The Gender Wage Gap Lie

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,879
Reputation
4,949
Daps
69,418
The Gender Wage Gap Lie
You know that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” line you’ve heard a hundred times? It’s not true.
By Hanna Rosin|Posted Friday, Aug. 30, 2013, at 12:49 PM


130830_DX_WageGapStats.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

When men and women do the same job, the wage gap is less than the widely report "77 cents on the dollar."
Photo by Siri Stafford/Lifesize/Thinkstock

How many times have you heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign. Women’s groups say it every April 9, which is Equal Pay Day. In preparation for Labor Day, a group protesting outside Macy’s this week repeated it, too, holding up signs and sending out press releases saying “women make $.77 to every dollar men make on the job.” I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.

How to get a more accurate measure? First, instead of comparing annual wages, start by comparing average weekly wages. This is considered a slightly more accurate measure because it eliminates variables like time off during the year or annual bonuses (and yes, men get higher bonuses, but let’s shelve that for a moment in our quest for a pure wage gap number). By this measure, women earn 81 percent of what men earn, although it varies widely by race. African-American women, for example, earn 94 percent of what African-American men earn in a typical week. Then, when you restrict the comparison to men and women working 40 hours a week, the gap narrows to 87 percent.


But we’re still not close to measuring women “doing the same work as men.” For that, we’d have to adjust for many other factors that go into determining salary. Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn did that in a recent paper, “The Gender Pay Gap.”.”They first accounted for education and experience. That didn’t shift the gap very much, because women generally have at least as much and usually more education than men, and since the 1980s they have been gaining the experience. The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying. If you account for those differences, and then compare a woman and a man doing the same job, the pay gap narrows to 91 percent. So, you could accurately say in that Obama ad that, “women get paid 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.”

The point here is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we’ve missed the actual challenges. It would in fact be much simpler if the problem were rank sexism and all you had to do was enlighten the nation’s bosses or throw the Equal Pay Act at them. But the 91 percent statistic suggests a much more complicated set of problems. Is it that women are choosing lower-paying professions or that our country values women’s professions less? And why do women work fewer hours? Is this all discrimination or, as economist Claudia Goldin likes to say, also a result of “rational choices” women make about how they want to conduct their lives.

Goldin and Lawrence Katz have done about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of men’s and women’s wages as exists. (They talk about it here in a Freakonomicsdiscussion.) They tracked male and female MBAs graduating from the University of Chicago from 1990 to 2006. First they controlled for previous job experience, GPA, chosen profession, business-school course and job title. Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries. But 10 to 15 years later, the gap widens to 40 percent, almost all of which is due to career interruptions and fewer hours. The gap is even wider for women business school graduates who marry very high earners. (Note: Never marry a rich man).

If this midcareer gap is due to discrimination, it’s much deeper than “male boss looks at female hire and decides she is worth less, and then pats her male colleague on the back and slips him a bonus.”
It’s the deeper, more systemic discrimination of inadequate family-leave policies and childcare options, of women defaulting to being the caretakers. Or of women deciding that are suited to be nurses and teachers but not doctors. And in that more complicated discussion, you have to leave room at least for the option of choice—that women just don’t want to work the same way men do.
 
Last edited:

Un-AmericanDreamer

Simp City
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,740
Reputation
1,312
Daps
30,392
I'm interested to hear from the coli's residential feminists have to say on the matter. This is essentially the same argument that warren farrell laid out in the myth of male power. I do think that women who marry aren't as hungry as their male breadwinner counterparts or even their single female cohorts because they have no real incentive to be as long as its expected that men provide for women financially speaking. I think women are more likely to rest on their laurels. Is it sexism? I don't know but at the heart of all this is the man/woman relationship dynamic. I think the cause of such disparities arises from our courting expectations rather than institutional anti-womanisms.
 
Last edited:

PartyHeart

All Star
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,629
Reputation
515
Daps
6,044
Reppin
NULL
The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry.

This is actually where the article falls on its face. Its well documented that once a professional does begin to become highly populated by women workers, the salary dips. This is not a coincidence and has happened in several professions, the most notable of which has been seen in education.

Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries.

This fails to take into account the different ways in which females and males are viewed for negotiating and how the same tactics in negotiation are viewed when they are done by a male and then when they are done by a female. Women are double bound. Be aggressive and be a bytch and potentially don't get hired or get fired because of your so called 'domineering attitude' or don't be aggressive and get passed over and then ultimately blamed for the fact that you didn't get paid as much as the man who could be aggressive without it counting against him.
 
Last edited:

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
89,625
Reputation
3,743
Daps
159,776
Reppin
Brooklyn
Not sure if I can take this at face value, but if it's true great.
 
Last edited:

ogc163

Superstar
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
9,027
Reputation
2,150
Daps
22,325
Reppin
Bronx, NYC
Yeah when you do any wage comparison it is important to look at different variables. For example many if not most of the females in my class want to go into legal fields where they already know/have been forewarned that the market will not compensate them on par with students who want to do M&A, Energy Law, and Patent/IP law.
 

Un-AmericanDreamer

Simp City
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,740
Reputation
1,312
Daps
30,392
This is actually where the article falls on its face. Its well documented that once a professional does begin to become highly populated by women workers, the salary dips. This is not a coincidence and has happened in several professions, the most notable of which has been seen in education.

For this to hold up, the women in these professions work behaviors would have to mirror that of men. Male and female workers are not the same. How many of these women are single? how many of these women are getting pregnant? how many of these women are working fewer hours? How many of these women prioritize comfort to risk and better pay? Market forces adjust according to this.It should be no surprise then that the salary would dip quite a bit if all your workers make different decisions.

