Do women really get paid less than men do?

[Epic Bear Man]

First off, before I even begin this topic, I want to clarify that this topic isn't some sort of attempt to demonize feminists. I do want equality for the most part (certain things could be unequal and acceptable, such as maternity vs. paternity leave, although this is a whole different topic, so let's leave it out of the discussion).

Anyways, after watching some videos of Bill Burr, I noticed in the Youtube comments someone mentioning that the whole "women make less than men do" was do to a wide gap statistic that is far too broad to really justify the differences in pay.
At first I was skeptical about this, so I decided to Google it and I ended up stumbling onto this Youtube video (please watch the full video if you wish to discuss in this topic):

The video discusses how the differences in wages may be due to different career paths; men will tend to go for careers that would pay higher than the paths women tend to go on. I did some more research and found this website with a nice graph showcasing the job payments as well:
http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

Overall, women are still technically paid less than men are, regardless of the field (except for when we get into areas such as pornography, escorts, etc.), but it seems like, at least according to this data, the difference is not that large.
Does that mean this is any less of an issue that should be changed? No. Women are still technically paid less, and we should balance it out so that it's equal (when we're talking about the same level of education, same field, same experience, etc.), but it does seem like when this issue is brought into a debate, it's unfortunately using skewed data.

In short, as I said before, this isn't to demonize feminism; women do still deserve to be paid equally, even if they're only 2 cents off the dollar (as Prof. Steve Horwitz says), but if we want the issue to be taken seriously, I think we need to use more appropriate data.

In short, I hope the information was informative, and I hope we can have an intellectual discussion on the issue.

To create a discussion, I'll ask you guys this question:
How do you think we can balance out the gender-pay differences between men and women? Do you think the market will even itself out over time, or do you believe it may require some sort of legislation to equal out the pay difference? And based off of your decision, what kind of consequences (good or bad) do you think your solution may bring, if any?

 

[Jacco]

I assume you're talking about the US so I will answer as such.

There is no gap in the pay scale. The reason the numbers come out how they do is because more women take the less paying jobs. They tend to be the mid-level managers, waitresses, etc. Men tend to be the high-level managers, CEOs, etc. So men make more money simply because they get the high paying jobs, not because women are being hired as 25 cents less wage than a man.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

How do you think we can balance out the gender-pay differences between men and women?

There is no way to correct the disparities driven primarily by people's choice and the value individual people provide to a company. Certain people are worth more, and others are worth less. Certain jobs net higher pay, certain fields are worth more financially to society.

Do you think the market will even itself out over time, or do you believe it may require some sort of legislation to equal out the pay difference?

Tough call. I support 'concepts' such as minimum wage and workers rights, but I'm hesitant to suggest legislative measures given how shitty they tend to write them, how losely they are interpreted and how varied they are enforced.

And based off of your decision, what kind of consequences (good or bad) do you think your solution may bring, if any?

I don't have a solution, and I'm highly skeptical of anyone that proposes one given the complex nature of the market forces and economics in general. There are simply too many variables for any single system to work.

Additionally...

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-gender-pay-gap-is-myth-it-s-just-not-true-experts-say
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237196/Women-win-gender-pay-war-20s-earning-men-age.html
http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/03/14/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men/
...and so on and so forth.

Obvious reasons it's a myth; economic efficency and law suits.

 

[lechat]

I assume you're talking about the US so I will answer as such.

There is no gap in the pay scale. The reason the numbers come out how they do is because more women take the less paying jobs. They tend to be the mid-level managers, waitresses, etc. Men tend to be the high-level managers, CEOs, etc. So men make more money simply because they get the high paying jobs, not because women are being hired as 25 cents less wage than a man.

pretty much sums it up
i really doubt any boss in a civilized country these days has ever said "youre hired. but youre a chick so we are gonna pay you a dollar less"
i also recently read that women are less likely to ask for pay rises and promotions so that can't be helping either

 

[FavouriteDream]

I assume you're talking about the US so I will answer as such.

