Wage Gap

[BigRedBuster]

OK...this has always been a subject that has interested me. I am all for advancement of women in the work place. I have a mom, sister, wife and two daughters who all have worked, are working or will be working and I want them to have the same opportunities that I and my son have.

 

I also have worked many places. Some were very large companies and some were very small. I have owned businesses that have hired both men and women.

 

My frustration in learning more about this subject was that I personally wouldn't see wage discrimination against women in the work place in the jobs I have had. I have had female bosses before that were fantastic and very well compensated. I didn't see them getting less than their counterparts who were men. I have personally advanced women in our company to management positions and we don't pay them less than a man in a similar position.

So...it has always been of interest to figure out what they are talking about and where these stats come from. If you listen to Hillary, you would think that women are purposely being paid less and it is a constant problem.

 

I found these cards on Vox about the subject and some parts very interesting.

 

VOX

 

I'm going to quote a couple parts and try not to make this post too long. One stat that is said many times in politics is that women make 78% of what men make. I always took this as meaning, a woman makes 78% less than a man doing the same job. That isn't necessarily the case.

 

The wage gap is the product of many factors, ranging from outright employer discrimination to differences in the occupations men and women choose and the hours they work.

 

 

 

Meaning, yes, there is some discrimination. However, much of the gap is caused by the careers women choose compared to men and the number of hours they choose to work.

 

I personally have experienced this in the work place when trying to promote people. I have noticed that more women are less prone to accept a change in jobs that will increase their pay than men.

 

Women are also less interested than men are in becoming the boss, as a Pew study found in late 2013.

 

 

I think this many times is a confidence issue. Men tend to have more confidence that they can jump into a job and do it. I have a woman right now that I have tried to get to change jobs 3 times and she turns me down every time (immediately). She doesn't even give it a second thought.

 

Education does not seem to be holding women back. I read an article not too long ago that more college kids are female than male. This seems to back that up.

 

That trend is true across larger swaths of the young population as well. A 2013 Pew Research Center analysis shows that 25-to-32-year-old women started to surpass men in education in the mid-1990s, and today are starting their careers with college degrees in far greater numbers than their male counterparts.

 

 

 

 

Anyway...If you're interested in the subject, I suggest reading the cards in the link I posted. Discrimination still exists. However, I think it's important to understand there are other factors in play too.

[cornographic]

I think your assessment is good. The issue is probably hyped too much, though there is still somewhat of a problem, especially at the highest levels--i.e., not as many women CEOs, etc.

[BigRedBuster]

I think your assessment is good. The issue is probably hyped too much, though there is still somewhat of a problem, especially at the highest levels--i.e., not as many women CEOs, etc.

True.....however, a smaller percentage of women want to be CEOs.

[cm husker]

The best studies I've seen basically conclude that when all factors are controlled for (i.e., type of occupation, experience, etc), there's a 9% wage gap that is caused by unaccounted for factors. That would include straight up discrimination. The question is, how do we hammer out that part of the gap. Personally, I don't think it can be done through government regulation. I don't even know what that would look like in the real world.

 

 

The problem I have about the $0.79 figure is that it compares apples to oranges.

 

 

Question: we frame this as "women are being underpaid" but should it be thought of as "men are being overpaid"?

[knapplc]

I think this many times is a confidence issue. Men tend to have more confidence that they can jump into a job and do it. I have a woman right now that I have tried to get to change jobs 3 times and she turns me down every time (immediately). She doesn't even give it a second thought.

 

 

There could be many factors at play regarding confidence. Many times, women won't even apply for positions because they're told, or informed subtly, that they won't be promoted. Sometimes it's an inference, sometimes they're wrong about that inference, but whatever the reason, there's a "chilling effect" that prevents them from even trying.

 

Some people are just happy where they are. I've tried to encourage a coworker to apply for a Director's position over the past year, but she steadfastly refused, and now the position is filled and it's too late. The bottom line is, while she's qualified and I think she'd do an excellent job, she likes the position she's in and she doesn't want the responsibilities of the higher position. That's not a gender thing, it's a personal thing.

