Gender pay gap

[Ultimatum]

Dismantling the gender pay gap and sexual discrimination



There has widely been a call to narrow the so-called gender pay gap, as activists often use Office for National Statistics and hold up a ~9% pay gap between men and women (frankly, I find this disgusting: where are the intersex figures, feminists?) so as to make a case against this CLEARLY sexist society—although, predictably, the Guardian goes with a higher figure. Surely, this cannot be for any other reason than outright sexism and discrimination, right? I mean **** research, being loud is the most important thing surely?



http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...rveyofhoursandearnings/2015provisionalresults



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34855056



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/09/gender-pay-gap-women-working-free-until-end-of-year



http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/policy-research/the-gender-pay-gap/



But there are two factors that can be explained to fight off this bacterial infection: economics and data analysis.



Firstly, it's interesting how these feminists (I know it's a buzzword but it's very useful) are actually destroying their chances for equal pay, as these people are usually the ones that vouch for the minimum wage—when, actually, they should be wanting to be rid of it because society is so sexist! Consider this: if there is a position of labour in which a man is preferable to a woman (because that's what the feminist claim is: discrimination), then should not a woman be able to offer her labour productivity at a rate lower, which offers an employer justification for work? If you're saying “of course not”, you are allowing for gender-segregated jobs. By allowing for this, these discriminated women could enter the work force and accumulate capital and experience.

Additionally, of course, you incur that cost of opportunity of not hiring the woman, as she was prepared to provide the labour at a lower cost, the sexist pigs.



Secondly, how on Earth is it possible that an employer would want to pay more for a man's productivity, which is equal with women's? Profit maximisation is at a deficit, and let me tell you—the grand majority of the rich work for their own gain and nobody else, thus, why would they neglect extra resources because they fancy discriminating women because they're clearly sexist pigs?



And, of course, the life choice of individuals must be taken into account. When people lump every single individual, occupation, circumstance and wage into one big pile, they are displaying the most fallacious data points one can come across: indeed, if you were to write a statistics paper on it you should be blasted for not understanding confounding factors.



There is no institutional sexism going on; no forced-induced gender bias. If there was, then why are women 35% more likely to go to university than men? Does anyone else smell the bias of the matriarchy? Get up in arms, men, this is clearly sexual discrimination.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35111772

 

[Jumi]

Secondly, how on Earth is it possible that an employer would want to pay more for a man's productivity, which is equal with women's? Profit maximisation is at a deficit, and let me tell you—the grand majority of the rich work for their own gain and nobody else, thus, why would they neglect extra resources because they fancy discriminating women because they're clearly sexist pigs?

It's interesting, but people do shoot their company in the foot when hiring or handing out promotions. It's not who is most qualified who gets the job, and usually it's not the owner who is doing the hiring but someone who is also an employee... the type of profit maximization doesn't factor as much in my experience as your post seems to assume.

 

[Koldo]

I can only assume that this was posted in the wrong section of the forum. This must be a jest.

One can't reasonably believe that women working for less money than men is a solution to... anything.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've always wondered about the pay gap. I mean in Australia at least, it is outright illegal for a man in the same position as I am to receive more money or Super because of his sex. A higher hourly rate will only occur with very specific factors relevant to the specific position. Same with a higher weekly or fortnightly wage. But none involve sex/gender. And you can sue their asses if they try that ****.
So who the hell is stupid enough in this day and age to actively break the law like this and risk loosing millions in compensation? Granted corruption could be involved.
But regardless, what company in today's economy is so freaking thick that they would actively hire men if it meant a higher wage and Super for them to pay? Anyone who has ever worked for a giant evil conglomerate (like the majority of teenagers working for Mickey D's or whatever) will tell you that they would rather run over their own beloved family than spend a single cent unnecessarily. Christ I work for a multi billion dollar company and they're too freaking cheap to install a proper cleaning hose in the Delicatessen. Staff have actually had to pay for washers out of their own pocket. And you're telling me that this company would hire men because of sexism when it would allegedly cost them more money? They make Ebeneezer Scrooge look like a freaking charity worker. And I'm supposed to believe that their sexism supposedly outweighs their greed? Like really?
Does the government pay them the difference or something?

