9 ms·

The wage gap just doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because different occupations create different amounts of value. Why can't people accept this fact? Why can't

• wanderr 9y ago
  That's not what the gender pay gap is. It's about inequal pay for the same work.
  • fsaneq2 9y ago
    That has been proven false, negligible or within noise over and over. The version stubbornly pushed is simply that median_salary(all women) != median_salary(all men).
  • _bearMountain 9y ago
    sitation?
    • abetusk 9y ago
      Did you mean "citation"? You can find a definition on Wikipedia [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
      • lwansbrough 9y ago
        I'm thankful that the wikipedia entry makes a point of separating the two definitions. While I generally nod along with the sentiment provided by top level comment, it's important to understand that there are different definitions; however irrelevant (IMO) one of the definitions seems to be (for the reasons again mentioned by the top level comment.) One thing I think jecjec has neglected to consider, at least in writing, is that the history of our society and the roles women have played in it do have an impact on what fields women consider. There are always those who go against the grain (read: against what our culture "expects") -- women in technology, men in early childhood education, but they are outliers. Perhaps there is sound reason for some of these differences, but I suspect their could be a lot more even distribution between genders for many fields if we had the opportunity to hit the reset button. Perhaps that's what the gender pay gap is about.
        • mpweiher 9y ago
          Confounder: if that were the case (society pressures women into making these choices), you would expect that the countries that are most egalitarian and most free would produce the most equal outcomes in terms of chosen profession. Surprisingly (at least to me!), the exact opposite is the case: the more egalitarian the society, the more the genders self-segregate into different professions. The men into more technical ("systematizing") professions, the women into more people-oriented professions. For example, a recent BBC article asked "Why is Russia so good at encouraging women into tech?"[1] Fortunately, the article contains the answer: economic necessity. "Most of the girls we talked to from other countries had a slightly playful approach to Stem, whereas in Russia, even the very youngest were extremely focused on the fact that their future employment opportunities were more likely to be rooted in Stem subjects." So women in Russia follow the money, women in the west follow their passion. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39579321 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39579321
          • lwansbrough 9y ago
            > you would expect that the countries that are most egalitarian and most free would produce the most equal outcomes in terms of chosen profession I think they will, in time. There are still CEOs around who remember when women were mostly (almost exclusively?) secretaries. I think it's fair to want equality now, but not necessarily fair to expect society to move towards it in such a rapid fashion. Not to mention, even though we're a free society there are still endless reminders that men have these specific jobs, and women have those specific jobs. It's getting better (because people are pushing for it) but films are a usually an example of this: mostly male main characters, most business/finance/tech movies revolve around male characters. Most people to idolize in tech are male. I guess it would be hard to measure, but I'd be surprised to learn this pattern didn't have an impact on a young mind, male or female.
            • mpweiher 9y ago
              > I think they will, in time. But they don't, regardless of your beliefs. This isn't about expectations or wishes. That data is in, and the most developed and most egalitarian countries (scandinavian) have the greatest self-segregation. And the less developed and the less egalitarian the country, the less the self-segregation, pretty much linearly. Incidentally, this also explains the drop in female CS enrollment over time. I think we can all agree that the past was less equal than the present. So if your theory were correct, CS enrollment of women would have increased, compared to the past. However, CS enrollment of women has decreased, and people have been twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain this via the "oppression" narrative. However, no such pretzel-logic is required if you accept the data: men have, on average, different preferences than women, and as societies get more free, those differences express themselves more. Easy peasy. > mostly male main characters But why is that? Is it because people don't want to look at women? Or is it because males tend, strongly, towards riskier behavior that makes for more plausibly interesting story lines? I think you are confusing cause and effect. > Most people to idolize in tech are male. Most people in tech are male, because of self-segregation, and therefore the ones that people will idolize will also be predominantly male. Factor in the fact that males tend to be much more prone to risk-taking, and the effect should probably be even larger than it is. > an impact on a young mind The "Blank Slate" hypothesis. Please read Pinker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
      • AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        According to that article, the 77 cents on the dollar number popularized in political rhetoric is not measuring equal pay for equal work. After controlling for some obvious factors it drops to a single digit percentage. And the authors of the same study point out that even the remainder could be predominantly a result of other uncontrolled factors. > Noting that the raw wage gap is the result of a number of factors, the report said that the raw gap should not be used to justify corrective action, adding that "Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
  • mpweiher 9y ago
    Yes, that is what it sounds like and how it is presented. But when you look closely, it turns out that the statistics used to support the "gender pay gap" argument are most definitely not about unequal pay for the same work. Instead, the widely quoted 77 cents to the dollar (now 79) is simply the median earnings of (all) men compared to the median earnings of (all) women, not accounting for any confounders[1], such as hours worked, experience or field. So the name is also a misnomer (almost certainly intentional), because it is not a "pay gap", but an "earnings gap". An actual pay gap is illegal, illogical and grounds for lawsuits. Why is it illogical (in addition to illegal)? For a lot of companies, pay is their major cost factor. If you could save 20% on that without any other negative consequences, at least some companies would hire all women and make a killing. And if you assume that people's support of "The Patriarchy" trumps their greed...well I don't really know what to think, and I'd also point out that there are female company owners (in fact, women own more than 50% and control an even larger portion of wealth in the US) [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gende...