98% of workplace fatalities are men, that tells me a lot about how differently men and women "work".

This fails to take into account the different ways in which females and males are viewed for negotiating and how the same tactics in negotiation are viewed when they are done by a male and then when they are done by a female. Women are double bound. Be aggressive and be a bytch and potentially don't get hired or get fired because of your so called 'domineering attitude' or don't be aggressive and get passed over and then ultimately blamed for the fact that you didn't get paid as much as the man who could be aggressive without it counting against him.

This could be true but at the same time, you got big girl panties now. No one is going to hold your hand and shyt is going to magically fall into your lap , this ain't the dating world where men cater to your needs.You have to go out here and get yours, be assertive if you can't be aggressive. Closed mouths don't get fed. Women got to take the risk if they want to be the boss. Not asking for shyt that's due to you is just dumb.
 
Last edited:

NZA

LOL
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
22,349
Reputation
4,559
Daps
57,500
Reppin
Run Thru U Like Skattebo
it's an obvious problem when you look at the gender changes in industry and how that correlates to compensation and prestige (teaching), but the issue is very confusing when people try to make blanket statements about the economy as a whole since women often exercise their right to choose less lucrative paths, and simply cant be relied on to do extremely dangerous, physical, yet high paying jobs (coal mining, alaskan crab fishing etc.)

i think the focus should be on making workplaces more parent-friendly, so parents can spend more time dealing with family stuff without sacrificing performance at work.since women overwhelmingly take over household roles while still working, this would help them the most, and maybe reduce the forces that may be cutting into their pay.
 

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,353
Reputation
725
Daps
10,726
Reppin
NYC
The Gender Wage Gap Lie
You know that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” line you’ve heard a hundred times? It’s not true.
By Hanna Rosin|Posted Friday, Aug. 30, 2013, at 12:49 PM


130830_DX_WageGapStats.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

When men and women do the same job, the wage gap is less than the widely report "77 cents on the dollar."
Photo by Siri Stafford/Lifesize/Thinkstock

How many times have you heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign. Women’s groups say it every April 9, which is Equal Pay Day. In preparation for Labor Day, a group protesting outside Macy’s this week repeated it, too, holding up signs and sending out press releases saying “women make $.77 to every dollar men make on the job.” I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.
How to get a more accurate measure? First, instead of comparing annual wages, start by comparing average weekly wages. This is considered a slightly more accurate measure because it eliminates variables like time off during the year or annual bonuses (and yes, men get higher bonuses, but let’s shelve that for a moment in our quest for a pure wage gap number). By this measure, women earn 81 percent of what men earn, although it varies widely by race. African-American women, for example, earn 94 percent of what African-American men earn in a typical week. Then, when you restrict the comparison to men and women working 40 hours a week, the gap narrows to 87 percent.

But we’re still not close to measuring women “doing the same work as men.” For that, we’d have to adjust for many other factors that go into determining salary. Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn did that in a recent paper, “The Gender Pay Gap.”.”They first accounted for education and experience. That didn’t shift the gap very much, because women generally have at least as much and usually more education than men, and since the 1980s they have been gaining the experience. The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying. If you account for those differences, and then compare a woman and a man doing the same job, the pay gap narrows to 91 percent. So, you could accurately say in that Obama ad that, “women get paid 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.”

The point here is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we’ve missed the actual challenges. It would in fact be much simpler if the problem were rank sexism and all you had to do was enlighten the nation’s bosses or throw the Equal Pay Act at them. But the 91 percent statistic suggests a much more complicated set of problems. Is it that women are choosing lower-paying professions or that our country values women’s professions less? And why do women work fewer hours? Is this all discrimination or, as economist Claudia Goldin likes to say, also a result of “rational choices” women make about how they want to conduct their lives.

Goldin and Lawrence Katz have done about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of men’s and women’s wages as exists. (They talk about it here in a Freakonomicsdiscussion.) They tracked male and female MBAs graduating from the University of Chicago from 1990 to 2006. First they controlled for previous job experience, GPA, chosen profession, business-school course and job title. Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries. But 10 to 15 years later, the gap widens to 40 percent, almost all of which is due to career interruptions and fewer hours. The gap is even wider for women business school graduates who marry very high earners. (Note: Never marry a rich man).

If this midcareer gap is due to discrimination, it’s much deeper than “male boss looks at female hire and decides she is worth less, and then pats her male colleague on the back and slips him a bonus.”
It’s the deeper, more systemic discrimination of inadequate family-leave policies and childcare options, of women defaulting to being the caretakers. Or of women deciding that are suited to be nurses and teachers but not doctors. And in that more complicated discussion, you have to leave room at least for the option of choice—that women just don’t want to work the same way men do.

Having done a lot of research on this, I can say there's still a lot of mystification around it. Unfortunately, a lot of people still parrot the 77 cents thing, despite it having no specificity. On the other hand, there are still many problems. The adjusted wage gap is still almost 10% (at its highest,) which is disturbing, since most of the recent studies, like the CONSAD one, control for almost every variable we can currently manage with our data- with all those controlled, there's no reason for a woman in virtually the same position with the same background as a man to be making that much less money for the same amount of work. More has to be done to see why that still exists. Beyond that, more ignorant folks tend not to focus on social factors that mediate people's choices to enter various careers, and also things like glass ceilings, which are not accurately measured (or measurable) in these studies about the adjusted wage gap. The "liberal" (conservative, libertarian) argument that there couldn't possibly be any social factors that lead to demographic trends in career choice (beyond men being generally physically stronger, or other biological factors) or that those factors shouldn't matter in social analysis is weak as hell. It's the same logic that attempts to cover up racial discrimination by pretending there are no institutional factors that influence, constrain, or enable choices.
 
Top