Jump to content

Here's What The Gender Pay Gap Looks Like


iNow

Recommended Posts

You believe that what you "advocate yields a better and more prosperous society for everyone" but at the same time you claim that you are not making reference to "fairness." Interesting.

And apparently confusing to you. Yet another sign that long hours and high self esteem are not correlated with high performance.

 

 

What in fact you advocate is holding back high performers to no benefit to society or anyone.

Not at all. I firmly support rewarding high performers with large sums of money and lavish praise.

 

I just don't confuse working overtime with high performance.

 

 

 

 

You seem to think that people like myself simply hang out at work unproductively, while looking busy in order to wrongly receive accolades, promotions, and raises at the detriment of others. What a joke

I'm sure you worked hard - most people who work long hours do. But the numbers don't lie - you probably (almost certainly, if the data means anything) didn't get any more done than you would have working 40 hour weeks. One of the jobs most intensively studied, by those early time and motion guys, was engineer. If the scientific research is to be believed, your efficiency dropped more than your extra hours produced, on average over your working year. You wasted your time, as far as productivity goes (although as noted the kiss ass factor worked strongly in your favor, and that's a real consideration I don't disparage in the least).

 

 

 

What you advocate is reduced productivity thereby producing less for society increasing suffering.

Quite the opposite. I advocate increased productivity, and an end to irrational, unsafe, and detrimental work practices that undermine it.

 

And among the benefits from making better arrangements, and preventing irrational undermining of productivity in the service of cultural delusions, it seems likely that the current irrational and and almost certainly economically detrimental market distortion in the money paid to women vs that paid to men would be reduced, to the benefit of everyone.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I never "found fault in it" but nice strawman anyhow.

 

The point was that your own anecdotal experience is a prime example of the historical context of the gender pay gap - you spent extra time and effort at work, which was afforded to you by your female spouse taking on the bulk of the domestic duties. Your earning potential was increased by her not earning an equivalent sum. Yet you carry on with silly posts about a "tax on men" and implications that women just don't work hard enough, clearly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

 

Women in the same roles, working the same hours earn less than their male counterparts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

 

A resume with a male name is more likely to be considered competent, offered more pay and more career mentoring than a identical resume with a female name on it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1

 

You can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's not an actual phenomenon because it suits your ideology to imply that your success had nothing to do with your socioeconomic status and was entirely down to your own efforts.

 

My wife and I are both college professors, but I have no illusions that my circumstances led to me being where I am at least as much as the effort I put in. To try and suggest that everyone can be just as successful as everyone else with identical effort is utterly delusional.

See, right there you proved that the gender pay gap is a myth. Simply reassign half the income of each married male to there spouse. Men make less and women make more. Problem solved.

 

With regard to equal success with identical effort, people only have the right to pursue happiness, it's up to them to catch it.

I'm sure you worked hard - most people who work long hours do. But the numbers don't lie -

Well, I pay very close attention to one number. It's on my paycheck. It never lies.

It also has great benefit to women. My wife, my daughters, my mother, my aunt and when they were alive my grandmothers.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too bad so many bombs keep being thrown. There's probably some nice areas of agreement and shared ideas for improvement underlying all of these barbs and attempts to incite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, right there you proved that the gender pay gap is a myth. Simply reassign half the income of each married male to there spouse. Men make less and women make more. Problem solved.

 

Just so we're straight, you're claiming that because husbands can give money to their wives, this:

 

 

Women in the same roles, working the same hours earn less than their male counterparts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

 

A resume with a male name is more likely to be considered competent, offered more pay and more career mentoring than a identical resume with a female name on it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1

 

 

doesn't exist?

 

Because, if that is truly the case it would seem like a rather ridiculous argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm going to guess that your significant other's career took a back seat while you worked 60 hour weeks and raised children.

 

 

 

Just so we're straight, you're claiming that because husbands can give money to their wives, this:

[your links]

doesn't exist?

 

Because, if that is truly the case it would seem like a rather ridiculous argument.

I'm suggesting that since you believe that women who spend a period of there lives raising there own children take a "back seat" to their working husbands, that you should also consider it fair to give such women credit for a portion of there husbands salaries. Doing so would reduce the pay of men and increase the pay of women. Your links do not consider that.

