Do women really get paid less than men do?

[Angie7F]

unless men become anatomically able to become pregnant, i think it is really really tough to make everything 50/50.
Plus, is sexual differences are a problem, what about racial differences?

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

well racial differences? Oo I don't see any relevance or do you imply that some "races" are less capable of some stuff?

yeah, there is a difference between the average men and the average women, but we as humans are very diverse and Job X is about Human X-if this person meets the requirements, there is nothing more important about race or gender.
And its not like every woman can get pregnant, not every man can work at a construction site etc.
My family is interesting because my mom and my dad never fit into the well, sexist stereotypes of "men and womyn", my mom never cooked and well she hated it, same goes for all the household-chores and baking and stuff but she was very good at smithing and her mosaic-tiles were awesome. my dad is a great cook and does all the laundry (and ironing too^^) and is more the househould-guy. My mom is more manly then him and they are fine with that. And well, i am a mixed bag- i can cook but i can also build furniture and i am good at these handcrafts- i built a bench for my cats and i want to build a nice easy armchair next. I was also stronger than half of the guys in my class (at my school time, but i am out of form, there is less body-movement in gaming^^)

And the point is not to make everything 50/50 but to offer the choice to the people which want it that way. Offer the chice to the men which want to stay home without being labelled as un-manly and weak, offer the choice to women which want to stay home without the implication that being a housewive is the thing you have to do if you get pregnant.
(and vice versa-offering the choice to stay at work for the women and men which want to-with centres and kindergartens and a good payment)

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Well of course it has to do with what fields men and women go into, but traditionally women have stayed out of things like corporate finance and STEM. Currently out of all the fortune 500 companies, only 18 have women running them. But that is a number that is growing as the times go on and past prejudices are buried and women find their ways into previously inaccessible fields. My school is aggressively looking to up the number of women enrolled in STEM classes.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

I call horse shit on the whole thing. Look where I come from (the UK) we get paid by the hour. I get a set amount for every hour I work, this is the same regardless of what gender you are....equality, see it's easy. It's been that way ever since I started working. So I don't know how people can say women get less than men. The only way that would be true is if they worked less hours. Which as far as I know they don't.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Yes, when there's an option to decide the amount given, women often make less than men. For example, the salary range for a particular job might be $30-$40k. Men will frequently be started more toward the 40 end of the scale than women. I've seen it happen many, many, many times. The idea I've been told is that men are the providers of the family, so they need to make more money.

That's anecdotal evidence, of course, but I doubt I just happened to encounter the few people in the country who think that way.

 

[Bertylicious]

Both me an' the missus are factory workers, and she gets paid more than I do. Her hourly wage is about a euro higher than mine, and her night shift rates are double mine. The only benefit I enjoy over her is double pay on Sunday night.

So yeah, there's a bit of a gap, but it's got more to do with her being in a more aggressive union than me. While we both do manual labor, we're in different fields, she does fabrics and I do steel work. Now there's a macho line of work if I ever saw one.

But the pay... Her trainee-salary was better than my regular salary, for crying out loud. I don't really have a problem with it, seeing as how we're using our money together, but still, it should be me whining about the monetary gap instead of her.

That's pretty wack. Are there no diffences between you? Do you have different skills or work in different areas?

Have you ever spoken to management about this?

Also, if you joined her union would you get a pay rise?

 

[Indecipherable]

In completing my Economics degree we looked at a few peer reviewed papers on the subject and the evidence appears to be there. Unfortunately I can't copy/paste the maths nor the graphs into here but I can put in the abbreviated notes. The technique is called Oaxaca Decomposition, from the creator Ronald Oaxaca. He is a Professor of Economics at the University of Arizona, Tucson. You can read his wiki entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Oaxaca

Some findings:

The percentage of the gender wage gap that is attributable to discrimination is usually measured as a residual after productivity factors are taken into consideration.
-About 30.8% of the gender gap in wages can be explained by differences in labor market experience.
-Differences in educational attainment only explain about 0.3% of the gender wage gap.
-About 1.8% of the gender wage gap is explained by differences in the racial composition of the male and female full-time labor force. (Part of the effect of race is due to poorer quality of education and part is due to racial discrimination.)
-Even when differences in occupations and industries and differences in union/non-union status are taken into consideration, 38% of the gender wage gap remains unexplained. (Given some forms of gender discrimination, taking these factors into consideration is questionable.)

