Is there an education gap? A qualification gap? An hours-worked gap? An overtime gap?
How about the pay gap amoung race? Or sexual preference?
It just seems to me that comparing only one single variable of a complicated issue, may not be the most productive way to get to the bottom of it.
Not saying the gender pay gap doesn’t exist or isn’t an issue, I just think we need to dig a little deeper.
It’s a workplace gender equality report, hence the focus on gender.
Absolutely there would be some level of data on some of those other groups.
It’s a great place to start though, which I think at least some of us agree.
Chart 9 is telling in the way that the pyramid graph shows declining percentages that directly correlate with the amount of actual time required to get there.
There’s more women at universities then men so it’s not a qualification issue. Most people write it off as a women having babies thing but that’s not the full extent.
Studies that adjust for hours, industry and role still show women earning less. At the top levels the gap is even wider (I’ve seen stuff that says up to 25%).
A lot come down to unconcious bias. A man pushes for extra money or promotion and he’s seen as driven, whereas women are seen as pushy and bitchy. Society also tells women from a young age to be “demure” and not to rock the boat.
A lot is to do with childcare arrangements, but this just means we need better policies around parental leave instead of placing it all on the woman. A lot of Scandinavian countries have the ability/requirement to split parental leave between both parents which would help. Currently the government gives a whole 2 weeks for partner parental leave.
Teeny weeny sample, in my work place there are 6 female casual/part time staff (of which I am one) and 2 males (who are uni students).
Could people do say 9 months for the female and 3 for males?
Ok, so those are far more relevant studies than just a single variable analysis which is often used. And yes, I feel that the greatest disparity is at the very top at the executive level. Many varied reasons behind this, of which having children does play a part. (Anything that requires you to take extended time off work, or requires you to make a priority over working 80 hours a week, is gonna be detrimental in a highly competitive and cutthroat industry.) I’m sure old school mysogyny plays it’s part, too.
As you said, this could be different if there were changes to the structure of parental leave, and I think think that’s a great point you raised.
Ok, so genuine question.
If there is a legitimate pay gap between race, does that also need to be addressed?
What she’s doing is technically illegal then.
If the gender pay gap is real, why do companies hire men at all?
Why doesn’t a company fire all of the men and only hire women and pay them less money for the same job? The profit margin would be significantly enhanced.
Genuine question. I am not trolling.
Except that’s BS. Plenty in that industry only take 2-3 years of maternity leave. When talking equity partners, looking at their age distribution that should make a few percentage points difference. Not a 20/80 split.
Not BS at all.
Losing 3 years to pop out sprouts, puts you more than three years behind. And the wiz kids come along and take your lunch.
I don’t think its a simple as taking 3 years off for maternity leave then going back to the 80 hour weeks. The decision to have & then raise kids mean that some choose to no longer pursue their careers to their full potential. My sister in law is a partner in a leading tax consultancy firm but she was only able to do this because her husband quit ft work. Another close friend is the local CFO for a massive international company but again her husband quit his CEO position to be at home with their kids. This is a relatively newer trend in parenting but one I think will see the overall earning figures become more closely aligned & certain see more women in the higher earning brackets.
I don’t really think big companies like that would remain successful if they were underpaying women or not doing everything they can to see women progress in their companies. These are competitive industries where headhunting is common & the investment in any staff member heading towards a partnership is massive.
Edit: Just to add to a point Fox made, in the corporate tax world 3 years out of the game is a lifetime. It would be very difficult to resume top level tax advising without maintaining intimate knowledge of all legislation & rulings. Just to give you some perspective my sister in law is charged out at $1200 per hour (some times more) to give tax advice. These are the elite athletes of the accounting game so imagine a footy player missing 3 years then trying to slot straight back in.
Yep, that’s the argument against the idea that ‘men and women are working side by side doing the exact same job, but men earn more.’
That’s not really the issue. (I’m sure it was at some point in time, though.)
Imo, overall this is actually a rather complicated issue that often isn’t presented as such.
Not really. The issue with black face was twofold. 1) it was often used to make caricatures and parodies of African-Americans. I.e. to put them down. 2) it was also used by white actors/studios/producers to portray black characters without having to hire actual black actors (ie it was racist as hell). Such as Ben Hur.
Wearing a mask to represent a respected role model/hero who happens to be black would (IMO) be very different and acceptable. Doing it to play a black criminal might be getting into more dubious ground.
On Actuarial, we still have a gender imbalance, partly due to who is coming out of the unis.
Maths and computers are a great example of bias though. When my Mum was working she was one of the first doing computers. At Shell. Ran a team, multiple women programmers.
What happened? Computers became sexy and important. And teenage boys got priority on them over girls. Those two things led to a male dominated IT crowd, when before when it wasn’t it had many many women.
It only takes you out for more than 3 years because the system is biased against it.
Because it’s frequently not done deliberately but due to subconscious biases. You like talking footy, you talk more of it with Hoe, so you like him more, and you give him a little more credit in ratings, and bingo you’re slowly creating a gender gap. Which you’re happy with because you think Joe is better and the fact you can chat footy with him is a bonus.
We could call him Hoe Joe.
Nothing better than a footy chat with a hoe.