 

Another thing your studies don't include is that people that work more that 40 hour per week have more job experience than those that don't. Ten years of 60 hours a week is the equivalent of fifteen years of experience. So men who do so gain more experience over the same period of time than women, while the wives of these hard working men benefit from the pay.

 

By the way, I believe that when two people marry they legally become one person with common assets and common income. So my salary is my wife's salary and vice versa so no one takes a back seat.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I pay very close attention to one number. It's on my paycheck. It never lies.

The only thing money says to most men who work too much is "bend over".

 

 

You continue to confuse hours spent with benefit gained and product produced. You are confusing input with output - "Orwell's Inversion", in the classic analysis of John Gall's "Systemantics".

 

 

 

Ten years of 60 hours a week is the equivalent of fifteen years of experience.

More likely, it's the equivalent of one year's experience repeated fifteen times instead of ten. Past 40 a week people aren't getting anything much in the way of experience.

 

 

 

 

Another thing your studies don't include is that people that work more that 40 hour per week have more job experience than those that don't.
No, they don't. This has been studied to death, for nearly a century now: Past 40, your ability to learn and remember and act efficiently degrades past breakeven. You're not gaining experience, you're just putting in time.

 

 

 

So men who do so gain more experience over the same period of time than women, while the wives of these hard working men benefit from the pay.

 

Or more in the real world: The families of these less productive, less competent, and continually overworked men do not benefit as much from the kissass money as they lose from the absence of dad. Meanwhile, the families of the women with better priorities - more productive work hours and better care of their children - are shortchanged the money that went to the kissass instead of to their actual productivity.

 

So the entire economy is corroded by this damaging practice, and everybody's standard of living is degraded a bit.

 

And this can be prevented by attending to the simple rule of thumb suggested by the observation that women are being excluded from high paying jobs somehow, systematically, for no reason of comparative value added: if there's something about a job that excludes women, change it. Nine times out of ten, your profits will go up.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of comments referencing how difficult it is to properly quantify the scale of this problem. While true I think the point is overstated. There is more than enough evidence to acknowledge that the problem exists. It is akin to politicians who agrue against climate change by exampling they aren't scientists. As if not understanding every detail of an issue prevents acknowledgement of the facts which are known.

 

I personally believe that acknowledgement of a problem it a critical step toward solving that problem. If people become aware, concious of bias, and believing it should change than over time it will. Long as the problem remains an enigma that we know exists but feel unsure about or that we don't really understand solving it won't be a priority. The trend is not just some anomalous thing.

 

Studies have been down that clearly indicate many levels of wage bias. Studies showing that resumes with ethnic names are less likely to get considered, steadfastness by women is perceived negatively yet positively for men, that more attractive people are shown more respect, taller people are often thought to be more intelligent, and etc, etc, etc. I think it is more productive to focus on solutions than it is to question whether or not these issues are real. Women make less money. The statistics are not wrong. It is an issue to be resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article on confidence and the gender pay gap.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/the-confidence-gap/359815/

 

Some of my favorite points..

 

Do men doubt themselves sometimes? Of course. But they don’t let their doubts stop them as often as women do.
Women applied for a promotion only when they met 100 percent of the qualifications. Men applied when they met 50 percent.
If a woman speaks up first at meetings, she risks being disliked or even—let’s be blunt—being labeled a bitch.

 

 

I always taught my daughters that being called a bitch meant they were winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not mine.

Yes, yours. You don't live in a bubble.

 

 

 

An interesting article on confidence and the gender pay gap.

And the takehome is obvious - remove the bias toward false confidence, quit confusing confidence with competence, find ways of screening for promotion that avoid such mirages,

 

and your business will simultaneously become more congenial toward women and staffed with better qualified and more competent promotions.

 

Nine times in ten, any factors that bias jobs against women are also hurting your bottom line. The rule of thumb is: Get rid of them.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yours. You don't live in a bubble.

Well, at least I have all that money and all those assets to console me in my suffering.

And the takehome is obvious - remove the bias toward false confidence, quit confusing confidence with competence, find ways of screening for promotion that avoid such mirages, and your business will simultaneously become more congenial toward women and staffed with better qualified and more competent promotions. Nine times in ten, any factors that bias jobs against women are also hurting your bottom line. The rule of thumb is: Get rid of them.

