Does a wage gap exist in the U.S. based on gender?

[prolesunited]

Poll question: Does a wage gap exist in the U.S. based on gender?

This poll is based on the current debate in GD. Seems we always have the same posters making the same arguments whenever this issue comes up so I thought it would be interesting to do a poll to see where DU members stand on this issue.

Yes, I know it isn't scientific and doesn't really mean anything.

BTW, I got to get to work, so I would appreciate a few kicks.

[Terwilliger]

1. kickin'

[Syncronaut Seven]

21. Last HiTek place I worked

I screamed so loud, for so long, for a bigger hard drive they gave me a new (used) one.

Personnels. They didn't even wipe it. Idiots.

Of course I browsed the WHOLE thing. In my Oregon place of employment the women were paid a solid %20 less. Across the board. No exceptions.

I could have started a riot with that info. Instead, I sat on it. Didn't tell a soul, I don't know why.

Harrad

[prolesunited]

24. Hey, thanks for the support

Next time that happens, I hope you choose the path for economic justice. Honestly, if the situation were reversed, I would be out there fighting for you guys.

Would you find it acceptable if African-Americans were paid less? Would you maintain your silence then?

Things are NOT going to change unless we make some noise and since men continue to retain the power, it is not going to improve unless you begin advocating on our behalf.

[Syncronaut Seven]

57. There would have been a riot

Many hard feelings, a possible disintegration of the workplace with a corresponding loss of jobs. I was in a position where my job depended on raising morale & motivating people.

My position also allowed me the opportunity to recommend pay equity within my department, but my say was not the last.

In the end, I rejected the "good ole boys" network & it cost me my job. Probably for the better, they were drinking and carousing so hard on the road that STD's and DUI's were getting to be a serious problem.

Before you judge, ask yourself how pragmatic it would have been to make a stand with a mortgage, family and about $100 in the bank as a reserve?

In the end I figured they would screw themselves badly enough, and they did, for millions.

They did things to the illegals that would piss you off too, I'm sure.

Lovely society we've got here. I'm still struggling to decide if it's even worth it to try anymore.

Harrad.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

58. STDs? DUIs?

Wow.

I'm sorry to hear about your job. That's the unfortunate part about working in corporate America. Having to keep quiet when you know about abuse of company policies and general misbehavior.

I have seen some questionable behavior is sales, which is male-dominated. Guys that would expense strip club visits when they were on the road. I don't give a shit if a guy goes to a strip club, but it is not a business expense. Should I be able to expense haircuts, manicures and pedicures? I have to look presentable in sales. Same difference.

I'm unemployed right now and like you, wondering whether to drop out of corporate America and do something on my own. It just ain't worth it anymore.

[FDRrocks]

2. Not sure, male

I'm sure it happens in some cases. I just say I'm not sure b/c I work in a situation very similar to the office depicted in office space. All my supervisors are female, there is one male supervisor in the mail room. Over 50% of Human Resources is female, but it is headed by a man. The President is male also.

So, given the convulted scenario... I have no freaking clue.

[CalebHayes]

3. I bet it happens but...

I would rather have a woman in my store than a man. :freak:

[worldgonekrazy]

4. Well of course it does...just look at the stats

I'm too lazy to google it, but off the top of my head I seem to recall that women make about 20% less than men on average for comparable jobs.

[Capn Sunshine]

5. anyone with daughters knows this.

Its institutionalized in our society.

[Terwilliger]

6. looks like the men are superior to the women in this poll

WOOPS! Sorry ;-)

[prolesunited]

11. Looks like the women

are gaining on you. :hi:

[bain_sidhe]

7. Yes, but not in the way most people think of it

In general, starting salaries are the same for males and females. Yes, depending on industry there may be some bias in starting salaries, but for the most part, there are too many legal hassles for this to be institutionalized across a wide spectrum of industries. The real "gap" starts to appear in the next five years, from a variety of factors:

1) Bosses who *expect* women to take time out to raise children, and thus don't recommend them for raises or promotions.

2) Women who actually *do* take time out (or switch to part time work) skewing the averages

3) Women who are designated "primary contact" for kids, and thus either leave work early more frequently and/or work less overtime - which also has a secondary effect that they, again, aren't promoted or given raises at the same rate as men.

4) The jobs in which women predominate are paid at lower rates than the ones in which men predominate.

The fact is, there is sort of an institutionalized "mommy track" in America, and most women find themselves on it whether they *choose* to or not.