[BigRedBuster]

Question: we frame this as "women are being underpaid" but should it be thought of as "men are being overpaid"?

Some definitely are.

[cornographic]

 

I think your assessment is good. The issue is probably hyped too much, though there is still somewhat of a problem, especially at the highest levels--i.e., not as many women CEOs, etc.

True.....however, a smaller percentage of women want to be CEOs.

 

Been a men's club, but I'm sure that will change bit by bit over time.

[cornographic]

 

I think this many times is a confidence issue. Men tend to have more confidence that they can jump into a job and do it. I have a woman right now that I have tried to get to change jobs 3 times and she turns me down every time (immediately). She doesn't even give it a second thought.

 

 

There could be many factors at play regarding confidence. Many times, women won't even apply for positions because they're told, or informed subtly, that they won't be promoted. Sometimes it's an inference, sometimes they're wrong about that inference, but whatever the reason, there's a "chilling effect" that prevents them from even trying.

 

Some people are just happy where they are. I've tried to encourage a coworker to apply for a Director's position over the past year, but she steadfastly refused, and now the position is filled and it's too late. The bottom line is, while she's qualified and I think she'd do an excellent job, she likes the position she's in and she doesn't want the responsibilities of the higher position. That's not a gender thing, it's a personal thing.

 

May be a family thing too, as in, they want to have some time to take care of the kids. Now there's the deal where professional single women wake up when they are 40+ and what not and realize in the pursuit of career they forgot to have a family and are lonely as hell.

[BigRedBuster]

The bottom line is, while she's qualified and I think she'd do an excellent job, she likes the position she's in and she doesn't want the responsibilities of the higher position. That's not a gender thing, it's a personal thing.

 

 

 

 

Sometimes yes. However, as the 2013 study shows in the link I posted, a lower percentage of women want to be the "boss" or add responsibilities. Or, put another way, they are happy in the position they have....like you pointed out with this woman.

 

I know any one person's personal experience is a very small sample size. However, like you, I have experienced this with women.

 

The problem with this is that we can't assume all women feel that way and we need to make sure the women who DO want to advance, have the opportunity.

 

Your comments about what could be causing much of the confidence issues is well noted and I'm sure there is some of that.

[84HuskerLaw]

I can tell you from my personal experience in corporate business setting in which I have worked for many years as well as those settings I was personally well aware of because of my position in consulting and finance services, the following:

 

One of the reasons women may be 'held back' or not pursue positions in management and supervisory roles is that women do NOT want to be bossed by other women. I recall interviewing for an open senior VP position and as President I interviewed a number of well qualified women. However, when discussing the candidates with the management and senior staff who would be working directly with the individuals involved, the women co-workers immediately raised and objected to working for female bosses. They all (this was a reasonable number of them too) were very determined they wanted a male in the position vs a female. Women do not want to be subject to the dictates of another woman. Not really sure why but that was my experience. This would certainly influence to some degree the numbers of women climbing the corporate ladder into senior roles which of course would therefore limit the average earnings presumably.

[zoogs]

 

I think this many times is a confidence issue. Men tend to have more confidence that they can jump into a job and do it. I have a woman right now that I have tried to get to change jobs 3 times and she turns me down every time (immediately). She doesn't even give it a second thought.

 

 

There could be many factors at play regarding confidence. Many times, women won't even apply for positions because they're told, or informed subtly, that they won't be promoted. Sometimes it's an inference, sometimes they're wrong about that inference, but whatever the reason, there's a "chilling effect" that prevents them from even trying.

 

Some people are just happy where they are. I've tried to encourage a coworker to apply for a Director's position over the past year, but she steadfastly refused, and now the position is filled and it's too late. The bottom line is, while she's qualified and I think she'd do an excellent job, she likes the position she's in and she doesn't want the responsibilities of the higher position. That's not a gender thing, it's a personal thing.