...and the meek will inherit the earth.

 

Well good luck waiting for that. Business is competitive and therefor favors those that compete. Enter the arena without confidence and you are sure to fail.

 

I have personally received promotions to positions where I was missing most of the job requirements for no other reason than no one else applied.

 

With regard to competence, I have succeeded at tasks were others failed by simply entering "Not Applicable" to task requirements that I did not understand and no one could explain to me. I always figured that if no one challenged that entry during review, it was the right call. When challenged and still no adequate explanation was provided, I figured the requirement meant whatever I wanted it to mean and then provided a very low effort response. You would be surprised how accommodating reviewers are when you replace "NA" with a controlled document number where that document contains a one paragraph statement explaining why the requirement is not applicable because no one can define it. Such documents never get challenged. Competence isn't just an individual thing, it's an organizational thing. Challenging your organizational competence takes confidence. What you are doing is putting your reputation on the line. Fail and it could be the end of your career. That is why such moves are accepted. The people that make them understand the consequences. They are also accepted because forward progress must be made. You have competitors and stagnation is failure.

 

Any business that follows your good ship lollipop understanding of a congenial workplace will fail in competition in the real world. Working for failed companies wont close the wage gap for women. If you get the government to force such nonsense, your nation will fail to nations that understand the nature of competition. Just look around, its happening now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least I have all that money and all those assets to console me in my suffering.

Quite a bit of them go to insulating you from the societal effects of the system you succeeded within - that's wheel spinning.

 

 

 

 

and the meek will inherit the earth.

Given competent management, yes. And by "inherit", I mean legally and with clear title.

 

Well good luck waiting for that. Business is competitive and therefor favors those that compete. Enter the arena without confidence and you are sure to fail.

Obviously, waiting for something to happen is seldom a good management strategy. But adopting best practices and making hugely beneficial changes in one's policies does come recommended by common sense, no?

 

I have personally received promotions to positions where I was missing most of the job requirements for no other reason than no one else applied.

With regard to competence, I have succeeded at tasks were others failed by simply entering "Not Applicable" to task requirements that I did not understand and no one could explain to me.

I've worked for screwed up management like that also. The good part is that success in such a system is usually fairly easy - the job itself is usually small, inside all that bs, and everybody looking at the paper thicket thinks its daunting, so you get a lot of credit for not much real work.

 

Competence isn't just an individual thing, it's an organizational thing. Challenging your organizational competence takes confidence.

Viewed from the outside, what you have described there is the role of exaggerated confidence in success both personal and organizational: it covers the ass of incompetent management.

Somebody writes up a job description full of requirements not actually necessary for successful performance, and an unduly confident applicant is right when he figures he (usually) can wing it. The whole thing looks like a win. But the actual best hire for the job never got a crack at it, the salary for the job was probably set too high because of all those requirements, and the job description writer received an unearned and probably (eventually) company-damaging boost in their career rather than appropriate feedback.

 

Any business that follows your good ship lollipop understanding of a congenial workplace will fail in competition in the real world.

I'm not sure that establishing higher levels of competence in management would be all that detrimental to competitive success, in general. And the numbers - such as the relative profitability of companies that have figured out how to promote the competent women over the confident men, as indicated by the greater presence of women in their upper management - seem to bear out my suspicions.

 

 

 

If you get the government to force such nonsense, your nation will fail to nations that understand the nature of competition

 

The only "force" I have recommended is the banning of routine overtime past 40 per week, which should be done on workplace safety grounds anyway - the inevitable productivity gains would be a side benefit.

 

Meanwhile, The US, world center of unjustified confidence made blatant in the early 80s, has seen its hourly white collar productivity plateau for a full generation now - starting in those 80s. It's been passed by a dozen or more countries - Germany, France, iirc Estonia or one of those Soviet refugee economies recently, a fairly long list. If you remove the companies with significant foreign and female presence in management, the situation is even worse (they've been holding up the average). Any idea why?

 

Here's a clue: American corporations have been desperately petitioning the US government to allow them to import greater numbers of white collar employees from, especially, India and Asia. These are men raised in cultures that value humility and deference in adult men. Apparently, it's easier to drag a humble man half way around the world, teach him English, and fit him into an American corporate hierarchy in skilled executive positions, than it is to find an American man in the office down the hall and teach him humility.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a bit of them go to insulating you from the societal effects of the system you succeeded within - that's wheel spinning.