I can link to an article I wrote with facts, charts and figures if anybody's interested. The article isn't current though... I wrote it in 2000, and it isn't on the web at the moment. I'd have to pull it from my archived files and throw it online somewhere, so I'm not going to go to the trouble to do that without an expression of interest.

[private_ryan]

8. you got your asbestos suit on ?

:)

[bain_sidhe]

10. Suit's on, archive's gone

I just went through every archive CD I made when I cleaned off my HD, and the actual Women's Issues *site* material didn't get transfered. I transfered the "About.com" folder, but only the source material/notes/garbage stuff was in it! ARRRGGHHH. A year and a half's worth of work, gone, gone!!!

But, I know where I got my stats... I can "recreate" some stuff, but I'm NOT going to do the whole article again.

[cirej2000]

28. How the heck did you survive that post??

It makes great sense and all. But how the heck did you not get atomized?

Good post.

Everywhere I've worked women have made pretty much equal to what the men make (hitech industry). And of course, there have been fewer women in my industry historically. But those who excel and have a fast track career path get pretty much the same as men for the equivalent positions.

[sid dicious]

44. Too bad you could't have learned it sooner, huh? RIP

Disrupter!

:toast:

:hurts:

Enjoy being able to see threads and not bring your crap to the table!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=134538

[wanderingbear]

9. Minumum wage is Minimum wage no matter what sex you are.

We're all getting the shaft.

[greatauntoftriplets]

12. Kicking.

:bounce:

Thanks to the men who are voting "yes".

[Yupster]

13. Yes it exists

It's due in part to discrimination, and in part due to other factors such as taking time off for family, choosing jobs that allow you to be home when the kids are, choosing to travel less if a commission worker, etc.

My wife is the extreme example. She has put her career on hold for seven years now, and may never work full-time again. She ruins the statistics for all you working women, but it's sure not due to discrimination. I for one would love her to go back to work. If she ever does, she will be a 55 year old teacher with 9 years experience, and probably the lowest paid 55 years old teacher in the school district. That won't be because of discrimination, but her statistics will still be used to prove discrimination by many who just want to make their point regardless of honesty. They will point out that she is paid far less than the average 55 year old man teacher, and that will be proof of discrimination.

The question is how much of the gap is discrimination and how much is other factors. The gap is clearly made up of both reasons. How much of each is the question.

[prolesunited]

16. Do you cut and paste you wife's

example on every thread dealing with this issue? Although what you state is true — and I would never argue for her to step back into the work force and make the same money. That would be special treatment — but this sole example doesn't explain the hundreds of instances of actual discrimination.

Are you saying all of the women who have repeatedly shared their stories of actual discrimination are making them up or somehow distorting the facts.

Also, it doesn't explain the fact that women without children also are paid less.

I'm glad you and your wife are happy with your arrangement. It's all about choices. But, if a woman chooses to be in the work force, she is entitled to equal pay and equal opportunity.

[Yupster]

20. Just trying to point out that

men making on the average more than women is not automatically evidence of employment discrimination. My wife and millions of other women like her are evidence of that.

I know some studies have tried to factor out as many things as possible to get to an apples to apples comparison. The last study I remember seeing was that women made 97 cents on the dollar when all extraneous issues were factored out, but even that study was attacked from both sides for not factoring everything out, or for over compensating. I don't think you can ever get to an apples to apples study. Even if you had a study of identical twins, I bet you'd still find that Jane had to turn down overtime one night because her mom asked her to help move her grandmother to a nursing home one day while Jim worked the overtime.

[rbnyc]

30. Last study I saw said women make 80 cents for every dollar...

...a man makes for comparable work. Sorry, I don't have a link.

BTW, Why doesn't Jim help move Grandma?

But I actually agree with the general point of your post, that it's difficult for studies to really give an accurate picture of what's going on and why.

As a matter of pure anecdote, I've noticed from my work for both non-profit and for-profit organizations, that there are more women than men in senior positions in non-profits and more men than women in senior positions in for-profit companies. Salaries are, obviously, much lower in a non-profit.

[Mairead]

25. "The gap is clearly made up of both reasons."

No, actually it isn't. The gap they report is the gap that exists with all other factors controlled.

[spooky3]

48. Not always, in the media.

More typically, they report the numbers for "full-time, year-round" workers, male vs. female. This controls some of the "legitimate" factors, but not all, and as other posters have pointed out elsewhere, being full-time and year-round may be influenced by discrimination also.

In other cases, the media may cite some particular study that controls additional factors, such as industry, occupation, job type, years of service, performance, etc., or they describe several such studies. But not all researchers define and measure these factors in the same way. That's probably one reason why many journalists use the full-time, year-round #s.

