they say the wage gap is anywhere from 6.5% to 26%.
that's a HUGE variance.
Originally posted by alcimedes
do you have a link to that report? if not i can probably dig it up, but i'm heading out for lunch.
second, does that report compare from job to job?
(as in pay based on the same job, not just age, educations etc.)
part of what bothers me with that report is that their own numbers are all over the place. when they refer to wage gap, are they referring to their 26% claim, their 6.5% claim, their 13% claim?
you can never tell.
in that one article alone they say the wage gap is anywhere from 6.5% to 26%.
that's a HUGE variance.
No, unfortunately. You have to pay $12 for the report on their site.
As far as the numbers go, I don't think there is any confusion. The average full-time wage gap is 26%. The average full time and part time wage gap is 38%. The average unexplained portion of the average full time wage gap is 9-13 percentage points (or about 1/4 to 1/2 of the average full time wage gap). I mean I think it's clear that the numbers are correct. The debate is really about what those numbers mean...and that's certainly something to debate.
Originally posted by alcimedes
do you have a link to that report? if not i can probably dig it up, but i'm heading out for lunch.
second, does that report compare from job to job?
(as in pay based on the same job, not just age, educations etc.)
part of what bothers me with that report is that their own numbers are all over the place. when they refer to wage gap, are they referring to their 26% claim, their 6.5% claim, their 13% claim?
you can never tell.
in that one article alone they say the wage gap is anywhere from 6.5% to 26%.
that's a HUGE variance.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No, unfortunately. You have to pay $12 for the report on their site.
As far as the numbers go, I don't think there is any confusion. The average full-time wage gap is 26%. The average full time and part time wage gap is 38%. The average unexplained portion of the average full time wage gap is 9-13 percentage points (or about 1/4 to 1/2 of the average full time wage gap). I mean I think it's clear that the numbers are correct. The debate is really about what those numbers mean...and that's certainly something to debate.
Shawn, you have the unique ability to dismiss anything you don't agree with, and repeat yourself ad-infinitum.
BR's report mentions that with all variables equal the wage gap is very small.
The wage gap shrinks dramatically when multiple factors are considered. Women with similar levels of education and experience earn as much as their male counterparts. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, economics professor June O'Neill found that, among people ages twenty-seven to thirty-three who have never had a child, women's earnings are close to 98 percent of men's. Professor O'Neill notes that "when earnings comparisons are restricted to men and women more similar in their experience and life situations, the measured earnings differentials are typically quite small."
Then this...
Many studies link increased numbers of children with decreased earnings. Professor Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University compared the gap in wages between men and women with the same education for two groups, mothers and women without children. She found that in 1991, women without children made 95 percent of men's wages, but mothers made 75 percent of men's wages. The difference can be explained by choices of occupations and hours worked, two variables which were not included in her study.
You dismiss both of these, not because their numbers are wrong, because they are being comparitive instead of equal, etc. You dismiss them because of where the author works.
* The author, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, is a supply-side economist who works at the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.
* Civil Rights Journal is reputable- that's given. However, a rebuttal piece by feminist economist Heidi Hartmann exists IN THE SAME ISSUE. (I believe it is also in the viewpoint section)
I mean how credible do you expect to be when your argument boils down to, "But I don't like your author."
Now your author justifies a larger number and is even nice enough to say why.
The common use of the wage gap as a measure of inequality reflects an understanding that, in a perfect world, where all children could get as much education as they wanted in an environment free from stereotyping and where women had as much freedom as men to choose occupations regardless of family responsibilities (because men did an equal share of child care and because subsidized high-quality child care and paid family leave were available to all), women and men would pursue more similar educational tracks and make more similar choices about how much time to spend in and out of the labor market. In other words in a more perfect world, men's and women's choices and opportunities would be more equal and their wages would also be more equal. In fact, a 100 percent wage ratio between women and men is a reasonable goal to work toward. As a society, beginning with a wage ratio of 57 percent in 1959, we are nearly two-fifths of the way toward achieving this goal (since the wage ratio now stands at 74 percent, and 74 percent is about two-fifths of the way from 57 percent to 100 percent).
Now do we see the assumptions here? This is why I claimed the questions being asked were loaded. In this assumption we see that women want to earn more, want men to work less and assume more of the domestic roles.
Yet only your author would take women from three choices, work full time, part time or not at all, to one choice, work full time with an equal earning and nurturing partner, and consider that empowering. Fewer choices = more power? Likewise it assumes all women want this choice and all consider it their definition of success.
The one choice is again, the only definition of success. All other definitions are discrimination, less than perfect worlds, etc. Anyone women who don't choose that definition contributes to the wage gap.
Now your author does attempt to address the 98% figure, and in the meantime, shows how women put expectations on men to work full time, earn more money and basically empower women or do without love.