 

 

 

 

Given competent management, yes. And by "inherit", I mean legally and with clear title.

 

Obviously, waiting for something to happen is seldom a good management strategy. But adopting best practices and making hugely beneficial changes in one's policies does come recommended by common sense, no?

 

I've worked for screwed up management like that also. The good part is that success in such a system is usually fairly easy - the job itself is usually small, inside all that bs, and everybody looking at the paper thicket thinks its daunting, so you get a lot of credit for not much real work.

 

Viewed from the outside, what you have described there is the role of exaggerated confidence in success both personal and organizational: it covers the ass of incompetent management.

Somebody writes up a job description full of requirements not actually necessary for successful performance, and an unduly confident applicant is right when he figures he (usually) can wing it. The whole thing looks like a win. But the actual best hire for the job never got a crack at it, the salary for the job was probably set too high because of all those requirements, and the job description writer received an unearned and probably (eventually) company-damaging boost in their career rather than appropriate feedback.

 

I'm not sure that establishing higher levels of competence in management would be all that detrimental to competitive success, in general. And the numbers - such as the relative profitability of companies that have figured out how to promote the competent women over the confident men, as indicated by the greater presence of women in their upper management - seem to bear out my suspicions.

 

 

 

If you get the government to force such nonsense, your nation will fail to nations that understand the nature of competition

 

The only "force" I have recommended is the banning of routine overtime past 40 per week, which should be done on workplace safety grounds anyway - the inevitable productivity gains would be a side benefit.

 

Meanwhile, The US, world center of unjustified confidence made blatant in the early 80s, has seen its hourly white collar productivity plateau for a full generation now - starting in those 80s. It's been passed by a dozen or more countries - Germany, France, iirc Estonia or one of those Soviet refugee economies recently, a fairly long list. If you remove the companies with significant foreign and female presence in management, the situation is even worse (they've been holding up the average). Any idea why?

 

Here's a clue: American corporations have been desperately petitioning the US government to allow them to import greater numbers of white collar employees from, especially, India and Asia. These are men raised in cultures that value humility and deference in adult men. Apparently, it's easier to drag a humble man half way around the world, teach him English, and fit him into an American corporate hierarchy in skilled executive positions, than it is to find an American man in the office down the hall and teach him humility.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Things get done in corporations because they are pushed by those driven to succeed. Risk takers dedicated to their corporate success. Your idea of illegal overtime won't even get past the Democratic party. Labor unions would have a fit. Union labor contracts guarantee overtime hours.

 

H1B visas are just a way to bring in low cost STEM field labor. These people are perhaps one small step up from indentured servants. Step out of line, or ask for more pay, and its back to the third world for you. You will continue to hear about the shortage of STEM workers until STEM workers are paid minimum wage. The fact that STEM workers are not paid minimum wage is proof to corporations and their lackeys in government that a shortage of STEM workers exists. At least when that minimum wage day comes, there won't be a gender gap in STEM fields, and the social nirvana of everyone being equally screwed will be achieved.

 

Along those same lines, notice that there has been a concerted effort to get more women in STEM fields. Of course, they accept lower pay and are more timid than men. If women took the advice of the Atlantic article I posted, not only would the pay gap close, but we would all make more money.

 

What ever happened to those feminists of my college years that wore those pins that said "uppity women unite!" My wife was wearing one of those the day I met her. We need more of those confident aggressive women.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issues here do go beyond mere personal ambition and persistence of effort. It's strange to me that so many of these recent posts have focused so heavily on these largely marginal parts of a much broader and well understood workforce challenge.

 

What's unfortunately not strange to me is how frequently people feel compelled to confidently comment on a situation about which they clearly have only remedial and anecdotal comprehension.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things get done in corporations because they are pushed by those driven to succeed. Risk takers dedicated to their corporate success. Your idea of illegal overtime won't even get past the Democratic party. Labor unions would have a fit. Union labor contracts guarantee overtime hours.

I agree. But that is a bad situation, that among other debilitations suppresses the contributions of competent women. We should do something about it, and corporate management can take the lead here without penalty - since all the evidence indicates that reorganizing their business to be more congenial to women would also boost their profits and productivity.