[blondeatlast]

14. Other, I'm a woman.

I think in jobs that were previously held mostly by men, the wage gap is closing, though hardly as rapidly as I would like. But traditionally "female" jobs still have a long way to go to catch up. for instance, nursing, which has come a very long way in terms of the knowledge needed and the complexity of the job. But wages don't seem to be rising commensurate with the education, knowledge, and talent required.

Nursing is just one example, but it may be the most critical one. As often as I've been hospitalized, I know the value of a good nurse. There isn't a salary that can pay a good one what s/he is worth, but we need to try desperately.

[Northwind]

15. I am male, and yes, there is serious discrimination

Let me tell you a true story.

Right now, I am involved in a project for mortgage lending firm in Dallas, Texas (no names mentioned). I am helping create an online application to streamline the processing of loans applications and managing client contacts, just fyi. At this office, which I have learned, is typical of its kind, there are currently 5 loan officers. Loan officers are basically not much more than salesmen, selling their clients this or that loan, and getting a commision from the actual lender when the loan goes through. These 5 men, good family men, none of them raging sexist asshole or right-wing nutjob, do little more than work a few spreadsheets of loan calculations (the actual math is all done by their computer). Once the client agrees to whatever terms they offer, these 5 men do not touch the account again, for at that point it goes into "processing." "Processing" is the collective name for a pool of 20 people in the back, all women, and just incidentally, all white except for one asian, are referred to, without complaint, as "the girls." "The girls" then do the massive amount of paperwork and labor involved in the completion of a loan. Since I helped on some issues with their employee database admin interface, I know everyone's salary in that office. The salaries of all 20 of "the girls" do not add up to the salaries of the 5 men who do the least work.

Do not tell me there is no wage gap based in geneder, and if you believe that, pull your head out of your ass.

[Skittles]

17. thank you Northwind

I cannot tell you how many times I have found myself training a man who makes more than me.

[sid dicious]

38. Have you trained women who earn more than you?

Or is it just men who make more?

I know alot of industries probably still have prejudices towards women employees. I do think that women CEOs are still few and far between much too much for my liking. But I dunno about any clear evidence for women being held back salary wise consciously. Then again, I don't do any hiring or reviews. But I do know what some of my female coworkers make and some make more some make less.

Maybe the salary review criteria at some companies need to be reviewed to make sure that they are not unfair to women.

One thing I don't buy is that if someone is out of work for child leave and they still have the skills to do the job at a certain level...that they are punished economically for taking the time off. In my industry we don't necessarily have static salary increases based on time. They're based on merit the longer you work and get a raise the more money you'll have to get a percentage against the next raise. But just being around for 8 years doesn't mean that you'll make more than someone who's been around for 2 years.

Wow, this is something that does need to get out in the open though.

[CivilRightsNow]

51. Even women in power positions make less.

You are seeing an increase in women in middle management because it helps the company save money. They are paid less on average. Career track women are just as willing to devote 80 hours a week to the company store. If anything, those women harm the movement to equalize wages. Not the "mommy Track" ladies. They accept the glass ceiling getting raised slowly and feel no desire to press for reform. They are comfortable.

I'm in technology and with a degree and an assload of certs I dont get paid as much as the golf suited, ass kissing family men, whose problems I have to stay late to fix.

[sid dicious]

55. It's really hard to stay at the same place and make up for a bad

starting salary. I do know that. Alot of the ass kissing golf suited guys are supremely confident and do know the tricks. Then when they get in...they BS their way through meetings and hobnob with the CEOs etc. And they usually start with a great salary and do just enough to get by with a salary increases.

I don't see that many women who play the same hobnobbing with the chief type games. But I do see more and more of it. And I see more and more women who are coming into my company as referrals. They usually get paid beacoup bucks.

My boss is a woman and I normally prefer to work for women because they don't expect me to kiss ass. Sometimes the dynamics are different in how they handle pressure situations...lot less security than a man in pressure situation and it gets sort of scary :)

I still do see alot of women on interviews who are less willing to sell themselves when I ask them questions about their achievements. They're not usually as willing to brag as much as guys do. Which for me is a plus often times. As opposed to Biff, would would sit back and BS about how great he is (usually sets my BS meter off). But he's probably going to make a bigger salary request to the HR person and be more willing to negotiate.

My limited experience.