There is no gap in the pay scale. The reason the numbers come out how they do is because more women take the less paying jobs. They tend to be the mid-level managers, waitresses, etc. Men tend to be the high-level managers, CEOs, etc. So men make more money simply because they get the high paying jobs, not because women are being hired as 25 cents less wage than a man.

I assume you're talking about the US so I will answer as such.

There is no gap in the pay scale. The reason the numbers come out how they do is because more women take the less paying jobs. They tend to be the mid-level managers, waitresses, etc. Men tend to be the high-level managers, CEOs, etc. So men make more money simply because they get the high paying jobs, not because women are being hired as 25 cents less wage than a man.

pretty much sums it up
i really doubt any boss in a civilized country these days has ever said "youre hired. but youre a chick so we are gonna pay you a dollar less"
i also recently read that women are less likely to ask for pay rises and promotions so that can't be helping either

Did....did you two just click on the thread and not even read the opening post?

There is a plethora of information and data that strongly suggests woman in the same field as men get paid lesser salaries. The OP provided one source in very plain words and I found this in literally 5 seconds of googling:

"However, the report found one year after graduation, a pay gap existed between women and men who majored in the same field.

For example, among business majors, women earned about $38,000, while men earned just over $45,000. Among full-time workers in the for-profit sector, women earned $35,841 -- 80 percent of their male counterparts average of $44,638.

This $7,000 pay gap repeated yearly would result in the women losing out on about $1.2 million at retirement if the money was invested with an annual 6 percent rate of return." (study by American Association of University)

 

[Bamba]

Actually I think women get paid the same amount of money as men do. Its just that women tend to work less hours than men and work at jobs that pay less than jobs that men work at, therefore their salary is lower than a man's salary.

There's also the possibility that their bosses regard them as worse at what they work than men, and as a result pay them less than they would pay for men. Thats what it seems like, at least.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

These explain the difference in pay a bit
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/01/11/women-round-down-confidence-career-advancement/
http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/content/early/2012/06/15/orsc.1120.0757.abstract

 

[Bertylicious]

Yeah they do, though it happens in different ways:

The first situation is more to do with age and gender, but still explains part of the problem. Let us say that a woman who is fairly new to the proffession is recruited into a department filled with otherwise male staff. The woman will be placed on a lower salary as she has less experience, which is fine. 5 years down the line she may be given an increase which would put her on the salary of her male counterparts 3 or 5 years ago, but their salaries will have been increased from that point by annual review. Thus the pay gap becomes an issue of legacy because the woman (though it could easily be a man) will have simply been around for fewer reviews.

The second situation concerns senior positions. Women in senior roles are uncommon in many industries. They are no longer rare, but they're far fewer than 50%. So let us say you have an organisation with 1000 people in it, 250 of whom are women. 150 of those women work in junior or unskilled roles. 75 of those women work in supervisory or skilled/proffesional roles and 25 work in management positions, with, say, 2 at director level earning big money. Let us say that the grade breakdown for men is more 450/200/100 with 10 of those 100 at director level earning the big bucks. Therefore, because the roles which attract the higher wages are mostly male occupied, the statistics reflect a pay imbalance even if women in the organisation are payed the same as their male counterparts in the roles they occupy.

The first scenario is significant because it affects women entering work whilst the second scenario reflects the structural problem which exists. I feel the second issue is created by the mechanism by which people get into senior roles and the only solution I can see would come from graduate schemes run by big business. I don't see how SMEs are going to be able to adapt.

The solution to the first issue is too horrible to contemplate; total transparency of contractual benefits to all. Would you be happy with the particulars of your employment being a matter of public record?

Edit: I have, for the time being, intentionally ignored the problem of maternity absence and the fact that a woman's body contains the blueprints of her own prison.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Men can start taking more responsibility with babies as soon as they start lactating milk out of their tits.

Oh wait.