 

 

The fact that STEM workers are not paid minimum wage is proof to corporations and their lackeys in government that a shortage of STEM workers exists. At least when that minimum wage day comes, there won't be a gender gap in STEM fields, and the social nirvana of everyone being equally screwed will be achieved.

Note where the screwing is coming from - free market capitalist corporations, freeing themselves from government regulation, maximizing their short term return on investment.

 

 

If women took the advice of the Atlantic article I posted, not only would the pay gap close, but we would all make more money.

If the correlation between confidence and competence is as close to zero as my experience and reading tends to indicate, we would still face the larger problem of other cultures eating our productivity lunch.

 

The people who should take the hint from that Atlantic article are the American corporate managers, who have set things up to systematically reward confidence far more richly than its comparative contributions warrant.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. But that is a bad situation, that among other debilitations suppresses the contributions of competent women. We should do something about it, and corporate management can take the lead here without penalty - since all the evidence indicates that reorganizing their business to be more congenial to women would also boost their profits and productivity.

Competence is essential for good employees. I'm a director. Hiring and promoting people is a regular part of my job. Confidence however is essential for leadership promotions. Those that don't demonstrate confidence won't get those jobs. That included senior and principal engineering roles. You can deny this fact all you want. You can believe its wrong all you like. It's just the way corporate employment and promotions work.

Note where the screwing is coming from - free market capitalist corporations, freeing themselves from government regulation, maximizing their short term return on investment.

The government allows H1B visas. Sure they are lobbied by corporations, but the government can say no. Once they are allowed, all corporations have to use them to stay competitive. So while the screwing is coming from corporations, it can't happen without government blessing.

If the correlation between confidence and competence is as close to zero as my experience and reading tends to indicate, we would still face the larger problem of other cultures eating our productivity lunch.

Success depends on both confidence and competence. You know that. The big problem we have with productivity vis i vis other countries is that they are hungrier than we are. First literally. Second, they watch our TV and visit our web sites. They want to live like middle class Americans and will work very hard to get there.

 

The people who should take the hint from that Atlantic article are the American corporate managers, who have set things up to systematically reward confidence far more richly than its comparative contributions warrant.

Again, confident people are risk takers. They move projects forward by force of will. Part of their reward is being put in charge. The rules of that game are never going to change. No one is going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Success depends on both confidence and competence. You know that.

But it does not depend on those things alone. It also depends on the system in which that effort is taking place, the culture, the mindset of those in power, etc. When we simplify complex situations in the way you're trying to do here we tend to miss important nuance and rapidly move away from validity.

 

Again, confident people are risk takers.

This would perhaps make a fun bumper sticker, but again... far too simple to apply to the complex economy and employment situation under discussion. Simply adding words like "often" and "tend to" and "in my own experience" would go a long way to improving the validity of your comments.

 

Working in corporate life myself supporting massive corporate customers, I'm sympathetic to the points you're making. Where I struggle is that you seem to paint everything with one monochromatic brush and focus on issues that are at the margins of the topic (most inequality of pay between genders in the workforce is not due to women choosing to have babies or work less or because they can't help but be less productive... which I doubt is your intended point, but is very much implicit in the way you're arguing your position).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it does not depend on those things alone. It also depends on the system in which that effort is taking place, the culture, the mindset of those in power, etc. When we simplify complex situations in the way you're trying to do here we tend to miss important nuance and rapidly move away from validity.

 

This would perhaps make a fun bumper sticker, but again... far too simple to apply to the complex economy and employment situation under discussion. Simply adding words like "often" and "tend to" and "in my own experience" would go a long way to improving the validity of your comments.

 

Working in corporate life myself supporting massive corporate customers, I'm sympathetic to the points you're making. Where I struggle is that you seem to paint everything with one monochromatic brush and focus on issues that are at the margins of the topic (most inequality of pay between genders in the workforce is not due to women choosing to have babies or work less or because they can't help but be less productive... which I doubt is your intended point, but is very much implicit in the way you're arguing your position).

I have two educated daughters in the work place. While my wife chose to be an at home mother for 16 years, she to is educated in engineering and now owns her own business. I have a strong vested interest in women not being discriminated against.

