They don’t. They really don’t. Comparisons that suggest they do don’t compare “the same work” - they typically compare the median male and female total earnings which conceals a lot behind an assumption that men and women are identical aside from total pay. Once you start adjusting for things like role, industry, work hours, geography, seniority, etc the gap shrinks to nearly nothing and in some demographic cases (young, urban, single and childless for example) even flips the other way.
What flips it back though is then going deeper and asking why women are contained to certain job titles (usually with less pay) also, women don’t get paid equally in the work place when you consider any job that ever has an option for wage rises, because typically they never get them, or if they do they get a quarter of the rise against a man asking. They typically get passed over for promotions, over men, that counts as wage loss, they’re not less qualified, just passed over because woman. They did a blind test on orchestra applicants, and hid them behind a curtain so the people hiring couldn’t see gender, and then all of a sudden more women were being chosen, when previously that was not the case. Look at any male dominated industry (which typically has higher pay) and ask yourself why women aren’t equally populated there. All of that counts. And more! I think there’s like a set of steak knives too, or something.
They did a blind test on orchestra applicants, and hid them behind a curtain so the people hiring couldn’t see gender, and then all of a sudden more women were being chosen, when previously that was not the case.
Complete bullshit. Women-dominated careers like teaching and social work are heavily undervalued while male-dominated ones are far better compensated, and women are still discriminated against in hiring.
The CONSAD report (one of the more thorough ones done as far as considering and adjusting for various other influences that aren’t simply sex discrimination but also aren’t equal between the sexes) actually considered career interruption from having children to have one of the biggest impacts. Not working for weeks to months has long term effects regardless of cause, and one of the most common reasons for that happening for women is having a kid.
Women also tend to work less hours/week in general which was another huge impact (both because that’s time being paid for, some of which is overtime, and also because it can influence future progression) - the standard of describing the “wage gap” in terms of total earnings rather than hourly earnings explicitly hides the effect of hours worked and I can’t imagine that’s by chance since it’s a major factor.
They don’t. They really don’t. Comparisons that suggest they do don’t compare “the same work” - they typically compare the median male and female total earnings which conceals a lot behind an assumption that men and women are identical aside from total pay. Once you start adjusting for things like role, industry, work hours, geography, seniority, etc the gap shrinks to nearly nothing and in some demographic cases (young, urban, single and childless for example) even flips the other way.
What flips it back though is then going deeper and asking why women are contained to certain job titles (usually with less pay) also, women don’t get paid equally in the work place when you consider any job that ever has an option for wage rises, because typically they never get them, or if they do they get a quarter of the rise against a man asking. They typically get passed over for promotions, over men, that counts as wage loss, they’re not less qualified, just passed over because woman. They did a blind test on orchestra applicants, and hid them behind a curtain so the people hiring couldn’t see gender, and then all of a sudden more women were being chosen, when previously that was not the case. Look at any male dominated industry (which typically has higher pay) and ask yourself why women aren’t equally populated there. All of that counts. And more! I think there’s like a set of steak knives too, or something.
Having seen that and considered it an inspiration, a public service department in Australia tried the same thing and then hit pause on it because it turned out that not being able to consider the gender of applicants led to fewer women being chosen which was the opposite of their goal: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888
Complete bullshit. Women-dominated careers like teaching and social work are heavily undervalued while male-dominated ones are far better compensated, and women are still discriminated against in hiring.
There’s multiple effects. Its mostly just life “choices”
having the capacity to get pregnant needs to be controlled for in those studies.
The CONSAD report (one of the more thorough ones done as far as considering and adjusting for various other influences that aren’t simply sex discrimination but also aren’t equal between the sexes) actually considered career interruption from having children to have one of the biggest impacts. Not working for weeks to months has long term effects regardless of cause, and one of the most common reasons for that happening for women is having a kid.
Women also tend to work less hours/week in general which was another huge impact (both because that’s time being paid for, some of which is overtime, and also because it can influence future progression) - the standard of describing the “wage gap” in terms of total earnings rather than hourly earnings explicitly hides the effect of hours worked and I can’t imagine that’s by chance since it’s a major factor.
Yes hence why ““choices””