Ok so lets keep the mother at home (or in low-stress work) for those crucial first 1-2 years with the child, and as soon as the child doesn't "need" the mother 24/7 the dad can then take over that role - except, hang on a minute, dad has just spent the past 1-2 years upskilling himself and now he's being told to quit his job and take care of the child while the mother attempts to find work which pays less? How retarded.

How about we leave things as they are because the actual "inequality" is almost negligible if you analyze the data logically (like the guy in OP's video), there will always be a small variation and there will always be politically-correct idiots yelling their lungs out about that negligible variation because they don't have anything better to do

People have to face the cold hard truth of biology / history, and that is drastically more men have craved for ridiculously difficult jobs and/or dedicated their entire lives to a cause than women.
There's a reason whenever we think of "philosopher" we always imagine an old bearded man gazing at the sky, when we think of "conqueror" we always imagine a powerful warrior male leading armies to victory. When it comes to throwing your whole life away to focus on ambitions (selfish/destructive or not) men have shown to be drastically more likely to do that kind of a thing. It absolutely continues to happen today, you see a lot more male scientists, engineers focusing their efforts on ambitions/dreams and throwing everything else aside...geniuses like Einstein, Hawking, etc wanting nothing more than to solve the universe's riddles. Huge crazy ambitions and the will to sacrifice everything else to achieve those ambitions, ruthless or not - this is something men have done on a vastly more frequent (and bigger) scale than women ever could.

You know those crazy people who's JOB it is to scale up 300-foot radio towers/ power lines to fix stuff...or those extreme window cleaners dangling outside the 110th floor with no fear for their life? And they love their job? Yeah, 99.9% men. Women simply don't want to get into that kind of shit. Guess who's going to get paid more on average?

If the trait isn't imprinted into male biology I honestly don't know where else it could come from...

...but it would sure as hell explain the pay gap.

 

[Stu35]

The solution to the first issue is too horrible to contemplate; total transparency of contractual benefits to all. Would you be happy with the particulars of your employment being a matter of public record?

Mine are.

Seriously, google British Army pay scales, and look up Level 5 Higher Band Corproal.

Congratulations, you know now exactly how much I and every male and female colleague I have in the same pay bracket earn.

I'm okay with this, and frankly so should everyone else be in my opinion - The reason people get sniffy about it is in the private sector they don't like the idea that their hard negotiated contract which may be more valuable than their co-workers gets out in the open.

This then leads to resentment - may even lead to the co-worker asking the boss why he(or she) isn't earning that much.

Indeed I've heard about situations in the private sector where people have been sacked for discussing their pay with co-workers (and said co-workers have then gone to the boss to ask why they're not getting paid the same for doing the same job).


So, whilst I can see why people would be reluctant for this level of transparency, I think that after a while 2 things would happen:

1: Pay rates would balance out across companies for doing the same work, regardless of gender.
2: People would feel less enslaved to their current jobs(knowing what other jobs are out there in the same pay band that are available to them), and thus companies would be less able to force the "live-to-work" mentality that I see in so many of my friends in the private sector.


hmmm... Re reading that I may not have worded that particularly well, I'll come back and have another look at it when I get a chance.

 

[Bertylicious]

The solution to the first issue is too horrible to contemplate; total transparency of contractual benefits to all. Would you be happy with the particulars of your employment being a matter of public record?

I'm okay with this, and frankly so should everyone else be in my opinion - The reason people get sniffy about it is in the private sector they don't like the idea that their hard negotiated contract which may be more valuable than their co-workers gets out in the open.

This then leads to resentment - may even lead to the co-worker asking the boss why he(or she) isn't earning that much.

Indeed I've heard about situations in the private sector where people have been sacked for discussing their pay with co-workers (and said co-workers have then gone to the boss to ask why they're not getting paid the same for doing the same job).