    • wanderr 9y ago
      Maybe that's what it used to be based on but more recent things I've seen have been talking about the difference for the same work, education and experience, i.e.: "Even when comparing the sexes with the same job title at the same company and using similar education and experience, the gender pay gap persists: Men earned 2.4 percent more than women on average, down slightly from last year"[1] "Procurement Leaders recent research shows that female buyers are paid less than male buyers. That is, women are earning less for the same work." [2] "After accounting for job, industry, education and experience, Blau and Kahn determined that 38 percent of the wage gap comes from factors “unexplained.”" [3] [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-still-earn-more-than-women-with-the-same-jobs.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-still-earn-more-than-wome... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2016/03/31/women-are-still-paid-less-than-men-even-in-the-same-job/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2016/03/31/women-are-stil... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/its-2016-and-women-still-make-less-for-doing-the-same-work-as-men/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/its-2...
• jandy 9y ago
  WTF is this shit. You are embarrassing yourself, and assuming you're male you're embarrassing the rest of us who try to fix the decades of prejudice women have had to put up with. Let's not get started on stay at home fathers not being a valid thing for a man to do. WTF.
  • anon12345690 9y ago
    Different career types have different proportions of men and women so the gender-based wage gap is not real. Men can definitely stay at home if they want to, why do you think that's not valid?
  • exclusiv 9y ago
    Whoa. This is why we can't have productive discussions on real issues. White knights abound.
    • cloakandswagger 9y ago
      Can't blame the guy though. With virtue signalling as strong as his, he'll have a harem of Hacker News women soon.
      • dang 9y ago
        Even in a thread with as much shittiness as this one, this comment stands out as dregs. If you post like this again, we will ban you. You've been posting quite a few uncivil and unsubstantive comments to HN. That needs to stop if you want to continue posting here.
    • sinxoveretothex 9y ago
      I think you're going about this the wrong way. The parent commenter already indicated that they're getting emotional over this topic (assuming genuine indignation). I sincerely doubt implying they're "white knighting" is going to set the discussion on a better track. In other words, I think comments like yours are also responsible for why discussions on these topics are so unproductive. See sibling comments to yours for an idea of how your comment could be improved next time.
• panic 9y ago
  People aren't paid based on how much value they create. They're paid so they agree to work for you, and then so they don't quit working. There is a relationship here -- you're willing to pay more to keep people working on more valuable things -- but there are tons of other factors that affect a person's pay. Previous salaries, other offers, and negotiation skills often affect pay far more than actual created value. Think about it: if pay were based on how much value a person creates, why do different people on the same team doing the same job sometimes have wildly different salaries? Why do people often get raises after threatening to quit? How can salary negotiation ever work?
  • jecjec 9y ago
    On the average of millions of privately arranged employment agreements, the employee's marginal value absolutely (slightly) exceeds their salary. You have to make a strong case that the labor market does not exhibit the properties of close to perfect competition: there are many buyers, and many sellers, of labor. Sure, there are obviously exceptions to this calculation in both directions: how else can you explain Marissa Mayer's severance package? How else can you explain DHH's wage of $0 for maintaining Ruby on Rails? If you can make a compelling case on this topic you can probably get published in major academic journals.
    • panic 9y ago
      > On the average of millions of privately arranged employment agreements, the employee's marginal value absolutely (slightly) exceeds their salary. Are you saying this based on data? The actual labor market is very different from the abstract, perfectly competitive microeconomics model. It's hard to even figure out what the marginal value of a person's work is, not to mention the lack of perfect information, the difficulty of firing, the expectations around raises and pay cuts, people's varying self-conceptions of their own worth, …
• bobbington 9y ago
  Agreed. Jesus taught "a man's life doesn't consist in the abundance of his possessions". Greed is a flaw common to humanity. We sacrifice much peace and happiness needlessly because of it. I read on psychology today that women have more money and more power now than ever and yet are less happy. Unfortunately LGBTQHDKIGF stems from the feminist movement I think, and now people are so confused they can't even tell what gender they are. Different genders are good. If marriage was taken more seriously, none of this would be a problem because married couples share money anyways.