[Skittles]

61. No, I have never trained women who made more than me

never

[prolesunited]

18. I am heartened by these results so far.

It's nice to see so many men realize there's an issue. It would be great if more of you would speak up on "women's issues" in the future, even if it's just to lend moral support.

[Meowser]

19. As A Woman Who Has Banged My Head Against a Glass Ceiling

many, many times, any man who denies the fact of gender discrimination is either living in a fantasy world or harbors deep resentment toward the opposite sex. One of the posters said that she has trained men who made more money than her and eclipsed her promotion-wise. I have an MBA and 20+ years work history (with glowing references, I might add) and men with lesser MBAs-i.e. not from an Ivy League school-make more money than me and have been promoted ahead of me. I have not taken time off to have kids, raise a family or anything of the kind. My experience is typical of many women I socialize with as well as peers. The old boy network is alive and well.

[Nile]

27. Mabe it is your attitude.

You know the one, the I am better that you one. Keep it hidden a little better and you may be liked in more places. Humble is a good thing sometimes.

[prolesunited]

29. LOL!

Isn't it interesting that you don't even know or have ever met this poster but you can deduce she has a bad attitude from a singular post. I didn't see an attitude. What I saw was a woman confident in her abilities and education.

Funny, when a man is self-confident and assertive, he is liked and respected. When a women exhibits these same traits, those who would like to keep her in her "place" view her as a bitch.

I guess this boils down to a blame-the-victim mentality. Wage discrimination doesn't actually exist so YOU must be doing something wrong. Sure, we men won't offer you better pay or promotions even though you are more educated and talented, but it's YOUR fault. :eyes:

Do you honestly believe there isn't a wage gap or sexism in the workplace?

[Meowser]

32. I never had a problem with being liked

the only problems I've had are with a few people that are are threatened by any woman with an education and an opinion. Thankfully, these people have been few and far between like Nile.

"Keep it hidden a little better"-why don't you hide your odious personality a little better? It's certainly stinking up this thread.

[Nile]

67. What appears to be uppity!

"(with glowing references, I might add) and men with lesser MBAs-i.e. not from an Ivy League school"

I am assuming that "Glowing References" is your own opinion, and excuse me if some of us did not get our degrees from an, ahemm, "Ivy League school". How low of us.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

73. Do you have a chip on your shoulder, pal?

I think the lady was trying to make a point that she has equal or better qualifications than a lot of her male peers, but is still paid less.

She should be proud that she graduated from an Ivy League school. It doesn't negate what you have done in your life. Why do you think it's acceptable to attack someone who was trying to make a point? It sounds like you have a problem with women. How sad.

[smirkymonkey]

56. Oh, yes, that's it...

We women have to have "a better attitude", that's all. How many women have heard that one? Which translates to: Don't get uppity, stay in your place and keep your mouth shut, and you just might fit in around here.

What a disgustingly sexist attitude.

[newyawker99]

36. Hi Meowser!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Selwynn]

22. I am a male, and you all know what I think :D

[Booberdawg]

23. I think you hit the nail on the head, proles

In the gender wage gap and with other gender issue threads, many of which you and I have both been involved, it's the same posters making the same arguments over and over again - the infrequent exceptions.

And in my experience, when it comes to womens issues, it seems to be these same people who recite these "exceptions" to the rule over and over again, (usually men) that make the most noise, demand the most bandwidth, and insist on controlling the topic.

Interesting poll results.

[spooky3]

42. You're right, Booberdawg and Proles.

[KG]

26. oh, heck yeah it does.

to think otherwise would be dellusional.

[Nikia]

31. Yes

Part of it has to do with how a person is viewed based upon gender. Women tend to be viewed as less competent than men in all but traditionally female jobs. As far as possessing qualities necessary for promotion, women are viewed negatively if we are too assertive, but if we aren't assertive enough, we don't get promoted either. If we are emotional, we aren't professional enough. If we aren't emotional, we are cold. Race and other ethnic stereotypes can be overcome by a competent minority male more gender stereotypes can be overcome by a competent female. For some reason gender prejudices are very much accepted in American society.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

33. Thank You To The Men Who Realize Discrimination When They See It

I have been laid off three times. The first time I was part of an all-woman lay off-the one thing we had in common. The second layoff I was also part of an all-woman layoff, and what we had in common was no children (either single or married with no kids). The third time I was laid off after only 10 weeks. I found out subsequently that the two guys who were also Senior Account Executives (with less total experience and education) were making 20K more a year than me. I know a lot of women in sales, and this kind of wage disparity is all too common.

[0007]

34. Who can't see this one?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

35. A lot of DUers

think that women are to blame for discrimination. Don't have babies, dammit!