So, whilst I can see why people would be reluctant for this level of transparency, I think that after a while 2 things would happen:

1: Pay rates would balance out across companies for doing the same work, regardless of gender.
2: People would feel less enslaved to their current jobs(knowing what other jobs are out there in the same pay band that are available to them), and thus companies would be less able to force the "live-to-work" mentality that I see in so many of my friends in the private sector.


hmmm... Re reading that I may not have worded that particularly well, I'll come back and have another look at it when I get a chance.

I think you've done a good job of wording your position and, quite frankly, it is both an attractive position and a position that I am sympathetic to. Regretably, however, it is something of a simplistic conclusion.

In the private sector new roles are rapidly created that didn't exist in the organisation before, sometimes even around individuals based on their contracts or the work that they have done as well as the shifting trends of technology and markets. Total transparency would result in a stifling effect; i.e. bringing in the kind of committee and process that exists in the public sectors precisely to deal with the issues of fairness and sour grapes that you have highlighted, which would reduce the agility of organisations to adapt.

That isn't to say that I disagree with you or think the idea is impossible to realise. I'm merely trying to point out that if transparency is a cure then it is akin to chemotherapy; a destructive agent that, although perhaps neccesary, will cause great harm to the patient.

 

[Albino Boo]

I assume you're talking about the US so I will answer as such.

There is no gap in the pay scale. The reason the numbers come out how they do is because more women take the less paying jobs. They tend to be the mid-level managers, waitresses, etc. Men tend to be the high-level managers, CEOs, etc. So men make more money simply because they get the high paying jobs, not because women are being hired as 25 cents less wage than a man.

I assume you're talking about the US so I will answer as such.

There is no gap in the pay scale. The reason the numbers come out how they do is because more women take the less paying jobs. They tend to be the mid-level managers, waitresses, etc. Men tend to be the high-level managers, CEOs, etc. So men make more money simply because they get the high paying jobs, not because women are being hired as 25 cents less wage than a man.

pretty much sums it up
i really doubt any boss in a civilized country these days has ever said "youre hired. but youre a chick so we are gonna pay you a dollar less"
i also recently read that women are less likely to ask for pay rises and promotions so that can't be helping either

Did....did you two just click on the thread and not even read the opening post?

There is a plethora of information and data that strongly suggests woman in the same field as men get paid lesser salaries. The OP provided one source in very plain words and I found this in literally 5 seconds of googling:

"However, the report found one year after graduation, a pay gap existed between women and men who majored in the same field.

For example, among business majors, women earned about $38,000, while men earned just over $45,000. Among full-time workers in the for-profit sector, women earned $35,841 -- 80 percent of their male counterparts average of $44,638.

This $7,000 pay gap repeated yearly would result in the women losing out on about $1.2 million at retirement if the money was invested with an annual 6 percent rate of return." (study by American Association of University)

The problem is with these kind of surveys is that they don't tell the full story. A lot of these post graduation surveys include professional sports which definitely skew the results against women but that is a result of male professional sports having a greater following. They also include extreme results, 3 or 4 billionaires push the result against woman. A post graduate survey that includes Bill Gates,Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Mark Zuckerberg isn't going to show a true picture. The vast majority of men don't become billionaires either but the few that do skew the results.

All these surveys are normally commissioned with a point to prove, one way or another. They are either commissioned by a pressure group with an agenda, pro or anti, or following a particular publications editorial line. Even government surveys aren't neutral and follow the political agenda of who ever is in power.

 

[Epic Bear Man]

Did....did you two just click on the thread and not even read the opening post?

There is a plethora of information and data that strongly suggests woman in the same field as men get paid lesser salaries. The OP provided one source in very plain words and I found this in literally 5 seconds of googling:

"However, the report found one year after graduation, a pay gap existed between women and men who majored in the same field.

For example, among business majors, women earned about $38,000, while men earned just over $45,000. Among full-time workers in the for-profit sector, women earned $35,841 -- 80 percent of their male counterparts average of $44,638.