Further:

-Women, on average, earn 72% of what men earn.
-If women had the same education, experience, and race as men, their wages would be 81% of men?s wages.
-Even if women had the same industrial and occupational distribution, and the same union coverage, their wages would still only be 88% of men?s wages.

Noted difficulties in measuring discrimination:

Measuring discrimination accurately is problematic, partly because it is not possible to effectively capture all variables that systematically differ between the two groups and can affect potential productivity.
-For example, if one group is more motivated, has more innate ability or drive, then discrimination will be overestimated due to omitted factors.
-If women have greater interpersonal skills, then discrimination would be underestimated.

Another problem with measuring discrimination occurs when studies control for variables that themselves reflect the direct effects of discrimination => the impact of discrimination on the gender wage gap is underestimated.
-For example, women may be excluded from some jobs due to discrimination in hiring or promotion. Therefore, controlling for occupation and industry will lead to underestimating discrimination.

TLDR: Discrimination appears real.

 

[Woodsey]

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 thought the whole point of "women earn less than men" was that they earned less than men in the same job?

 

[Indecipherable]

Yes, when there's an option to decide the amount given, women often make less than men. For example, the salary range for a particular job might be $30-$40k. Men will frequently be started more toward the 40 end of the scale than women. I've seen it happen many, many, many times. The idea I've been told is that men are the providers of the family, so they need to make more money.

That's anecdotal evidence, of course, but I doubt I just happened to encounter the few people in the country who think that way.

Your anecdotal observations appear to be correct, see above for the analysis (not performed by me, I must stress). The studies adjust for all the things people might complain about in this thread, such as unionisation, field of work, education, length in the workforce, etc. etc. In the end when all else is held the same, women are discriminated against in the payscale.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Ok, you've sprung a bit of a personal trap. No, I don't think we can balance out pay differences attributed to different career options, and no, I don't necessarily think we should for its own sake. Not commenting on whether pay rates for each job are reasonable, because I wouldn't know, but women and men overall earning the same amount of money is not a worthy end goal, and it's silly to reform anything to make that the case. Where individual rates of pay differ based on gender alone, of course that's crap and should be stopped (although that said, I'm not aware of many cases where that happens). But because of my unsupported belief that women and men suit different jobs, as opposed to everyone being a blank slate and society being the only reason there is any disparity in careers, I don't think it will even itself out. In first-world countries, people have the freedom to choose their careers, pretty much. With that being the case, women apparently still choose different careers than men. If it does become equal over time, fine, but if it doesn't, I don't think that means society is still sexist or intervention is needed.

 

[Dogstile]

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)

I don't think that's what they meant. A man and a women can both get into business working the same job, what they're saying is that the man is more likely to ask for a raise/promotion than the woman is, therefore making more money while remaining in the same field.

Not that I agree with that sentiment, but I figured i'd clear it up.

 

[Something Amyss]

but it does seem like when this issue is brought into a debate, it's unfortunately using skewed data.

Yet this seems to ignore any social context, so your "unskewed" data isn't exactly straight.

Let me ask you this: do you think all people have identical opportunity? Because if they do, that's the end of the story. If gender informs not only what jobs you're likely to get, but what education you're likely to get and how you are likely to be treated, then pointing out something like women tending to get into lower-paying fields is in itself skewing the argument.

 

[teebeeohh]

yes.
at least in Germany women in the same position as men earn an average of 21% less(this was 2011, i think).
and no, this is not on average, considering women working less and in lower paying jobs, there are people who do the exact same job within a company and women get payed less. and saying that there are fewer women in high-paying job does not make this OK.

