Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 362 posts

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#81

Post by prostoalex »

johnfn wrote: post #31
darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

> As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. That's not true. Very easy counterexample: negotiation. Women are generally less inclined to negotiate then men, causing them to earn lower salaries. Does that mean that people value jobs performed by men who negotiate more than jobs performed by women who don't? Of course not - it has nothing to do with the value-add at all.

> Women are generally less inclined to negotiate then men

This blanket statement seems sexist. Some are inclined and some are not.

Besides, as soon as one leaves the world of small business, the corporations stick to salary bands attached to specific titles. The variations within the bands are usually driven by longevity with the company as well as performance reviews. It makes things easier in HR department, and creates a paper trail on compensation decisions in case someone decides to get litigious later.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#82

Post by cisanti »

danharaj wrote: post #6
ProAm wrote: post #2

I always wonder when they say 'Same work' do they mean same output, or same job title? I've seen this argued both ways in the US and have no idea what to believe anymore.

The article uses the definition that "same rank" == "same work", which is ridiculous for many reasons, one in particular being that title often corresponds to a pay level for an area of work covered by a ladder of such titles so by definition it will be true that such a gap is insignificant. > According to data for 8.7m employees worldwide gathered by Korn Ferry, a consultancy, women in Britain make just 1% less than…

If you tell a lie enough times, with a little help from the people who can benefit, it becomes irrefutable truth. And dare you to question it!

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#83

Post by sushisource »

johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

I don't see how it's "embarrassing" for this article to be on HN. It addresses your point exactly in the first few paragraphs:

"These numbers do not show that the labour market is free of sex discrimination. However, they do suggest that the main problem today is not unequal pay for equal work, but whatever it is that leads women to be in lower-ranking jobs at lower-paying organisations."

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#84

Post by monochromatic »

danharaj wrote: post #4

> Although the average woman’s salary in Britain is 29% lower than the average man’s, the bulk of that gap results from differences in rank within companies, firms’ overall compensation rates and the nature of the tasks a job requires. If Software Engineer II makes less than Software Engineer III, and women of equivalent skill and experience to men have a significantly higher chance of being Software Engineer II than…

> women of equivalent skill and experience to men have a significantly higher chance of being Software Engineer II than III

Unfortunately, there's no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#85

Post by lr4444lr »

JimboOmega wrote: post #68
darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

Well, imagine a scenario where women are initially not in the labor force. But they want to work, same as anyone Then, one day, society changes. "You can work, but you can only be a nurse, teacher, or secretary". You don't think there'd be a supply glut driving down wages in those areas? Suppressing them over a long period as women gradually enter the labor force there? And by the same token, that society that says y…

Are you insinuating that women - today - are forced into that narrow set of professions if they want to work?

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#87

Post by saint_fiasco »

johnfn wrote: post #17

The whole point is that society systematically undervaluing women-dominated professions is sexism. It makes sense that the pay gap disappears when the job differences go away, because the job differences are the pay gap. A good example is teaching. Teaching is an incredibly valuable job. It's also dominated by women. It also happens to be way, way underpaid. It embarrasses me to see this on HN.

I don't get why this article embarrasses you. Surely it's important to figure out exactly where the sexism resides, so we know how to fix it.

If the pay gap almost disappears when accounting for job differences, then the problem can't be solved at the workplace. It's too late at that point.

Further study might reveal that women choose less profitable majors at University, for example. If that were the case, the problem won't be solved at University either, it would be too late at that point.

Further study could look at how women are socialized at high-school, middle-school and so on, until we find the cause. Complaining about people who study that stuff because you think they are insufficiently committed to the cause is counter-productive.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#88

Post by oldboyFX »

Jare wrote: post #67
oldboyFX wrote: post #11

Still not sure what to believe on this issue. Some points of discussion are (unrelated to article): 1. If women were 25% cheaper than men while being as competent, wouldn't white/male capitalists trip over themselves to only hire women to increase their profits? 2. Women are less likely to negotiate salary and assert themselves, as women in general are more agreeable than men. Is this behavior based in biology or is…

You don't see how all these surprising facts where people are doing things that go against their best interest, can be explained by irrational but strong forces such as sexism?

I understand, but blaming it on irrational sexism in the ether doesn't help us fix the problem. It's not an actionable piece of information.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#89

Post by mrkurt »

darawk wrote: post #73
mrkurt wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not individual sexism, but it _is_ systematic sexism. Women generally don't handle negotiating the same as men. But negotiation skills aren't relevant to most jobs. So if that's a factor in how people get paid, it's _systematically_ sexist.

I disagree. Women have the same opportunity to negotiate that men do. The fact that they choose to negotiate less is on them.

Do you agree that negotiation skills don't matter for most jobs? And do you agree that people should be compensated based on the value they bring to a job?

Because sexism or no, I think it's a tremendous problem when people get ahead for completely tangential reasons to their job performance and skills.

Re: When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

#90

Post by michaelbuddy »

Others wrote: post #28
darawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is that the way society systematically undervalues women-dominated professions is sexism at work. What? Can you explain how that is possible? As far as I know, people value things according to what value they obtain from them. There is no way for that to be 'sexist'. People are paid according to the value they produce. To call that sexist is just completely inconsistent with any reasonable conceptio…

The problem is gender roles. Women are taught by society to think that, as women, they should go into certain careers. These careers, like teaching, tend to be lower paid than the careers men are encouraged to go into.

"taught by society"

feel free to source that in a way that can be proven. The assertion is just pseudo intellectual excuse making. Society is NOT telling women to NOT be sanitation workers. Society is not telling women not to work on offshore oil rigs. Society is not telling women not to be surgeons but to in fact be veterinarians. Society and "gender role" excuses don't hold up to reality. Time to accept that the women you know, or imagine you know make their choices, largely based on their own interests.

You're welcome to try to convince women to become sanitation workers rather than paralegal interns in climate controlled offices. Good luck on that.

Post reply on HN