 

[Thanda]

I can only assume that this was posted in the wrong section of the forum. This must be a jest.

One can't reasonably believe that women working for less money than men is a solution to... anything.

I think he is working on the assumption of market equilibrium. If we make two assumptions 1) Women are doing the same work as men 2) Women are paid less than men. Then it stands to reason that, especially in tough economic times companies will actually let go of men in order to hire women. Alternatively if women are doing as good a job as men companies will be willing to pay more for women to attract their equally good services. Basically the point is even if the system was once biased against women, in a free market that situation will clearly not last long.

 

[Ultimatum]

It's not who is most qualified who gets the job,

In a lot of cases, that's correct. But I'd be very sceptical to lump the principle of non-meritocratic behaviour to all firms: I'd vouch that most of them do make sensible decisions. Either way, it's certainly not based on gender (at least, not generally).

and usually it's not the owner who is doing the hiring but someone who is also an employee...
the type of profit maximization doesn't factor as much in my experience as your post seems to assume.

Again, I would concede this point. But this isn't institutionally ingrained, as there is no evidence for that (except for some very loud voices). As for large-medium to large firms--which is what you're presenting through hierarchical exemplification--they tend to be hold much tougher guidelines for discrimination in the work place: through managerial assessment visits, corporate guidelines and such like.

So I would say this to be more of an issue for smaller firms and self-employed bigotry.

I can only assume that this was posted in the wrong section of the forum. This must be a jest.

It is? My apologies! I thought it was a general debating topic haha.

One can't reasonably believe that women working for less money than men is a solution to... anything.

You know, you should keep content in context before presenting your argument.

1) Women are doing the same work as men

Which must mean, in context with the feminist claims, men and women's labour is equal in every single occupation--and thus would justify an equal wage for said productivity...*

2) Women are paid less than men.

*...which means we have in-correlation! Thus, someone must be wrong here!

Then it stands to reason that, especially in tough economic times companies will actually let go of men in order to hire women. Alternatively if women are doing as good a job as men companies will be willing to pay more for women to attract their equally good services. Basically the point is even if the system was once biased against women, in a free market that situation will clearly not last long.

Not in larger economies, no.

 

[Yerda]

In the interests of honesty I have to admit that I don't know much of anything about gender pay gaps or sexual discrimination in the work place.

Consider this: if there is a position of labour in which a man is preferable to a woman (because that's what the feminist claim is: discrimination), then should not a woman be able to offer her labour productivity at a rate lower, which offers an employer justification for work?

Sorry, do you mean a man could generally perform the role more effectively or something like that?

Secondly, how on Earth is it possible that an employer would want to pay more for a man's productivity, which is equal with women's? Profit maximisation is at a deficit, and let me tell you—the grand majority of the rich work for their own gain and nobody else, thus, why would they neglect extra resources because they fancy discriminating women because they're clearly sexist pigs?

That is a genuinely interesting question.

My local authority has been settling cases of gendered pay discrimination for years now and is still facing court over many cases. The gist of the dispute is this: women have been systematically paid less than men with the same levels of training and expertise doing the same graded jobs. If that isn't exactly a case of what you seem to be suggesting isn't happening then I've completely misunderstood this debate.

 

[Ultimatum]

Sorry, do you mean a man could generally perform the role more effectively or something like that?

IF. Correct.

The gist of the dispute is this: women have been systematically paid less than men with the same levels of training and expertise doing the same graded jobs.

"Systematically"
This is completely wrong. It's also illegal.

If that isn't exactly a case of what you seem to be suggesting isn't happening then I've completely misunderstood this debate.

I'm talking about institutional discrimination--of which there is none. Now, of course, there is discrimination of some kind and there will always be (and this tends to come from self-employed run and small businesses)--but that's not what this is about.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/p...oundation-male-execs-earn-38-more-than-women/

Male executives at the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation earn 38 percent more than women executives, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review of the foundation’s latest IRS tax filings.

The foundation’s 2013 IRS form 990 reveals that nearly three times as many men as women occupy the executive suites at the Little Rock, Arkansas-based foundation.