[Llewlladdwr]

37. This is so bogus.

Yes I'm male. I'm also aware of a little thing called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes it illegal to pay a worker less based solely on gender. If this has happened to you then get a lawyer and sue.

[rbnyc]

39. There's also a law in NYC...

...to protect people of transgender experience from discrimination in housing and employment, yet I work with people every day who suffer from this. Laws mean nothing if they aren't enforced, and there actually aren't enough pro-bono lawyers to go around.

Also, I was involved in a workplace discrimination case. Our pro-bono lawyer worked for over 7 years while the company's $400/hour lawyer kept the case tied up in the courts.

Money = Power. The Civil Rights Act = A Nice Idea.

EDIT: typo

[spooky3]

40. this imbalance of power and resources

is precisely why the EEOA of 1972 was passed--to allow the EEOC to sue on behalf of plaintiffs, who generally have far less power and fewer resources than corporations, when EEOC has judged the case to have merit. But unfortunately, underfunding and political factors have produced a huge backlog of cases. Guess what the consequences of that have been?

I wish that everyone who answered "no discrimination" would realize that this is an EMPIRICAL QUESTION, that is, something on which factual data can be and (in this case) have been collected, like "what is the extent of gravitational pull?" or "how many words meaning 'fun' exist in all the languages spoken around the world?". A lot of empiricists have published their work in good, refereed journals, and a lot of it is good. So please get to your libraries and read this literature before engraving your opinions in stone.

[rbnyc]

45. Good informative post. Thanks. (nt)

[spooky3]

50. you're welcome. :-)

[Llewlladdwr]

47. Actually Spooky3, I have followed this topic...

quite closely...and I don't think it's as clear-cut as you say. For every study one side produces showing women make X cents to the dollar made by men the other side can produce a study showing that after factoring in factors such as education level, hours worked, time in career field, etc., those differences disappear. I think it's a lot like your second hypothetical ("how many words meaning 'fun' exist in all the languages spoken around the world?"). First of all, does it have to be an exact translation of fun, or can any word meaning "enjoyable activity " be counted? And how do you know whether or not you've captured every available language? Couldn't there be languages spoken in the hinterlands we haven't yet recorded? And what's a language anyway? Are American, Australian, and British English the same language? If not, why not? More complicated than one would think...

[spooky3]

49. I know this literature rather well myself and do not agree with you

about the proportion of studies particularly when controlled for quality of outlet. Your argument actually makes my case. I am NOT making the case that it is clear-cut; in fact, I am arguing against what appears to be YOUR making the "clear-cut" case, that if there were discrimination one would get a lawyer and fight it, and others' apparently "clear-cut" case, that there is no discrimination. Please read my posts more carefully, thanks.

[Llewlladdwr]

41. But the point is...

that you don't have to go pro bono. Yes, there are many organizations that can help in a case like this (ACLU, EEOC, State Employment Commission, etc.) but if you have a solid case there's plenty of lawyers who'd be happy to take you on a contingency basis. I don't know how many posts I've read saying "I was discriminated against and I have proof!" yet apparently the individual decided to meekly submit rather than take their "proof" to court. Kinda makes one wonder...

[spooky3]

43. Please see my earlier post. Also, there are many other costs of

filing a lawsuit--as well as the risks of losing even if you have a great case. Many of these costs and risks exist even if the individual chooses to try to fight in a "friendly and helpful" or less formal way, rather than by hiring a lawyer. In fact, they may be worse.

Please see the literature on whistle-blowing in organizations, or at the very least, read the Time magazine-type articles on it, for just a few examples of the many things orgs. can do to people who accuse them of wrongdoing. And try to get a job after you have done this.

[Llewlladdwr]

52. The simple truth...

is that sometimes we feel we've been treated unfairly when in actuality we haven't. If you don't believe in yourself enough to stand up for your rights then you're likely to see those rights slip away. Nothing comes without some risk. (Feel free to add you're own cliches here :-)).

I think we just have a difference of opinion here. My opinion is that there is no conspiracy by the Patriarchy to depress women's wages. Your mileage may vary. :-)

[prolesunited]

62. Do I think you all have meetings

to decide how to oppress up or some grand conspiracy? No. But that doesn't mean it exist on so many levels. It is so ingrained in our society that you can't even see it.

I guess it depends what side of the aisle you stand on. I would love for you to be able to walk in our shoes for awhile and I'm sure you would change your tune.