 

Having said that, I disagree that the issues I have been discussing are simply fringe issues. Both of my daughters were passed over for promotions and were angry about it. I asked both of them if they found time to tell there bosses that they wanted the jobs they felt passed over on before the positions was filled. Neither of them did. I told them not to make that mistake again. A promoting manager only has to be told by one person that "I didn't ask to be promoted", to make them prefer asking candidates over the non asking candidates. Even if the asking candidates are less qualified. Requesting candidates have more ownership of their new position than those given a promotion. Same goes for engineers asking for lead design tasks on a project. They get those leadership tasks and the experience they bring.

 

Also expecting the business world be be something other than it is often leads to disappointment. So if your life choices hold back your career, that is the result of your choices and is not something that should be corrected by government. We all have to live with the consequences of our chosen work/life balance.

 

If tragedy strikes your life and leaves you a single parent, yes that will set your career back. That in part is why they call such events tragedies.

 

Compensation should be causal and positively correlated to performance. If a person can get as much done during an 8 hour day, 5 days a week as someone putting in 10 hour days six days a week, both people should be compensated the same. If the person that puts in the 60 hour work gets more done, they should be compensated more and the 40 hour worker should be happy their hard working co-worker is get the extra money they deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if your life choices hold back your career, that is the result of your choices and is not something that should be corrected by government.

I don't disagree, and that's why I've tried so hard to share that I see all of this talk of kids and prioritization of career etc. as peripheral to the core issue. With that said, we can do better with smart choices like better leave policies, protected maternity time, etc.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/11/news/economy/us-women-paid-maternity-leave/

 

 

Compensation should be causal and positively correlated to performance.

Quite right, and again... part of the issue women are facing in large numbers. Fro the same performance, they don't seem to get the same compensation. We already covered much of this on the very first page of the thread. That's also where we covered that "choosing to have a family" or prioritize other life experiences is not really the point being discussed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree, and that's why I've tried so hard to share that I see all of this talk of kids and prioritization of career etc. as peripheral to the core issue. With that said, we can do better with smart choices like better leave policies, protected maternity time, etc.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/11/news/economy/us-women-paid-maternity-leave/

 

 

Quite right, and again... part of the issue women are facing in large numbers. Fro the same performance, they don't seem to get the same compensation. We already covered much of this on the very first page of the thread. That's also where we covered that "choosing to have a family" or prioritize other life experiences is not really the point being discussed.

Fine, but I still believe it is fair to ask "what are women doing wrong." The Atlantic article I posted discusses that. Also, the idea of making overtime, or complementary time if you are salaried, illegal is simply pissing in someone else's life choices. It is simply saying that my lifestyle choices put me at a disadvantage to my competitors, so those other choices should be illegal. Sorry, your choices your problem. If women make such choices more often then men do, then women will be more impacted then men. If women are less assertive or confident then men in the workplace, they will have lower salaries then men and it will be their fault. Now if a company assumes that an individual woman is going the make choices common to most women and acts accordingly then that's a problem. That problem is solved by treating people like individuals not groups. Liberals seem to have a problem with individuality. They only see groups. This entire topic is dedicated to that premise. It says look at my chart. There is a gap. Women are discriminated against. Something must be done. Any argument that says maybe women make other work/life balance choices is completely dismissed.

 

So don't treat individuals as if they will act according to the common behavior of groups to which they may belong. Treat them like individuals based on their own individual behavior. There you go, problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, but I still believe it is fair to ask "what are women doing wrong."

And if the answer is, "not much, this is almost certainly more systemic than personal choice," would you be willing to then explore solutions beyond "stop having babies" and "work more hours" that might potentially address those alternative underlying root causes of the difference?

 

So don't treat individuals as if they will act according to the common behavior of groups to which they may belong. Treat them like individuals based on their own individual behavior. There you go, problem solved.

Unfortunately, nearly all available data strongly and consistently suggests this is not the case. A nice ideal, but one we don't see in reality. Maybe we can begin to discuss that a bit more?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the answer is, "not much, this is almost certainly more systemic than personal choice," would you be willing to then explore solutions beyond "stop having babies" and "work more hours" that might potentially address those alternative underlying root causes of the difference?