And what of Women's Figures' 98 percent figure -- the much ballyhooed claim that young women earn only 2 percent less than young men? This figure is misleading at best. It is based on a comparison of women and men age 27-33 who have never had a child, from unpublished research by economist June O'Neill--a summary of which appeared in an opinion piece she wrote for the Wall Street Journal five years ago. In her unpublished paper, O'Neill claims that these groups of young men and women who never had a child are similar in unmeasurable qualities related to their productivity, such as commitment to their job and work intensity. But are they? Women who have never had a child by that age are likely to be especially committed to work and career since the median age for a first childbirth is 23.9 years in the United States. Men without children by that age may be more likely than the women to be drop-outs, low rather than high achieving males, since for men, having a family and children is a mark of their economic success. So this figure probably does not compare equals at all, but rather highly committed and work-oriented women to much less committed men. Perhaps, in the absence of discrimination these women should be earning more than the men to which they are inappropriately compared!
Now take a look at the widely accepted double standard here. Women who are 23.9 years old are career oriented when they choose to have or not have a child. Men however are low achieving. We have no proof they are low achieving, she uses the word "may". Better yet she reaffirms what I have repeatedly said. If a man does not earn, he is not worthy of love. This is evidence of the fact, as your author mentioned, that a wife and children are A MARK OF ECONOMIC SUCCESS. No economic success no wife, no children, and most of all, no love.
The withholding of love is a powerful incentive for men to take more dangerous jobs, work as hard as they can to earn as much as they can and literally work themselves to death or die trying.
Why would I say that? Because of life expectancy. The life expectancy of men and women was roughly equal in 1920. (An important year since women gained sufferage that year.) It now stands at a full 7 year gap of women outliving men. Men are 93% of all work place deaths. They are, at a minimum, 85% of the workers in those jobs. What happens if a man is not able to earn enough. Simple, he gets no love. He is a deadbeat father, his wife (if he had one in the first place) is justified in leaving him. Likewise he just kills himself as men commit suicide 300-500% more than women depending upon who's numbers you use.
Work yourself to death, have someone else spend it, and die sooner as a result. This is called "empowered." Women exercising three choices regarding jobs is societal discrimination. Men exercising one choice is empowered.
Hope you give this some thought.....
Nick
http://www.feminist.com/fairpay/f_talkingpoints.htm
website.
Claim: When looking at hourly earnings, women make 83% of men's earnings, even before accounting for differences in education, experience, and occupation.
Response: It is important to keep in mind that hourly earnings are also subject to critique. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports hourly earnings for those occupations in which people earn an hourly wage (only about 72 million workers, or roughly half of the labor force). Thus, the figure is not representative of all workers.
so for half the workforce, the "wage gap" is 17%, not 24%, and that doesn't take anything else into account. i swear these people are high on crack. basically when they actually count the hours, the "wage gap" is pummeled.
In Los Angeles, for example, social workers were found to be comparable to probation officers in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. Even so, social workers were paid less.
this actually serves as a perfect example. they consider social worker and probation officer to be equal jobs. i'm sorry but that's not the case at all. i'd put any dollar amoutn down that if faced with a choice of doing social work or dealing with released prisoners all day, most women would go with social work.
social work ≠ probation officer.
you have to wonder at the agenda behind people who really think that those two jobs are equal, or what criteria they use to judge equality.
edit: actually, if you look back where they say that accounting for education and years in the work force drops the wage gap to 11%, then add in that taking actual hours worked into account is another 7% for half the population (3.5%) overall.
now that leaves you with 7.5% unaccounted for.
then take into account that these studies consider non equivelent jobs as equal, and there's the rest of your pay gap. (or at least hte majority, IMO)
Originally posted by alcimedes
i'd put any dollar amoutn down that if faced with a choice of doing social work or dealing with released prisoners all day, most women would go with social work.
Just a quick anecdote: my female cousin was a social worker and became a parole officer. Her husband is still a social worker.
Not that I even really understand what a social worker actually does all day.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so for half the workforce, the "wage gap" is 17%, not 24%, and that doesn't take anything else into account. i swear these people are high on crack. basically when they actually count the hours, the "wage gap" is pummeled.
I'm not following your argument. If roughly half the workforce has an average wage gap of 17%, then the other half should have an average wage gap of more than 24%. Maybe around 31%.
Originally posted by alcimedes
edit: actually, if you look back where they say that accounting for education and years in the work force drops the wage gap to 11%, then add in that taking actual hours worked into account is another 7% for half the population (3.5%) overall.
now that leaves you with 7.5% unaccounted for.
then take into account that these studies consider non equivelent jobs as equal, and there's the rest of your pay gap. (or at least hte majority, IMO)
Where did you find that? The GAO and COEA Report both place the unaccounted for portion between 9-13 percentage points.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I find it very difficult to understand just what you're saying.
Not surprising....
Perhaps you can understand this....
Women 50.6 percent of white collar/management
Time for you and the other victim feminists to stop beating a dead horse.
Nick