And again, here is another man telling us that WE are to blame for the situation. Your gender controls the power structure and it OUR fault that we haven't fought hard enough?!?!? Look how hard we have had to fight just to gain the concessions that we have.

[rbnyc]

46. what spooky said. (nt)

[CivilRightsNow]

53. Oh give me a break

I had a sexual discrimination case that could be supported with everything from emails to company written memos. I had witnesses. I had facts that a 21 year old male with 6 months of technical experience was being paid 6k more then I was with my degree and industry certifications. He was even willing to testify.

I went to 15 lawyers. 5 told me they would take the case if I paid the filing fees, court fees, transcription, yadda yadda.. and their hourly cost.

That would have been a 10 thousand dollar gamble that my unemployed self could not take with the level of corruption that is evident in the CA state court system in favor of corporations.

Sue? Whatever. I guess you should add, "go to school, get your law degree" and sue onto that statement.

[Llewlladdwr]

54. Ummmm....

ACLU? EEOC? Labor Board? They don't cost, and with your mountain of evidence should have been easily able to obtain a judgement against your former employer. After which a civil suit would have been a slam dunk.

[CivilRightsNow]

60. Heh...You guys think its that easy, eh?

Im taking it that you have never been through this process. Good for you, I pray you never have to.

Have you ever tried calling up the ACLU? It isnt like you just get patched through to your own personal lawyer and they whip you up all the papers and file everything you need.

It's been over a year and Im still waiting to hear back from the EEOC and the CA state Labor board. The ACLU and EEOC are still futzing around with getting past the binding arbitration which isnt really that binding if you look at legal precedent in CA. Not to mention the fact that the stupid company I previously worked for cannot find the original copy of said arbitration beacuse I never signed it. I fell through the paperwork cracks. But they swear they couldnt have been so inefficient so they keep extending and extending...

It's a big mess. Suffice to say, there is nothing more that I can do that isnt being done and the supports that everyone swears we have to obtain equal pay and representation, yadda yadda.. are crumbling pillars of inefficiency.

Even if someone does actually take on this case and resolve it, with the time that I have spent, just to date, Id have to make a mighty large sum to break even. But Ill fight the system, it's worth it. Im simply saying that in the end, Im sure Ill feel doubly screwed over and it aint as easy as everyone here makes it sound. If it was. Alot more women would be suing their employers.

[Terwilliger]

65. there are laws against housing discrimination too

that doesn't mean it doesn't still happen...outside of the watchful eye of legislation

[Kathy in Cambridge]

59. Kick

[pmbryant]

63. Interesting poll, but ...

believing the gender wage gap exists is a far different thing than believing it is a serious problem that needs addressing.

This latter belief, I think, is where the true difference between the bulk of progressive men and progressive women lies on this issue.

And even many men who claim it is a serious problem do not place this issue very high up on their list of political priorities, even though fighting discrimination of all sorts should be one of our top issues as progressives. This was certainly true of me in the past. And I have reason to believe it is true of many (most?) other DU male posters as well.

Thanks for posting this poll, proles!

:hi:

--Peter

[Heddi]

66. I think you're right

and reading the recent threads on this, as well as the ones on DU in the past, as well as talking about this among friends and colleagues, I think alot of men have the assumption that if women's wages were to become more 'equal' then men's wages would go down.

That in order for one to be paid more, another must be paid less.

Of course, this is patently untrue, but I think that's the fear in alot of people.

That point is also brought up in the "equality for women" threads that deal with things OTHER than pay inequality.

Many men who participate in those threads (and in conversations I've had in person) AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that in order for women to be equal across the board, that men will become 2nd class citizens. That women don't want EQUALITY, they want power, and they want the power to be shifted from men to women, and that they want men to be in the place that women have been in for....thousands....of years.

There's alot of knee-jerk reactions when these topics are discussed.

It's so easy to say "why don't you sue if you're being discriminated against", although the reality is that proving discrimination is difficult, if not impossible, especially with regards to work-place discrimination.

It's not as easy as JUST SUE THEM. It's not like HR departments have on the pay scales "Pay this person more because he's a man. Pay this person less because she's a woman". It's not that cut and dried. Just as it's not so cut and dried to prove racial, or religious discrimination at work, in housing, or in any other factor of life.

ALot of women are complacent to the problem of pay inequality as well. They make $40k a year, why bitch about it? (Even though they SHOULD be making $60k a year as their male counterparts are).

Alot of women still hold fast to the 'don't rock the boat' syndrome, and fear that speaking out will cost them their jobs--not just the one they hold, but any other they try to get in the future.

