Women Make 20% Less Than Men Upon Graduating - 31% Less In Ten Years

[DeSwiss]

U.S. Gender Pay Gap Emerges Early, Study Finds

Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:48AM EDT
By Ellen Wulfhorst

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A dramatic pay gap emerges between women and men in America the year after they graduate from college and widens over the ensuing decade, according to research released on Monday.

One year out of college, women working full time earn 80 percent of what men earn, according to the study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, based in Washington D.C.

Ten years later, women earn 69 percent as much as men earn, it said.

Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said. "If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no.

more: http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN2029109620070423

on edit: Corrected my stupid arithmetic

[Sweet Freedom]

1. Your title is misleading

I think it says women may 20% less than, not 80%

You may still have time to edit.

[DeSwiss]

2. Thank you....

...for the heads up! ;)

[Sweet Freedom]

14. No problem

I was scared for a minute there. I knew I was underpaid, but not that much!

[SharonAnn]

5. Actually it should say "PAID 20% less". They may "make" it for their company, but they're not

compensated for it.

We really need to work on "framing" the issue.

The issue is that they're "paid" 20% less than men at the beginning. Then that discrepancy increases over several years of employment until they're PAID 31% less than men.

This is the same as saying that some mega-mogul "earns" $200 million a year, or some other such absurd figure. He/she gets PAID that much. I doubt very much that it is "earned".

PAY is something that is decided upon by the employer, and may have no bearing on the worth or value of the work or what a person has actually "earned" or "made" for the employer.

[cap]

3. the sad thing is that men have sat around and done nothing about this

They have all known what was going on and just quietly accepted it amongst themselves. No discussion. Just silent acceptance of the fact that, of course, you will earn more than your female co-worker. Of course, Sally should be relegated to the support functions of an organization and not guided to the fast-track. Not one guy has ever said that something is terribly wrong in my company that I do not have 50% representation of women at my grade and salary level. Not one guy has ever taken this issue up with personnel or HR.

With the layoffs going on, women have been quietly marched out the door. Not a word spoken in their defense.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Yeah, a gain of a whole 10% over the last 37 years. I remember well and still have a button from the

1970's (ERA campaign) that says 59 cents. That's what a woman made as compared to the dollar a man made for the same job in 1970.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Sorry, but I'll take my information from a far more independent group.

This is like believing a study from the Institute for Tobacco Sciences that says cigarettes are healthy for you.

This study shows only 7% of women negotiate their starting salaries, as opposed to over 50% of men. The consequences of that are plain - men wind up making more out of college than women, and since your starting salary usually influences future earnings, of course men are going to make more 10 years out. http://www.womendontask.com/stats.html

There is also a strong link to child birth and earnings. Professional women that choose not to have children earn 95% of what males do in similar jobs.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usgovinfo&cdn=newsissues&tm=13&f=00&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf
http://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/equalpay/epappb.htm

So who do YOU believe? An organization that basis its very existence on the idea that there's a pay gap between genders and thus has to justifying that existence continually or two governmental studies and an independent resource?

[DawnIsis]

7. More Independent????

Your first link is for a book. It's not even a group so it seems to me you are cherry picking something to justify your attitude which is blatantly hostile to women. I visited the link: http://www.womendontask.com/stats.html for the book and it even backs up the statistics of this study.

Instead of posting something of value you list 2 reasons why it's women's fault they don't make enough money: negotiation and children. Are you honestly suggesting that women who have children deserve to make less?

At the end of your post you say "who do YOU believe" although there was nothing in your post that disputes the fact that women make less than men, just excuses as to why you think it's justified that they do.

What is your motive?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I'm not suggesting anything.

But it's simple math here: If a woman takes time off to raise a child, she is not gaining experience, she is not increasing her earnings potential, and she will have to take a pay cut when she gets back into the workforce because someone is going to have to take a small risk her because she's probably a little rusty from not working.

I find it excessively interesting that you consider this whole thing to be a "fault". There is no fault in such matters, there are only choices and consequences. If you choose to take time off from work to raise a child, you are probably making that choice with full knowledge of what comes with it. The person in question did so because they wanted to, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Further, an increasing number of men are taking the exact same path, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

The problem here is that this person also gets factored in to the whole wages debate, in which we're speaking in generalities. As such, you think there's a "fault" involved, when there really is not. There are just people making personal decisions that they feel are in their own best interests.

You ask: Are you honestly suggesting that women who have children deserve to make less?

I'll ask you - if you're a woman that's chosen to bust her ass for 10 years to get where she envisioned her career to be, wouldn't you think you deserved more than someone that took a year or two off somewhere in between to pursue other interests?

As far as negotiations go, I'm one of the 45% or so of men that did not negotiate my starting salary, and I have seen the same consequence of that action. I make less than many of my peers. I don't know what more I can say about that part of it.

