This. It’s a wilfully deceptive statistical misinterpretation implying that a woman working alongside a man in the same job is magically making 20-something percent less. If businesses could get away with saving 20-30% on their biggest ongoing expense (payroll) for employees in one half of the population, they would only ever hire people from that half.
When controlled for field, role, seniority, region, etc., the disparity is within a margin of error.
It varies greatly depending on where you live. In rural, conservative areas women tend to make a lot less. On the other hand, some northeast and west coast cities have higher average salaries for women than men.
There are very strong lingering effects which mean women, on average, are paid less.
It’s especially hard on women in various countries where they’re now expected to both have a successful career and be the primary child caregiver. Which is as ridiculous as it sounds.
However, one example of advocacy from a cafe in my city of Melbourne Australia a number of years ago really rubbed me the wrong way: when a cafe decided to charge like 25% more to men (inverse of 80%). I was a close to minimum wage worker at the time (in Australia, before the cost of living skyrocket, so I wasn’t starving), and it annoyed me because if I went in, I would be asked to pay more because I was a man, never mind the fact I would likely be earning far less than many women going in there.
The wage gap is 100% real, and things should definitely be done to make all genders pay more equitable. But hell, the class divide is orders of magnitude worse, and we ought not forget it.
Sounds like it’s similar to here. I would have thought we narrowed the gap by now but apparently not. The child caregiver trends are definitely behind along with a host of other gender norms.
Lol that pricing scheme sounds great, easily a sketch comedy premise from Portlandia, BackBerner, SNL, etc
Ah I see, like grocers requiring that employees solicit donations at every checkout to reduce global food insecurity (and the grocer’s tax burden), it’s only technically optional.
Women still have to bear children, and pregnancy takes a heavy toll on the body, which often results in several fewer years in the workforce, on average.
Unless that changes — or we start paying mothers with less experience more money — there will always be a gap.
Edit: because liberals/tankies like to ignore reality as much as fascists when the truth is inconvenient.
Your links, especially the WEF link, support the correlation, but explicitly describe a confounding variable as being household work (especially childcare). And that’s consistent with the observation that the motherhood penalty has a different magnitude for different countries and different industries. All that suggests that a combination of household division of labor, parental leave policies (either employer policies or government regulations), and workplace accommodations generally can make a big difference.
None of this is inevitable or immutable. We can learn from the countries and the industries where the motherhood penalty is lower, or doesn’t last as long.
I seem to recall that was the figure like 15 years ago. Has it not improved in all this time?
That stat wasn’t even real when it was published.
The data from that study didn’t even compare similar fields.
It compared a Walmart worker to a doctor lol.
It was a wild study.
In an ideal world it would be nice to be able to do that, but in our it’s just misleading.
This. It’s a wilfully deceptive statistical misinterpretation implying that a woman working alongside a man in the same job is magically making 20-something percent less. If businesses could get away with saving 20-30% on their biggest ongoing expense (payroll) for employees in one half of the population, they would only ever hire people from that half.
When controlled for field, role, seniority, region, etc., the disparity is within a margin of error.
It varies greatly depending on where you live. In rural, conservative areas women tend to make a lot less. On the other hand, some northeast and west coast cities have higher average salaries for women than men.
Reverse Sexism >:O
Not sure where it’s higher outside of the field of sex work.
I think this may be because women are outpacing men in education in some areas, so it’s not based on gender necessarily but qualifications.
Yep, women are more likely to get a college degree.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/08/whats-behind-the-growing-gap-between-men-and-women-in-college-completion/
In (West-) Germany it’s still 18%. Been more or less constant since 2006.
Source: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Labour/Labour-Market/Quality-Employment/Dimension1/1_5_GenderPayGap.html
There are very strong lingering effects which mean women, on average, are paid less.
It’s especially hard on women in various countries where they’re now expected to both have a successful career and be the primary child caregiver. Which is as ridiculous as it sounds.
However, one example of advocacy from a cafe in my city of Melbourne Australia a number of years ago really rubbed me the wrong way: when a cafe decided to charge like 25% more to men (inverse of 80%). I was a close to minimum wage worker at the time (in Australia, before the cost of living skyrocket, so I wasn’t starving), and it annoyed me because if I went in, I would be asked to pay more because I was a man, never mind the fact I would likely be earning far less than many women going in there.
The wage gap is 100% real, and things should definitely be done to make all genders pay more equitable. But hell, the class divide is orders of magnitude worse, and we ought not forget it.
Sounds like it’s similar to here. I would have thought we narrowed the gap by now but apparently not. The child caregiver trends are definitely behind along with a host of other gender norms.
Lol that pricing scheme sounds great, easily a sketch comedy premise from Portlandia, BackBerner, SNL, etc
To be fair, it was “optional” (but let’s be real, you wouldn’t want to be that guy). And done temporarily for publicity.
Ah I see, like grocers requiring that employees solicit donations at every checkout to reduce global food insecurity (and the grocer’s tax burden), it’s only technically optional.
Women still have to bear children, and pregnancy takes a heavy toll on the body, which often results in several fewer years in the workforce, on average.
Unless that changes — or we start paying mothers with less experience more money — there will always be a gap.
Edit: because liberals/tankies like to ignore reality as much as fascists when the truth is inconvenient.
“the arrival of children has a large and persistent impact on the gender earnings gap, reducing female earnings by 55 per cent, on average, in the 5 years following parenthood. We further show, using personal income tax data collected by the Australian Tax Office (ATO), that this gap improves only slightly but remains high in the 10 years following the arrival of children.”
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/05/reduce-motherhood-penalty-gender-pay-gap/
https://theconversation.com/the-motherhood-pay-gap-why-womens-earnings-decline-after-having-children-220207
Your links, especially the WEF link, support the correlation, but explicitly describe a confounding variable as being household work (especially childcare). And that’s consistent with the observation that the motherhood penalty has a different magnitude for different countries and different industries. All that suggests that a combination of household division of labor, parental leave policies (either employer policies or government regulations), and workplace accommodations generally can make a big difference.
None of this is inevitable or immutable. We can learn from the countries and the industries where the motherhood penalty is lower, or doesn’t last as long.