And if the answer isn't "not much" and personal choices do have an impact, then little or nothing needs to be done by government or employers. Something you simply won't even consider. In fact you attempt bully people off the forum who bring them up. I have never suggested people "stop having babies." Being a parent is a very rewarding experience. I personally think those that chose not to have children are missing out on an important human experience. I choice they are free to make. Choosing to have children has costs. Those costs can differ for individuals based on their parenting agreement with their partner. There are lots of choices in that parenting agreement between parent partners, and some may give workplace advantages to one parent in the partnership. These are choices that should be made by the parents without the involvement of the government or employers. If the co-workers of the advantaged parent don't like that advantage, well too bad for them. An advantaged parent may be able to "work more hours." That advantage is paid for by the other parent partner. So any solution that would negate that advantage would be unjust to the other parent partner who paid the price. Married people compete as a team. They decide for themselves what winning means and then strive to achieve that. They peruse their own happiness and I hope they catch it. If that catch is a disappointment, well we all make choices that don't pan out.

 

Unfortunately, nearly all available data strongly and consistently suggests this is not the case. A nice ideal, but one we don't see in reality. Maybe we can begin to discuss that a bit more?

Are individuals discriminated against in the work place. Sure they are. Does that include women. Yes it does. Two common ways is to assume that this woman will act like "most" women and the other is that this woman acts just like high performing men, but that doesn't make men in the workforce comfortable. I'm sure there are many more. Those women have a discrimination case. Those cases are individual not group based. Court rulings on such cases may have a broader impact. I doubt such cases will close your wage gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the answer isn't "not much" and personal choices do have an impact, then little or nothing needs to be done by government or employers. Something you simply won't even consider.

Of course, I considered it. Then I reviewed the data. Then I considered it some more, and read more studies and more research on the topic. Then after that I considered it even more and read more and organized my thoughts on the topic in accordance with the confluence of data and the reality it presented.

 

The takeaway? The data simply doesn't back up the idea that the root/primary cause of the gender pay gap is due to personal choices of women. That is, at best, a marginal issue peripheral to the core issue.

 

So any solution that would negate that advantage would be unjust to the other parent partner who paid the price.

Please try to recall that I largely agree with you on this specific point, and have said as much 3 or 4 times now already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the answer isn't "not much" and personal choices do have an impact, then little or nothing needs to be done by government or employers. Something you simply won't even consider. In fact you attempt bully people off the forum who bring them up. I have never suggested people "stop having babies." Being a parent is a very rewarding experience. I personally think those that chose not to have children are missing out on an important human experience. I choice they are free to make. Choosing to have children has costs. Those costs can differ for individuals based on their parenting agreement with their partner. There are lots of choices in that parenting agreement between parent partners, and some may give workplace advantages to one parent in the partnership. These are choices that should be made by the parents without the involvement of the government or employers. If the co-workers of the advantaged parent don't like that advantage, well too bad for them. An advantaged parent may be able to "work more hours." That advantage is paid for by the other parent partner. So any solution that would negate that advantage would be unjust to the other parent partner who paid the price. Married people compete as a team. They decide for themselves what winning means and then strive to achieve that. They peruse their own happiness and I hope they catch it. If that catch is a disappointment, well we all make choices that don't pan out.

Having children is a basic function of living. There can not be a future for any society without it. Not only that but the outcome of every child molds what any society is or will become. So while having children may be an individual choice it is also an envaluable necessity for society much like entrepreneurship, innovation, or etc. Having children or succeeding in a career/field of study/discipline should not be mutual exclusive. Such an attitude is counter productive for a society and will have long term damaging effects. Just as government creates programs to help businessness thrive, bails industries out during hard times, or ensures research and development get funded the government has a responsibility to ensure having children isn't a burdensome choice that comes at great personal sacrifice or directly impacts ones position in life.

 

 

 

 

Are individuals discriminated against in the work place. Sure they are. Does that include women. Yes it does. Two common ways is to assume that this woman will act like "most" women and the other is that this woman acts just like high performing men, but that doesn't make men in the workforce comfortable. I'm sure there are many more. Those women have a discrimination case. Those cases are individual not group based. Court rulings on such cases may have a broader impact. I doubt such cases will close your wage gap.