I think you see this alot in many oppressed societies. Many non-white Americans (whether American born, or immigrants) feel the need to assimilate into white culture, loose their cultural or racial identity and just 'blend in'. Don't live in "Chinatown"--you'll be thought of as some rice-eating Chinese person. Don't live in "BlackTown"--you'll be thought of as a ghetto-thug. Don't make an issue about any type of inequality or you'll be thought of as some uppity slag who wants everything handed to them on a silver platter.

So through complacency on the part of the oppressed, and lack of willingness to do anything on the part of the unoppressed, the system of discrimination (in SO many areas, not just pay) goes uncontested and unchanged.

Women are told "if you're unhappy about it, DO something about it"---but it shouldn't JUST BE WOMEN who have to do something about it.

My husband and I have had the conversation numerous times about who gets paid more in the household. Typically, he's gotten paid more than I have, but we do different jobs. HIs feeling is that it doesn't matter WHO gets paid more,---we're living in a joint house and if our incomes can be increased, then he's all for it.

He's said it doesn't matter if I make $100,000 a year and he makes $10k or the other way around. It's joint finances, and the more $$ in the household the better.

His father, on the other hand, a strict conservative, has dated women who made more $$ than he did, and wasn't able to handle the ego-deflater that came with dating a woman who out-earned him. So he dumped them and eventually married a woman who made far less than he did. It made him feel superior. HE was the head of the household. HE was the breadwinner. There's no equality in their relationship in any way, certainly not financial. SHE depends on him. Not the other way around.

This is a complex issue--socially, economically, psychologically----sadly, there is no 'quick fix'.

[moondust]

64. Any that exists is likely to be in the private sector.

Which I believe is another reason--if not the main reason--Repukes want to privatize everything. In the private sector they can get away with much more overt and subtle discrimination, and good ol' boy and good ol' girl netowrks can thrive.

[ProfessorGAC]

68. Anecdotally Yes. No Evidence It's Systemic

There are some bad companies run by less than equitable and good people who do pay based upon gender. But, when one sees the econometric studies in which extrinsic factors are taken fully into account, the general trend is that there is equal pay for equal work.

Obviously, there are individual cases, like some on this thread, where the extremely clear law on this matter is violated. That is certainly deplorable. But, the few examples on this thread can't and shouldn't be extrapolated to the entire population.

Now, none of this takes into account the fact that women still tend to be encouraged, and do go into, more "traditional" work place roles. That's a different question. That certainly does happen, and it is definitive and provable that female dominated professions fall into a lower economic stratum than do most male dominated professions or careers. (Nurses, teachers, and the like making less than electricians, carpenters, and truck drivers, for instance, even though they have 2 to 4 times the education.)

I think many times folks get these two fiscal and economic issues blurred. One is truly equal pay for the exact same job, with the same credentials, experience, and performance record. The other is how women get shuffled into lower paying careers as a matter of social convention. They aren't the same thing, but i think the latter is actually more damaging than the former.

You can pass a law (and we have) that makes it a crime to pay someone less just because of gender. But, you can't pass a law that forces anyone to encourage a young woman to be a lawyer, but not a nurse. So, the social convention just gets cemented because there is no way to force it to change. That'll take quite some time.
The Professor

[pmbryant]

69. No evidence?

But, when one sees the econometric studies in which extrinsic factors are taken fully into account, the general trend is that there is equal pay for equal work.

From what I have seen, I have to disagree with this. For instance, the GAO put out a report last month which attempted to take these "extrinsic" factors into account. The result was that they still couldn't account for a 20%(!) difference in pay between men and women.

The previous studies they cite in that report found differences anywhere between 2.5% and 47% after accounting for education, experience, and other similar factors.

So I don't see how the general trend is equal pay for equal work. That appears to be effectively ruled out; the real question appears to be how large the gap is. Is it relatively small, but still significant (5-10%), or is it very large (>20%). The bulk of the evidence, from my reading, suggests that it is bordering on very large.

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. From the report

"Due to inherent limitations in the survey data and in statistical analysis, we cannot determine whether this remaining difference is due to discrimination or other factors that may affect earnings. For example, some experts said that some women trade off career advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities. In conclusion, while we were able to account for much of the difference in earnings between men and women, we were not able to explain the remaining earnings difference."

That is not especially damning given the nature of the posts on these duel threads.

[Yupster]

71. Also, see page 22 - "Concluding Observations."

apparently, the 20 % gap is before any attempt was made to compensate for family situations which is kind of the whole difference of opinion.