 

 

Yeah, it's kind of a slow change. We're all of us used to a male-dominated world, especially in leadership, and there's a weight to that. In some ways it's subtle; other times it's overt. Things like not smiling enough or being shrill or being a bitch tend to be things men are not scrutinized for. 'Glass ceilings' come to mind. Over time, perceptions and paradigms should change but we're in the midst of that.

 

This discussion calls to mind for me a politician who answers a young woman asking him a question about social security with "Did somebody ask you to ask that?" in surprise. And telling another woman with a substantive question, "I don't have Taylor Swift tickets for you."

 

I think there's an unspoken assumption that maybe a lot of women just aren't cut out for leadership roles, or are too delicate or emotional or lacking in ambition. To the extent that this is true, it's a product of status quo inertia that will take a long time yet to be broken away. But there'll be some day when women will have grown up thinking, "I'm gonna be President!" or "I'm gonna be a world famous scientist!" or "I'm gonna be a CEO!" in greater numbers. The future Albert Einsteins, Stephen Hawkings, Isaac Newtons...Carl Sagan, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, I could go on forever with these -- but I won't even pretend I can name as close to as many aspirational female figures. But I can name a lot of pretty ones.

[Moiraine]

Meaning, yes, there is some discrimination. However, much of the gap is caused by the careers women choose compared to men and the number of hours they choose to work.

 

 

One of the reasons women may be 'held back' or not pursue positions in management and supervisory roles is that women do NOT want to be bossed by other women. I recall interviewing for an open senior VP position and as President I interviewed a number of well qualified women. However, when discussing the candidates with the management and senior staff who would be working directly with the individuals involved, the women co-workers immediately raised and objected to working for female bosses. They all (this was a reasonable number of them too) were very determined they wanted a male in the position vs a female. Women do not want to be subject to the dictates of another woman. Not really sure why but that was my experience. This would certainly influence to some degree the numbers of women climbing the corporate ladder into senior roles which of course would therefore limit the average earnings presumably.

 

 

To the first bolded, do women do jobs that pay less, or did the jobs pay less because women were the ones doing them? I have no idea. I read an article that tried to show pay got less as fields increased the number of women, but most of the article was pretty crappy. For instance they were comparing some kind of HR job to Information Technology. I'm sorry but Info Tech is harder than HR, so comparing those to make the point doesn't work. There were far more men in InfoTech and they got paid more, but that's because it's a more difficult field.

 

But I'm thinking about teachers and nurses. I see no reason why teachers should get paid as little as they do. It's easy to get a teaching degree, but that's because the pay doesn't attract many smart people. Not because the job is easy. Don't get me wrong; I'm not calling teachers dumb. I'm just saying that dumb people can become teachers. I know this from firsthand experience in my teacher education classes. There were loads of ed. students who couldn't even string a coherent paragraph together. Luckily there are some smart people out there who become teachers despite the low pay. That was sort of a segue.

 

Anyhow, I like to think things will normalize eventually. I mean, women have only been working a variety of jobs for about 40 years now. Before then they were teachers or nurses for the most part. So we shouldn't expect an immediate change. Men now in their 60s didn't grow up having women doing the same jobs as they did or having women as their bosses. My mom told me a couple weeks ago when she was in high school they would tell the students that men got paid more over their lifetimes and women got paid less and that's the way it was and there was nothing wrong with it. That wasn't that long ago. She still works. (She's a boss but in a female-dominated job).

 

To the second bolded, women are also not used to having female bosses. That's my guess for the why. If you grow up never seeing that and aren't used to it, then you might see it as something you don't want. Even if you're a woman.

[teachercd]

Hmmmmm

[BigRedBuster]

 

Meaning, yes, there is some discrimination. However, much of the gap is caused by the careers women choose compared to men and the number of hours they choose to work.