• joycey 9y ago
  The gender wage gap does exist. It's simply a fact that women earn less than men. The real question then, is why. Is it because sexist managers pay women less money than men? Are women less likely to negotiate their offers as aggressively as men? Do women on average have to work longer to get promoted (and consequently earn salary raises) and why does this happen? Is it because women are more likely to pursue careers that pay less? Is it because men are seen as more attractive when their income goes up but this doesn't hold true for women? Are women and men just biologically inclined to pursue different career paths? Does the wage gap exist because women are more likely to work part-time? Is it because women are more likely to choose to prioritize child-rearing over their career? Is it because society expects women to prioritize motherhood? Is it because managers pay women less because they assume women will be less committed to their career? Some of these possible reasons are obviously more concerning than others. If the gender wage gap is 100% due to less concerning reasons, such as women simply making the choice to prioritize motherhood over their career, then you could argue that while the gender gap exists it's not a societal problem that we need to address since it's not caused by institutional discrimination of any sort. The reality is a lot more complicated and nuanced, and it's probable that there are several reasons that can explain the gender gap, that don't necessarily compete with each other.
  • lwansbrough 9y ago
    All of those are important questions, but I think it's also important to prefix "gender wage gap" with the words "adjusted" or "unadjusted" in order to identify which problem you're talking about. All of those questions will fit into one of those two categories, and the arguments for each vary wildly. Unadjusted (~78% [1]) wage gap deals more with society's impact on a woman's wage, or a woman's intrinsic desire to pursue a career in a particular field, whereas adjusted wage gap (5-8% [1]) deals more with factors like sexism and the economic impact of hiring a woman. In my opinion, it would be worth while to tackle the adjusted wage gap in the short term, and the unadjusted wage gap in the long term, as the latter requires more dramatic changes in society, I think. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
  • fsaneq2 9y ago
    The problem is that the way the issue is (intentionally, I'm sure) presented is with charged phrases like "for every dollar a man makes, a woman only makes X cents". To a reasonable person, that sounds like it implies "for the same work" -- otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges, so they must not mean that, the reasonable person thinks. And so the reasonable person gets (rightfully) angry and it becomes a very emotional issue, even though it was based on deception. In that sense, what most people imagine when someone says "wage gap" doesn't exist.
• bencollier49 9y ago
  I'm fully in favour of families with one working adult, of whatever sex, or two people working - whatever they choose to do. But there are clear and obvious corporate drivers for encouraging women into the workplace. Firstly, it broadens the pool of labour as far as possible to depress salaries and lower corporate costs. Secondly, women negotiate less assertively, which tends to lower wages in industries where they're more common.
• EugeneOZ 9y ago
  What I don't understand is why your comment is not downvoted and account is not banned yet. In case if you are not troll and just an idiot: when on the same role in the same company two persons with the same experience but different genders have different wage - it's the gap and it exists.
  • jecjec 9y ago
    YOU should be banned for calling for people you disagree with to be banned.
    • EugeneOZ 9y ago
      It's not just "disagree", it's your negation of the real and important problem, calling it "non-existent", and such behaviour is a fuel for this problem.
  • syshum 9y ago
    So is it gender discrimination when 2 people with the same experience of the same gender have different wages because that happens all the time. I have personally seen wide pay discrepancies between 2 people of the same gender for a variety of reasons. Timing in the market, Nepotism/Favortism due to personal connections, better negotiating skills etc
• drewrv 9y ago
  Your comment is confused. The first sentence states flatly that the wage gap doesn't exist, and then in the second paragraph you launch into a reason that explains part of its existence. Construction is male dominated and pays more than an elementary school teacher. Why is that? Are men pressured to risk their health in order to earn more? Are women expected to earn less than their full potential for some reason? Does society simply devalue "womens work" regardless of it's importance (it's hard to argue educating children is unimportant for society). None of these explanations are great, we can do better as a culture.
• DanBC 9y ago
  > It doesn't exist because different occupations create different amounts of value. > It's also why you generally don't see men being homemakers, teaching young children, nursing You seem to be saying that if you look only at a single profession you'll see men and women being paid the same. This is incorrect. You seem to be saying that if we look at, say, nursing, we'll see many more women, but that those women will be paid the same as male nurses. This is incorrect. When we look at health care staff by profession, gender, and payband we see that the entry level have a high number of women to men, but that as you go up the pay bands we see the ratio changing. This happens even for midwifery, but is especially marked for ambulance staff which starts at 60:40 male female split at band 5 but ends at a 95:5 male female split at band 8d. See this comment for a link to a dataset from the English NHS. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14335076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14335076