My motive is nothing more than presenting more than one side of the story. As I originally said, you cannot take reports from organizations that need to justify their own existence at their word. All such organizations present the evidence that makes their case, and ignore that which does not. It's that simple. Know your source.

And while my citation does support the statistics, the statistics themselves do not tell the full story. Just because there is a wage gap, just blindly saying that corporations or men need to fix the wage gap is inappropriate if, as some studies suggest, the gap is not caused by what it is merely assumed causes it.

Equity, last I checked meant having equality. By that definition, anyone who puts in X amount of work should receive X amount of pay, regardless of race, gender, sex, ethnicity, or sexuality. I stand by that form of equality, 100%. It is not equality to say that someone who has worked for 3 years should make the same salary as someone that has worked 5. That's something entirely different altogether.

[DawnIsis]

10. Your "Simple Math" seems fuzzy

You make assumptions that women are taking off significant amounts of time to have children in order to justify your view that they are "rusty" and deserve to receive less pay upon their return to work. In my experience professional women plan their childbirth carefully taking off the least amount of time possible to have a child. Please provide your source for this broad justification of women taking off large amounts of time to have children and therefore suffering these "consequences". Surely you aren't just making assumptions for which you have no real knowledge to back it up?

I don't know many poor or rich women who allow themselves the luxury of spending a year or more at home with their children. It's just not possible in today's age. If you are a professional you risk your career and if you are poor you simply cannot afford it.

I await your data.

[DawnIsis]

11. 100% Equality

I also want to address your view of 100% equality between men and women being your justification that women who have children suffer financial consequences because, of course, men don't have children therefore they should make more money because they don't have to take of time to deliver and nurse a baby.

100% Equality to me means in ability and intelligence BUT there are biological differences between the sexes and I don't believe women should be penalized because they are the ones that birth the children of this world. I believe an understanding and exception should be made by employers regarding this difference and I think that if you really put the shoe on the other foot you would too.

I don't have any children and don't plan on it but I would not begrudge a promotion to an equally capable female because she took a year off work when she was 30. I guess you would?

[DawnIsis]

8. Please justify your accusations....

Vash in your post you state "So who do YOU believe? An organization that basis its very existence on the idea that there's a pay gap between genders and thus has to justifying that existence continually or two governmental studies and an independent resource?"

If you had read the article you would see how the study you are so quick to dismiss was compiled:

The study, entitled "Behind the Pay Gap," used data from the U.S. Department of Education. It analyzed some 9,000 college graduates from 1992-93 and more than 10,000 from 1999-2000.

With absolutely no evidence you assert the study is dishonest. Why? On what basis, other than your hostility toward females, would you make such an accusation?

[Scout]

12. dramatic pay gap emerges ... the year after they graduate from college

so, women have not yet taken time off to have and/or rear children, so what gives in the FIRST YEAR after they graduate college?

oh, I bet you'll say they just didn't negotiate well enough for themselves :eyes:

[DawnIsis]

13. Yes clearly Vash is saying women are not aggressive enough

during a job interview, therefore they must suffer financial consequences the rest of their lives. Men who are aggressive deserve dramatic pay increases because they are obviously stronger. :sarcasm:

I had no idea I should argue with prospective employers.

And of course the unanswered question is whether or not the employer would respond the same way to a woman's "negotiation" tactics as they respond to mens.

Considering all the badmouthing about Hillary's aggressiveness being a negative I have a feeling the women being interviewed would not be hired if they came across as "pushy"....

[lukasahero]

15. I learned to negotiate and it worked for me

I'm not even thinking of disputing the findings of the study, however, women negotiating for their salaries is a pet project of mine so I wanted to jump in here about it.

I have been able to successfully negotiate for a higher salary, better benefits, raises and promotions after I learned (at the age of 39!!) that I should. That doesn't place the burden of not negotiating on the backs of women (they were never taught, and in fact, have been taught the opposite their whole live!). It does place the responsibility on those of us who have learned this "trick" to spread the word to other women and make sure they develop their skills in this area.

Girls have to be raised to know that asking for what you're worth is not being pushy and being paid less than you're worth is not noble. The onus is on us to raise our next generation differently - both our boys and our girls.

FTR - it is a negotiation, not a demand - "pushy" should never enter the picture.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Exactly on all counts.

The problem starts with education and expectations.

Women, and men to a lesser degree, are unfortunately pushed towards professions that are "normal for their gender." This bias, in and of itself, accounts for a large portion of the wage gap, as many, if not most of the male dominated professions earn more money.

You have educational issues, where women are simply not getting the support they need for careers in math and sciences. There is a clear bias in curriculum and professional development where professors and teachers simply do not accommodate the women in their classrooms.