This $7,000 pay gap repeated yearly would result in the women losing out on about $1.2 million at retirement if the money was invested with an annual 6 percent rate of return." (study by American Association of University)

Well I'm glad at least one person noticed the bottom of the graph (I'm assuming that's what you meant, unless I read it wrong and you meant you Googled a different source) that showed how out of college, the pay difference is bigger.

A lot of these post graduation surveys include professional sports which definitely skew the results against women but that is a result of male professional sports having a greater following. They also include extreme results, 3 or 4 billionaires push the result against woman. A post graduate survey that includes Bill Gates,Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Mark Zuckerberg isn't going to show a true picture. The vast majority of men don't become billionaires either but the few that do skew the results.

This is just a random question, but those surveys take in part some people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc? I know of at least a few billionaires who didn't even finish college, so I don't understand why they'd be part of a post-graduate survey.

I know it's not you making the surveys, but it's still a bit bizarre they'd be a part of that. Nonetheless you're correct, that would seriously hurt the statistics, since the ratio between male and female billionaires is so vastly different.

 

[thiosk]

I rather liked the video. I certainly see it as true in my own field, research Science.

Women tend to do just as well as men. I happen to be married to a woman who makes substantially more than me, for working a very similar job. Of course, she commutes to work, and I ride a quick bike ride.

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

Minimum wage is minimum wage regardless if your man or woman. The only class of people that care about the difference in pay are those in the boardrooms. They are so far removed from me i could never bring myself to care. Are the women in the 1 percent payed less than the men in the 1 percent, awwwwwww poor them. I still think they will struggle through even if they have to cut back and only have 2 vacations in Malibu a year.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Not really. It's just that there are less women working than men, and many of those that do work do so in lower paying jobs (secretarial, administrative, etc).

Although, there's an issue with the biggest earners. I understand there to be more male CEOs than female. Johnny Depp and fellow big box-office draw men earn more than A-list women. Professional male athletes get paid obscene amounts of money, and many orders of magnitude more than their female counterparts. This however isn't sexism in action, it's simply the market.

 

[Therumancer]

First off, before I even begin this topic, I want to clarify that this topic isn't some sort of attempt to demonize feminists. I do want equality for the most part (certain things could be unequal and acceptable, such as maternity vs. paternity leave, although this is a whole different topic, so let's leave it out of the discussion).

Anyways, after watching some videos of Bill Burr, I noticed in the Youtube comments someone mentioning that the whole "women make less than men do" was do to a wide gap statistic that is far too broad to really justify the differences in pay.
At first I was skeptical about this, so I decided to Google it and I ended up stumbling onto this Youtube video (please watch the full video if you wish to discuss in this topic):

The video discusses how the differences in wages may be due to different career paths; men will tend to go for careers that would pay higher than the paths women tend to go on. I did some more research and found this website with a nice graph showcasing the job payments as well:
http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

Overall, women are still technically paid less than men are, regardless of the field (except for when we get into areas such as pornography, escorts, etc.), but it seems like, at least according to this data, the difference is not that large.
Does that mean this is any less of an issue that should be changed? No. Women are still technically paid less, and we should balance it out so that it's equal (when we're talking about the same level of education, same field, same experience, etc.), but it does seem like when this issue is brought into a debate, it's unfortunately using skewed data.

In short, as I said before, this isn't to demonize feminism; women do still deserve to be paid equally, even if they're only 2 cents off the dollar (as Prof. Steve Horwitz says), but if we want the issue to be taken seriously, I think we need to use more appropriate data.

In short, I hope the information was informative, and I hope we can have an intellectual discussion on the issue.

To create a discussion, I'll ask you guys this question:
How do you think we can balance out the gender-pay differences between men and women? Do you think the market will even itself out over time, or do you believe it may require some sort of legislation to equal out the pay difference? And based off of your decision, what kind of consequences (good or bad) do you think your solution may bring, if any?

