The gender pay gap?
If women performs equally as men, why are women only getting 70% compensation? Also, if unjustified pay-gap is true, why dont all corporations hire 100% women and save 30% cost on payroll? Are corporation so blinded by sexism that that are willing to lose billions on profit?
This may get me fired from here... I'm trying to find the article but I read something a while back that said the pay gap was not as cut and dry as the 70% number infers. It backed things up with data but the gist was that OVER THEIR LIFETIME women make 70% but job-job pay is mostly equitable with one exception. The Delta was due to men mostly working non stop from age 19 or so to retirement. Whereas women took breaks to raise kids... Care for elders... Etc. So the 30% difference came from long breaks and "catching up" due to being out of the workforce and skills getting stale. The exception was that IN GENERAL... when salary negotiation is at play... Men negotiate more aggressively and even with good offers are more inclined to push for more. To this I can confidently state I'm not strong. I'm the kind to say "that's a good offer" and not try to push for more (working to change that) I found the article fascinating as it asked hard questions. With the intent to root out where that 30% was. In order to be able to properly address it. Not sure if it's right or wrong... Just throwing it out there.
You are wrong. The gender gap isn't because of "breaks" in employment. It takes into account the current salaries and compares them. The reason for the 70% number is that it's calculated by using the median salary of all men and the median salary of all women and finding the percentage difference. Men are more likely in hire paying jobs, and women are more likely in lower paying jobs (see my post below).
There is a missing component that businesses expect women to be caretakers. If a male and female worker become first time parents, they are more willing to give the female less challenging work as soon as she announces her pregnancy.
Facepalm
Problem 1 — education: Engineering graduates are 80% men. Two thirds of MBA are men. Doctors/lawyers, about 50/50. Men without college degrees can work in lucrative trades, but there is not really an analogy for women. Problem 2 — babies. Women have them, and they take a ton of time. Men do not have babies, and so do not have this career interruption. Problem 3 — the smallest problem by now, socioeconomics. There is some residual sexism. Big picture, the median woman either (1) has no degree, or has an irrelevant degree in the humanities and/or (2) has a baby which stifles her career / earning capacity. If you want to “fix the problem,” send your daughter to engineering school and encourage her to get on birth control.
Or allow for equal paternity/maternity leave... Your proposed "fix" isn't really one, but rather working within the constraint of the current system.
For obvious reasons mothers need more time off, so they take it. They also ease back into work slower. Equal paternity leave might help a little but won't compensate for biology or temperament. To really compensate, you'd have to put a maximum allowable number of hours of work for men. Which is obviously stupid.
Did you JUST discover Jordan Peterson and think “wow this guy is a genius!”?
Actually Damores google memo was pretty insightful.
What he say about low pay for bad English
The gender pay gap is calculated by taking the median income of all men and the median income of all women and finding the percentage difference. But, that doesn't really give you the full picture. On a job to job comparison women make (I think it was 2%...) less than men. So doing the same comparison with SDE, women actually make about the same as men. So, companies are not paying women 70% of what a man makes (job to job comparison s). Why the 70% disparity then? Women aren't hired to do as high of paying jobs as men. That's what the gender gap is. Men make more because more men are in higher paying jobs then women. So, the gender gap isn't that company A decides to pay women less for the same job. Its that company A hires a man more frequently to do the higher paying jobs, and a women more frequently yo do the lower paying jobs. The crux of the issue is what is causing more women to be in lower paying jobs? It's a complicated issue for that. The most likely scenario is that more women "choose" to do lower paid jobs (or are pushed into it). I put "choose" in quotes because there's a lot of socioeconomic reasons that women don't get into higher paid jobs (stem is generally called out) as much and I don't feel like addressing them all. But, like I saw another poster say, the best thing you can do is convince girls/women in your life to get into stem fields, and don't have an implicit biases towards women in tech.
The real gender pay gap is about 8% and I am ok with that. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/04/09/600931069/mind-the-pay-gap
The populations of men and women are far too large and complex to take a delta of the averages and find the simple reason for their delta...
This is yet another idiotic non-existent liberal fear tactic talking point with zero substance. Do you honestly think for one second hiring managers and recruiters are sending offers for a single % less to a woman than a man? This is so far beyond idiotic. The *only* chance of any semblance of a pay gap is I do buy and agree women negotiate less and are less aggressive in such negotiations in general than men. That however can also apply to stupid men as well so is kind of still a moot point.
Agreed, I am just trying to understand logic behind gender pay gap.
Or the expectation that women are rarely aggressive in pursuing negotiation and low ball them. Not sure why things have to be so complicated for women, cant we just be offered a equivalent pay to begin with. Why do we have to be aggressive during negotiation to prove we’re worth it, it seems like women often have to prove harder than the male counterparts and if they dont, they’re considered weak but if they do she is a aggressive b*tch, is there never a common ground?