There's a societal idea that if a woman is demanding what she deserves, that she is being bitchy. That's one thing that's alive and well, if you pay any attention to what's going on with Nancy Pelosi.

All of those things are major issues that contribute to the wage gap, but the statistics simply do not bear out the idea in the OP because women with similar resumes and jobs make just about the same amount of money that men do. Overarching studies like these do not focus on the causes of the problem, but merely assume that it's due to direct inequity, which quite frankly, is a lazy and simplistic approach to the situation. Just as with racism, gender discrimination is much more subtle and underground than it has been in the past, and to get at those core issues, you have to look much deeper than merely saying "men suck."

[Scout]

20. "men suck"

where'd you get that from???

Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said. "If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no.

did you read the OP? did you read the article?


but of course, YOU know way more than any study, I'm sure :eyes:

[bettyellen]

34. i know, what knee jerk bullshit - all the while, accusing women of knee jerk bullshit.

:eyesroll:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. What about that 5%, though?

The study suggests that about three quarters of the pay gap is the result of correlations between gender and things that legitimately should impact on wages.

That still leaves 5% of pure discrimination, though (assuming the list of factors they've controlled for is long enough - I can't find a list of them, I'm ashamed to say).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. 5% is somewhat insignificant, quite frankly.

And with a margin of error for the study, that gap could be even less.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Obviously, employers do respond the same way.

How else do you care to explain that women with similar resumes and backgrounds earn 95% of what men do?

But you know what? You just keep thinking that men are out to get you. Life is obviously a lot easier for you that way. :sarcasm:

[Scout]

21. got a link to support that claim?

"How else do you care to explain that women with similar resumes and backgrounds earn 95% of what men do?"

uh huh, right

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. I provided three links above.

But nice try.

[Scout]

30. they do not substantiate your claims....

but nice try.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. According to you, perhaps.

But quite frankly, you don't seem very open-minded on the subject.

[Scout]

32. edit, wrong thread. n/t

[Scout]

33. I've lived it, I know what happens, and I've seent the old boys network

at work.

You think i'm not open-minded? I couldn't care less.

[DeSwiss]

18. Hey Vash

Look, I'm not so sure I agree with your assessment that the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation is as duplicitous as the Institute for Tobacco Sciences. That's not a fair comparison in my view. While the AAUW might be accused of being slanted in their views, its not as though they're wrong. And its not like there isn't a history of gender discrimination in this country. While anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that the ciggie folks are full of BS.

As for the issue of loss of income due to a failure to properly negotiate; I find that a spurious contention at best. The reason being that few young people coming out of college have any job negotiation skills. And no leverage. Its not like they already have an employer that the potential employer has to lure them away from. And at 22 or 23 years of age, they're at an experiential disadvantage going up against corporate America. Maybe later after they've been seasoned in the workaday world and seen how cutthroat it can really be they can negotiate better.

And the fact is, the old boys network does take care of men coming out of college. I've seen it and I'm sure you have too. That's partly what all the frats and clubs (like Skull and Bones) are all about. Even though recent studies show that women are achieving higher grades overall, and are presently outnumbering men in college enrollment in the professions. Now anyone can say that women lack this thing or that thing as an explanation for the disparity. It doesn't make it right. And all things being equal, with the past history of corporate America (read: the patriarchy), with respect to women in the workplace and everything else, I'm inclined to agree with the AAUW's numbers.

And finally, I guess women just don't get a break. So taking time out to raise a family is the reason for their lower salaries? Okay, fine. This is the thanks they get for maintaining humanity's existence. Right. I suppose that may account for the reason that so many more women are now starting to opt out of marriage and parenthood. If the playing field's reward for having children is less money to raise them with, I fail to see what's in it for them. And those decisions to have children are rarely made solo. There's usually a male around somewhere to provide the sperm. He gets a raise I suppose.

Oddly, there was another post today concerning a preacher who says in his rant that women who choose not to have children are committing a sin. So they get paid less if they have kids -- and go to hell if they don't. Great choices!

IMHO :)

~DeSwiss

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Check out my response a bit up.

I think we're not so far apart on a lot of these issues than you think. I absolutely think there's a clear inequity involved here, but I think that wages are more of a symptom that they are an end-result. To answer a question, you have to know what the real question is, and I touch on that a lot in my response above.

I know full-well the "patriarchy", but that alone does not explain everything, at least not directly. I don't think there is a direct relationship between wages and discrimination, but I think that this discrimination affects women in their developmental stages, and THAT discrimination causes far more of the inequity than a rapidly decreasing number of misogynistic men. The problem with the study is that it is conveniently lazy in that it fails to offer significant explanations beyond "men suck" and "down with the patriarchy." While those concepts indeed answer a lot of, if not most questions, they don't answer EVERY question. Given the studies funded by far more non-partisan and non-biased groups than AAUW, it doesn't appear that it simply answers this question.