 

I work in a field that is predominately male. Well over 95% males where I am at. My mostly all male co-workers lament the fact that any women work with us at all because it means they have to look over there should before telling some dirty joke or talk about some females body. As a result the women at my work are routinely segregated. Various groups of guys when assembling teams for work projects purposeful ensure the women are together and on any given day it is someone's job to bit the bullet and go work with them. They also never get invited out during off hours to shoot the sh## and hang out. Sure the women could complain but to what end? They are not being denied work. They simplify aren't receiving the benefits that come with comradery and networking. Complaining and inconveniencing the men more so than the already imagine themselves inconvienced isn't going to help. So they just accept the subtle difference in their treatment but long term it effects them. Less doors will be opened and they won't be as informed of opportunities. And this for no other reason than the men around them want the freedom to be rowdy.

Discrimination is a slow creep. It is an inch that burdens day after day. The toll seems cheap per day but adds up to huge some over the course of a life. It is easy to dismiss some nuanced different in treatment moment to moment but our lives a nothing but an addition of moments and when every moment or even moments are corrupted, even slightly, it has a diminishing effect that should not be ignored or marginalized.

Edited by Ten oz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having children is a basic function of living. There can not be a future for any society without it. Not only that but the outcome of every child molds what any society is or will become. So while having children may be an individual choice it is also an envaluable necessity for society much like entrepreneurship, innovation, or etc. Having children or succeeding in a career/field of study/discipline should not be mutual exclusive. Such an attitude is counter productive for a society and will have long term damaging effects. Just as government creates programs to help businessness thrive, bails industries out during hard times, or ensures research and development get funded the government has a responsibility to ensure having children isn't a burdensome choice that comes at great personal sacrifice or directly impacts ones position in life.

Having children is a personally rewarding experience which is well worth the costs. That includes career costs. Also others should not pass judgement on how parents decided to share such burdens. It is none of the business of others. Finally, the government should not decide how society should favor such decisions. In a free society we choose for ourselves.

 

People without children or with at home care giving partners have the time to make the companies that we work for more successful. We benefit from that and we should thank them and celebrate their higher pay.

I work in a field that is predominately male. Well over 95% males where I am at. My mostly all male co-workers lament the fact that any women work with us at all because it means they have to look over there should before telling some dirty joke or talk about some females body. As a result the women at my work are routinely segregated. Various groups of guys when assembling teams for work projects purposeful ensure the women are together and on any given day it is someone's job to bit the bullet and go work with them. They also never get invited out during off hours to shoot the sh## and hang out. Sure the women could complain but to what end? They are not being denied work. They simplify aren't receiving the benefits that come with comradery and networking. Complaining and inconveniencing the men more so than the already imagine themselves inconvienced isn't going to help. So they just accept the subtle difference in their treatment but long term it effects them. Less doors will be opened and they won't be as informed of opportunities. And this for no other reason than the men around them want the freedom to be rowdy.

Discrimination is a slow creep. It is an inch that burdens day after day. The toll seems cheap per day but adds up to huge some over the course of a life. It is easy to dismiss some nuanced different in treatment moment to moment but our lives a nothing but an addition of moments and when every moment or even moments are corrupted, even slightly, it has a diminishing effect that should not be ignored or marginalized.

Do you and your fellow male co-workers think women have cooties? Why aren't you inviting your female co-workers to off hour social and networking events? Women are a lot of fun at such events. Are off color jokes that important to you? May I suggest that you grow up and step up.

 

Can you get into trouble doing this? Not if you make it a gathering of more than two.

 

If your management is segregating women to their own projects, you need to find a new employer. The one you are working for will soon be sued out of business. The sooner you get out, the smaller the chance you will find yourself sitting in the witness chair testifying against your company and yourself.

 

Now having said that, I'm wondering how many in person and/or on-line training classes you have attended on this subject. How many times has your company's legal department made sure you know that your behavior will not only get your company in trouble but that you can also personally be sued. If they haven't told you that you should be reporting your male co-workers for telling you off color jokes, they have been remiss. If your co-workers are are telling you off color jokes, who else are they telling? And you didn't do anything to stop them. What do you think is going to happen when the defendant says, "we all tell each other off-color jokes. Just ask Ten oz."

 

But you know what, it's really pretty easy. Speak to others as if you mom was listening. Then you have no worries.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.