On edit -- at least the report does point out that women work on average fewer hours, and more part time jobs. That's good to see in print because some have denied that.

[pmbryant]

74. I think 'family situations' are accounted for, in the sense discussed here

Family situations are accounted for in this study, in the sense that women who take time off from working in order to be the primary caregivers for their children are factored in. This study explicitly includes variables like education, total work experience, and recent time spent out of the labor force, amongst many others. Still, it cannot account for a pay difference of 20%.

What the study claims isn't accounted for is a possible choice by women to take jobs that offer more flexibility in exchange for less money. I don't find it likely that this accounts for anywhere near the remaining 20% difference.

(Before all these variables are factored in, the difference in pay between men and women is 44%!)

--Peter



Here is how the GAO described the variables they used to try to explain the pay differences between men and women. (From p. 24 of the GAO report, emphasis added):

To determine why an earnings difference between men and women may exist, our model controlled for a range of variables, which can be grouped into three variable sets. The first set of independent variables consisted of demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and race. We also included an education variable that indicated the highest number of years of education each respondent attained by the end of the sample period. Family-related demographic variables included marital status, number of children, and the age of the youngest child in the household. We also included other income (defined as family income minus a respondent’s own personal earnings), the region where individuals lived (i.e., in the South or not), and whether they lived in a rural or urban area (i.e., in a metropolitan area or not).

The second set of independent variables pertained to past work experience. Total work experience was defined as the actual number of years an individual worked for money since age 18. This variable was computed as self-reported experience as reported in 1984 (or the year the individual entered the panel), augmented by hours of work divided by 2,000 in each subsequent year. We also included a variable measuring job tenure, defined as the length of time an individual had spent in his or her current job.

The third set of independent variables included labor market activity reported in a given survey year. Variables included hours worked in the past year, weeks out of the labor force in the past year, and weeks unemployed in the past year. For our analysis, we considered time spent unemployed and time out of the labor force as work “interruptions,” but we did not include time off for one’s own illness or a family member’s illness, vacation and other time off, or time out because of strike. We also included a variable that accounted for an individual’s full-time or part-time employment status, defined as the average number of hours an individual worked per week on his or her main job. Individuals were considered to have worked part-time if they worked fewer than 35 hours per week and full-time if they worked 35 hours or more per week. Other variables in this category included the individual’s industry, occupation, and an indicator of union membership. We also accounted for self-employment status, defined as whether respondents worked for someone else, for themselves, or for both themselves and someone else. ...

[pmbryant]

72. Discrimination vs flexibility

This just demonstrates how hard it is to prove discrimination. Some unexplained difference in the pay of men and women can always be waved away as due to some factor not considered, because one can never consider everything.

I don't find the flexibility argument very persuasive, personally. And even if this argument holds in a number of cases, the reason this pattern exists in the first place may well be due to the fact that women are paid less than men.

The main point I was trying to make is that the evidence does not point to 'equal pay for equal work'. That conclusion only holds if one is allowed to assume away the (approximately) 20% difference as due to 'trading off earnings for flexibility' despite lack of solid evidence that this can account for that huge difference.

--Peter

[spooky3]

75. It is not true that the literature generally shows no discr.

Certainly there are some econometric studies that offer that interpretation of results, but there are many other studies in other fields, including industrial relations, where the data show otherwise. Further there are critiques of the "no discr." interpretations, e.g., a factor such as "job type" can be measured in different ways and it can be substantively tainted with discrimination as well. Finally, no study has really examined the matter in a way that would meet the standards of scholars in a variety of fields, largely because pay secrecy is maintained for many jobs in many organizations, particularly large ones, and thus truly comprehensive data on predictors and criteria are not available.

There are even some scholars who maintain that "comparable worth" is less a problem than "equal pay for equal work" but the data I've seen are more supportive of your view, which I also share because of these data.

Further, all attorneys would also not agree with you that the law is "extremely clear." Even what appears to be a simple act--the EPA of 1963--has a broad fourth exception--"any other factor other than sex"--that can involve substantial interpretation, particularly when that factor, such as "pay history" or "market value", covaries with gender.

[spooky3]

76. PS the legal force for "comparable worth" effectively ended in the US

when our dear friend now on the SCOTUS, Anthony Kennedy, shut it down with a (typically RW) decision, while he was an appeals court judge. CW continues in Canada and other cultures.

People's membership in certain occupations is not entirely determined by "free choice". Discrimination in selection standards on the basis of race and sex has frequently been documented and many other factors are involved.