Ah yes, the inherent hypocrisy of the left...

[Wokko]

[Pies4shaw]

https://web.archive.org/web/20110306114914/http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/files/295watson1.pdf

From the abstract:

"Using decompositions I explore the issue of discrimination, as well as the roles played by labour force experience and parenting. The results show that female managers earned on average about 27 per cent less than their male counterparts and the decompositions suggest that somewhere between 65 and 90 per cent of this earnings gap cannot be explained by recourse to a large range of demographic and labour market variables. A major part of the earnings gap is simply due to women managers being female."

[Wokko]

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf

"We show that a gender earnings gap can exist even in a controlled environment where work
tasks are similar, wages are identical, and tenure dictates promotions. The gap of $0.89 in our
setting, which is 60% of the earnings gap across the United States, can be explained entirely
by the fact that, while having the same choice sets in the workplace, women and men make
different choices."

[thesoretoothsayer]

[David]

Is it possible that the truth is somewhere in-between? While it's true that motherhood plays a big role in this, along with the fact that men tend to be more confident and ambitious when asking for raises, there's also inevitably going to be subconscious bias in who gets promoted, and also what skill sets are valued (given that most of the higher-up people in organisations still happen to be men).

Ultimately, it's untrue to say that the gender pay gap is a myth. What's being contested here is why it exists.

[stui magpie]

It all depends on how you slice the data.

If you compare hourly rates for the same role, the gap disappears.

If you look at raw data on average annual earnings, it pops up because that doesn't take into account different roles and hours of work. That then brings up the argument that traditional female roles earn less than traditional male roles which carries some weight on face value but again largely vanishes once you do an empirical assessment of work value using standardised job evaluation methods and the fact that men doing those roles get paid the same as women.

The primary reason for the statistical gap is because women are far more likely to be the primary carer for children than men, and therefore more likely to work less hours and seek roles with more flexibility while not seeking promotion until the kids are old enough.

[Wokko]

Women in their 20s earn more than men because their circumstances are more likely to be similar. No children, no families and women more likely to be college educated.

Men with families are more willing to work overtime, to not take leave, to engage in career development and push harder for promotions and pay rises. They're also more likely to choose higher paying careers with women more likely to choose based on lifestyle factors. Women then have children and take extended career breaks, derailing their career track and requiring starting from further back than when they left.

A real issue is women coming back from maternity leave and being discriminated against on top of the natural set back in her career, it's very common and pretty much unpoliced unless a tired, worn out new mother is willing to take legal action.

[stui magpie]

^

I'm not arguing the discrimination doesn't exist, I'm just fortunate to have worked in places I haven't seen it first hand.

The woman who recruited me to where I work now took on a new job with a new employer rather than return to her executive position after 12 months mat leave as she wanted to take a step back for now. She'd still be earning a lot closer to $200k than $100k ps and it's a credit to her she can do what she does without spending 15 hours per day at work.

I've seen plenty of women get to very senior positions after having kids and a career break, but these are some driven people. One lawyer I worked with started her own company while on mat leave to give her mental stimulation.

[Jezza]

[David]

This was a pretty nuanced take on the topic, I thought. Some of you will switch off because of the presenter or the fact it’s from SBS, but you might be surprised.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1793765334056712&id=708489629250960

[stui magpie]

I have no data to back this up, but as an assumption there are probably an equal number of females as males who aren't suited to white collar professions, but the number of blue collar pathways for men is a lot more than for women.

A bloke can leave school, get an apprenticeship, learn a trade and earn good coin. The options that seem more attractive to females, much as hairdresser etc don't earn the same. Is that choice or the general difference between the genders acting out? yes we get male hairdressers and female sparkies but it's generally aligned on gender lines.

Sadly, the most attractive option for some young women is to get pregnant and go on centrelink.

[Jezza]

[Pies4shaw]

Which part of the unpaid work do you say is paid?

[stui magpie]

^

Voluntary work, not done as part of an employment relationship, is by nature unpaid,

Who was going to pay me for cooking dinner, cleaning house, helping with homework etc when I was a single parent for years? Should someone be paying me now for cooking dinner each night for my mother?

[David]