 

 

One of the reasons women may be 'held back' or not pursue positions in management and supervisory roles is that women do NOT want to be bossed by other women. I recall interviewing for an open senior VP position and as President I interviewed a number of well qualified women. However, when discussing the candidates with the management and senior staff who would be working directly with the individuals involved, the women co-workers immediately raised and objected to working for female bosses. They all (this was a reasonable number of them too) were very determined they wanted a male in the position vs a female. Women do not want to be subject to the dictates of another woman. Not really sure why but that was my experience. This would certainly influence to some degree the numbers of women climbing the corporate ladder into senior roles which of course would therefore limit the average earnings presumably.

 

 

To the first bolded, do women do jobs that pay less, or did the jobs pay less because women were the ones doing them? I have no idea. I read an article that tried to show pay got less as fields increased the number of women, but most of the article was pretty crappy. For instance they were comparing some kind of HR job to Information Technology. I'm sorry but Info Tech is harder than HR, so comparing those to make the point doesn't work. There were far more men in InfoTech and they got paid more, but that's because it's a more difficult field.

 

But I'm thinking about teachers and nurses. I see no reason why teachers should get paid as little as they do. It's easy to get a teaching degree, but that's because the pay doesn't attract many smart people. Not because the job is easy. Don't get me wrong; I'm not calling teachers dumb. I'm just saying that dumb people can become teachers. I know this from firsthand experience in my teacher education classes. There were loads of ed. students who couldn't even string a coherent paragraph together. Luckily there are some smart people out there who become teachers despite the low pay. That was sort of a segue.

 

Anyhow, I like to think things will normalize eventually. I mean, women have only been working a variety of jobs for about 40 years now. Before then they were teachers or nurses for the most part. So we shouldn't expect an immediate change. Men now in their 60s didn't grow up having women doing the same jobs as they did or having women as their bosses. My mom told me a couple weeks ago when she was in high school they would tell the students that men got paid more over their lifetimes and women got paid less and that's the way it was and there was nothing wrong with it. That wasn't that long ago. She still works. (She's a boss but in a female-dominated job).

 

To the second bolded, women are also not used to having female bosses. That's my guess for the why. If you grow up never seeing that and aren't used to it, then you might see it as something you don't want. Even if you're a woman.

 

I think using a stereo type for a job as being female or male is misguided. Just looking at teachers, our school is sitting on 44% male teachers. More and more men are going into nursing also.

 

When kids get out of HS and choose what they are going to go into, they have a pretty good idea what jobs pay. Or...at least they should. Both men and women are choosing teaching.

 

Fact is, some people are just drawn to certain jobs and they aren't as concerned about the pay. Other people are more motivated by pay and seek out positions that pay more. That's a personality thing not some horrible symptom of wide spread horrible treatment of women in the work place.

 

My point in this thread is that I constantly hear about this huge pay gap between men and women and it's always put out as these horrible male bosses that methodically keep women down.

 

Example....I have two daughters. One is in college in premed. The other one is going to start college next year in nursing. Well...chances are, the one in premed is going to make more money than the one going into nursing. Assume the oldest one is male. Would their pay difference be a sign of some type of discrimination? No. The main reason why the second daughter is not going into premed is that she doesn't want to commit herself to go to that much college.

 

We need to keep working to make sure discrimination doesn't exist. But, I wish the political rhetoric around the issue would change. But....that wouldn't get as many votes.

[Moiraine]

It's not misguided. It's going on actual data. Unless you think I'm saying those jobs are meant for women, which I'm not. The proportion of male teachers has actually decreased over the years. But it is about 40% for secondary schools.

 

The fact is there is a discrepancy, as someone posted earlier that it's around 9% when accounting for other factors. This is something that should continue to be fought for until it's close to 0%. But that doesn't mean it's not exaggerated.

 

One thing I read about a couple years ago is that women in college who are just as capable/do as well as their male counterparts feel less confident about their own abilities.

 

Another study I read say that boys and girls have super high confidence in their abilities until they're around 10, then it drops for both but more severely for the girls. Then they both gradually recover but the men reach their child confidence peak again around age 50 and women never fully get back to it.