As others have pointed out women aren't getting paid less than men they tend to gravitate towards fields with a lower pay scale. Wages are generally universal, you do not go in for a job and see it posted as "X amount for men, X amount for women". When it comes to contracted, salary positions, there is usually negotiation involved, and if it happens to be true there might simply be an issue with women tending to be less aggressive when it comes to negotiating for their rate of pay and benefits when moving into that kind of job.

That said, this entire issue is more or less bunk to begin with. It's been around a while, and exists largely to dance around the issue of the needs of women as opposed to those of men. Generally involving things like pregnancy and the like. Women winding up getting shafted because having a kid by definition puts them out of comission for a period of time, and then divides their interests, hormonal changes can also lead to substantial changes in personality and priorities (though not always). Points which are generally acknowleged but called unfair because "women can't help these things" the demands for equality going from "equal work for equal pay" to "equal pay for equal work... with special allowances". In a few cases there have been situations where female executives and those moving to upper management have had to do things like sign contracts saying they would NOT have a kid and doing so would be grounds for termination, or accept less money (and oftentimes be capped at lesser positions) if they did not agree to it, since nobody wanted to invest in a higher up that might very well wind up being unable to do the job later on.

Now, I'm not going to get into those issues, argue whether it's right or wrong, or about hormones, or whatever else. I'm just stating the situation as it is. Politics being what they are, making an issue as broad as posisble to get as many people involves as possible to build a platform is a viable strategy. At the end of the day though this is what the issue comes down to, despite how they make it sound if two people both work the counter at Mcdonalds or do most jobs gender is pretty much irrelevent, it's largely an issue when you get to upper management/professional levels where the employees become an investment as much as just a paid pair of hands. Fair or not, women are not seen as being as safe an investment when your looking at someone you want to make your business their #1 priority for decades.

 

[Hagi]

The video seems fairly rational, however I don't really know all the numbers so can't say anything for sure.

I would definitely agree though that women making different choices and possible (even likely) sexism in what education they're expected to follow and what responsibilities they're expected to take on once children enter the picture are almost certainly a major factor in any difference in wage gaps.

 

[AlexanderPeregrine]

As the video mentions, women are often driven away from the career paths that would lead to higher salaries and it's worth asking why that happens. I think a lot of it is cultural and that culture is reaffirmed by the toy and entertainment industries. Go into any toy store and you'll see this:



It's known as the pink aisle. Most of the toys in it relate to two goals: getting a husband (by looking nice) and keeping a husband (by being a passive housewife). Young girls and the people buying for them are marketed towards products within the pink aisle. There are very few toys in this aisle that impart ideas about personal agency. Meanwhile, the boy's aisle (which has no dominant color) are all about changing the world through personal strength, intelligence, cunning, and charisma.

The entertainment industry is just as lopsided. this article compares Chris Pine's mediocre career versus Jennifer Lawrence [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/study-screen-gender-inequality-persists-264947]). Movies and TV shows reinforce the idea of men being more important than women by presenting significantly more men on screen, in more important roles, with more personal agency, and more variety in their appearance. Women are generally cast as love interests to be used as props for titillation and as a trophy for the hero to earn as a reward at the end.

(While I don't think much study has been done in this field, anime fandom is overwhelmingly female and much of that comes from a total death of entertainment for teenage women. There is a much better ratio of male and female characters in active, important roles. Think about it: Japan, a very oppressive culture, has better gender representation in their entertainment than America.)

The problem here is that there isn't much of a direct solution without bringing out that dreaded bogeyman of censorship. Most of why there's such a disparity in film representation actually comes from the stunningly misogynistic culture of corporate Hollywood as opposed to actual statistics, but that isn't sustainable. There will come a point where investors start asking why Hollywood is ignoring perfectly good money and no amount of "conventional wisdom" will bail them out. In the meantime, everybody can help by talking with girls about the imagery around them, assuring them that they can go into any industry they like regardless what people tell them, supporting what entertainment with female characters currently exists, voicing their concern about gender representation in entertainment, and creating their own fiction with relevant, powerful female characters.