I do, however, take issue with this paragraph: And finally, I guess women just don't get a break. So taking time out to raise a family is the reason for their lower salaries? Okay, fine. This is the thanks they get for maintaining humanity's existence. Right. I suppose that may account for the reason that so many more women are now starting to opt out of marriage and parenthood.

I agree - it sucks that women bear the sole responsibility for giving birth. However, how can you just give someone a free pass for not getting the level experience as someone that has not chosen to not only not birth a child, but to not remove themselves from the workforce altogether for periods greater than a year? The concept is severely discriminatory against single and childless employees of both genders, and is akin to cronyism in that it can have severe consequences in the skill of the person employed of promoted. The last sentence in that quote is exactly why I have little sympathy - why should a man or a woman be penalized for NOT opting to raise a child? As you state, they can opt out of parenthood by a number of different means. Marriage should NOT be a factor in this discussion - you can very easily be married and have a career. If you've chosen an asshole for a husband that demands you have kids, well, divorce is still an option last I checked. You might also want to rethink your criteria for selecting a husband in the first place too. There are a LOT of non-asshole guys out there, after all. Speaking of asshole guys, if I haven't said it in this post, I'll say it now - men need to be more willing to be the person that stays home to watch after the children. And a lot of men ARE more willing to do this. That's another of those traditional gender roles that needs to go.

Quite frankly, the whole notion of "maintaining humanity's existence" is a little ridiculous in light of the fact that pro-creation and overpopulation will likely be a key factor in our extinction. If you want to get onto the topic of appreciation for child birth, I'd only consider getting it from the father and the child, because the last thing this world needs is more mouths to feed.

[cap]

25. this does not bear out over time

no workforce makes a big difference between 15 and 18 years worth of service. So if a woman takes time off, she should not be penalized. Nothing much happens after 10 years on a year to year basis. It's only critical when you are talking about 3 vs 8 years of work experience. Or 7 vs. 15 years.

The time off should only be a factor in a woman's 20's; after that it is pretty moot. Definitely shouldnt be a factor in her 40's when she cant bear kids.

You are missing another huge point: there is no "on ramp" for a woman to quickly onboard herself after an absense.

Also, shouldnt men be taking more time off to rear children. Radical idea: how about men taking off a couple years to be fathers?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Radical idea: I've said men should be taking time off several times.

You'd do well to actually read the posts you're responding to.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Here is a link to the study

Here is a link to the study itself, to avoid any chinese-whispers effect produced by the journalist's summary.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. The statistic that impresses me is the 5%, not the 20% or the 31%.

"The regressions for earnings one year after college indicate that when all variables are included, about one quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender. That is, after controlling for all the factors known to affect earnings, college-educated women earn about 5 percent less than college-educated men earn."
(Page 18, "Behind the pay gap").


Discrepancy between the average per capita earnings of men and women is not, in itself, evidence for any form of discrimination on grounds of gender. This claim, if it's true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is) is fairly hard proof of it.

I wish I could find a list of the variables they'd controlled for, though. Can anyone see a list of them?

[Berry Cool]

26. One of the big problems is that women who have children are still expected

to bear the brunt of their care--taking time out from work, working the "second shift" at home, etc.

What's worse, they accept this as their rightful lot and something they can do nothing about.

That makes a huge difference. If they didn't assume it was their responsibility to be the one (as opposed to their husbands) to quit at least temporarily or cut back on their work hours, things might be different.

[Captain_Nemo]

35. On the topic of pay I didn't realize Senator Clinton sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act

From an article today on CNN about being a female candidate


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/electing.women.ap/index.html

"Clinton must portray several images

Regardless of how the vote plays out, Clinton must portray several images in her campaign. She announced her candidacy from her living room, a move that virtually invited prospective voters into her home. She has won praise from top military officials who say she has a firm grasp of wartime needs and strategy.

She has also launched a nationwide outreach to women voters and was one of the sponsors of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would close the wage gap between women and men.

"If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women. And I certainly believe in the equality of women," Clinton said recently.

[joshcryer]

36. It's something I've pointed out in favor of Clinton.

It gets dismissed or ignored. She sponsered it and on her website a little while back that's all she talked about (back when the Imus affair occured). I think of all the candidates she's the only one serious about defending womens rights.

[Captain_Nemo]

37. I agree. The women's rights issue is crucial to the crisis we face today:

poverty: a woman's issue: we make less than men and we live longer therefore we have less going in to retirement accounts

Social Security : a woman's issue; we live longer than men

reproductive rights; women need them (and men)

war: women are the unspoken victims of war; rape murder. It would be good to have a female, feminist who understands millitary adn stragey running the country.

These are the reasons I am voting for her.