 

[CaptainKarma]

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)

I don't think that's what they meant. A man and a women can both get into business working the same job, what they're saying is that the man is more likely to ask for a raise/promotion than the woman is, therefore making more money while remaining in the same field.

Not that I agree with that sentiment, but I figured i'd clear it up.

It's worse than just "more likely to ask for a raise", men are much more likely to get given a raise. There's pretty solid research (on a mobile now so i can't find it, but its readily googleable and pretty generally accepted) about perceptions of workers asking for raises. Men are "driven, determined" etc but women tend to be demonised as "nagging, battleaxes" and so are less likly to both put themselves forwards or recieve a raise. There's also the classic research of gender-swapped job application forms. Use identical CVs, one with a male name, one with a female. The male form is much more likely to be promoted/given high paying jobs.

 

[Dogstile]

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)

I don't think that's what they meant. A man and a women can both get into business working the same job, what they're saying is that the man is more likely to ask for a raise/promotion than the woman is, therefore making more money while remaining in the same field.

Not that I agree with that sentiment, but I figured i'd clear it up.

It's worse than just "more likely to ask for a raise", men are much more likely to get given a raise. There's pretty solid research (on a mobile now so i can't find it, but its readily googleable and pretty generally accepted) about perceptions of workers asking for raises. Men are "driven, determined" etc but women tend to be demonised as "nagging, battleaxes" and so are less likly to both put themselves forwards or recieve a raise. There's also the classic research of gender-swapped job application forms. Use identical CVs, one with a male name, one with a female. The male form is much more likely to be promoted/given high paying jobs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with their point, i'd just clear it up as their point was taken the wrong way. I'm actually with you on this one but arguing a point that you're not getting in the first place is a bad place to start.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Women are vastly more likely to experience significant separation from the workforce due to childbirth and raising a family. Thus, on average, a woman will have less experience than men of similar age and will be paid less for it.

I remember taking a class though where the argument was that the mere expectation that a woman would eventually have kids and either take significant time off or leave the company, regardless of the woman's actual intentions, led to a favoring of men's salaries because they were thought to be the long term prospects and should thus be trained and compensated as such, regardless of individual competency.

I've heard of the same practice many times as well. But we can all agree that this is terrible, right? Sometimes I can't tell if this is stated as justification for paying women less/less likely to hire them for a position, or just pointing out that it's something that happens.

 

[Gorrath]

I want to share a bit about my experiences as a manager and the sorts of things that can create differences that may or may not be accounted for in studies that are done on this subject.

I have 23 employees under me, 3 of which are supervisors. Of the 20 non-superviros who work for me, 13 are male and 7 are female. Now one of the most valuable qualities in anyone working for me is their willingness to work overtime. Of my employees, 5 male and 1 female are willing to regularly help cover our open shifts. So, when raises come up, I push hard for our employees who do a good job, come to work when they are supposed to and who sacrfice tehir free time to help cover the OT to get those raises.

Since most of those on my staff who are willing to work OT are male, their wages have gone up faster than my average female employee. In the past year or so, 2 of my supervisor positions have come open. Part of the supervisors job is to cover open shifts when we have call offs that cannot be covered any other way. This means that their willingness to work OT as a regular employee becomes a factor in selecting for promotion.

Of those who applied for promotion to supervisor, I had 5 males who regularly worked OT and 0 females. The one female I did have who worked the OT was not interested in the position, despite my encouragement to apply. So if someone were to come in and do an analysis of pay distribution and promotions in my department, they would find a major gender discrepencies, despite the fact that education, time in service, write-ups and other factors might be largely the same.

Obviously this cannot be extrapolated to other industries or even as being representative of my own industry as a whole, it simply illustrates that certain factors that may not be controlled for in studies could have potentially massive ramifications on the disparity of pay and promotion between genders. Approx. 33% of my staff is female, only one of them have received a raise and none have been promoted in the last year, and that taken alone can look pretty damning if one does not understand the reasons for it.

 

[Snownine]

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)

Exactly, they are in the same field but not the same position within their field. That makes a huge difference. What you quoted does not discredit what FavouriteDream said.