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

241–250 of 362 posts

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

#241

Post by belorn »

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…

I currently find an explanation based on incentives to be best in resolving why there is gender segregation in the work place and a strong correlation to pay grades.

The way women selects men is heavily weighted towards how much the man earns. According to dating statistics from dating sites, its the biggest single strongest attribute to predict if a message sent from a man will give positive response. This can also be seen in surveys around the globe, like one which said that 90% of women in china would not consider dating a man who earn less than the median income.

So if this incentive based explanation is true, lets make some test by making some predictions. If its true then we should see that boys during adolescence think in a higher rate than girls about selecting a profession based on earning potential. We should also see a higher number of young non-married men around the age of 20 trying to enter the work force as early as possible in order to improve their own status and impress the opposite sex. Those men should be more eager to get higher wages and attempt more risky ventures in order to compete with other men. The need and risk taking for higher wages would be correlated to how much other peers of the same sex earn in their perceived environment.

Increase pay in women dominated professions would lower the earning difference, but it would not change the incentives. In order to get that we would need to change our culture so that either women stopped prioritizing earning when selecting a mate, in which men would loose that incentive, or men need to prioritizing earning when selecting a mate, in which women would get that incentive applied on them.

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

#242

Post by forapurpose »

ringaroundthetx wrote: post #53
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…

HIRED has a report out which reveals demographics on what the employees themselves ask for, and what employers offered them. It reveals, as in a piece of data that wasn't typically part of the conversation, that some groups ask for less to begin with while the employer offers them more. But this 'more' amount is still less than employees that asked for more than that to begin with. The average of black candidates, an…

> The average of black candidates, and women candidates, simply asked for less than the average of white male candidates

I agree that the phenomenon is much more complex than conspiratorial movie villains, and it's unproductive to simplify things that way (often out of anger). But I'll add some complexity to what you said: They would be wise to ask for less because that is what the market will bear, due to widespread discrimination.

It seems beyond debate that discrimination is widespread, though again I agree we need to understand that simple statement in detail. The black, female, Latino, etc. candidates would have to be deaf and blind not to be aware of it, and would need unusual courage to try to ignore it.

Anecdotally, I was at dinner with a retired female biologist. She was discussing the challenges of being a female scientist in her generation, and how today's women in science take their opportunities for granted. Later in the meal, she told me that women are naturally worse at math and computer science, and that males of northern European ancestry are naturally superior (which flies in the face of even current discriminatory hiring in IT). It wasn't anything I haven't heard before, unfortunately; even in my personal experience, explicit discrimination is not so rare as to be shocking.

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

#243

Post by blacksmith_tb »

gaius wrote: post #124
johnfn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can't prove me men teachers are being paid more, your argument is invalid. Teaching as a profession is underpaid, and I don't think that teaching being dominated by women is a coincidence.

Teachers are paid way, way more than soldiers or firefighters or refuse collectors or miners or meatpackers...

I don't think so, for all of those at least, e.g.

http://www.careerprofiles.info/middle-school-teacher-salarie...

http://www.careerprofiles.info/fire-fighter-salaries.html

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

#244

Post by micahbright »

Quanttek wrote: post #135

I hate these kinds of statistics because all they say is "If we discount all the things creating the pay gap, basically no pay gap exists". Industries typically inhabited by women getting paid less? Predominantly male/female industries suddnely decreasing/increasing in average pay when women/men enter it? Women having a lesser likelihood of getting promoted? Women having a lower likelihood of getting hired for higher…

I hate them because they fail to point out that, if you added in taxes(women pay no taxes as a group) and welfare/government assistance(women receive almost all benefits as a group) women come out so far ahead of men that it's not even funny. And then you've got child support and alimony...as if women aren't privileged enough.

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

#245

Post by micahbright »

Quanttek wrote: post #239
randyrand wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"If we discount all the things creating the pay gap, basically no pay gap exists" It's called a meritocracy. And its what most people want. People will always want to play the victim card regardless.

So you're saying that women are just worse in everything?

You're not disproving it.

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

#246

Post by ringaroundthetx »

Quanttek wrote: post #232
ringaroundthetx wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HIRED has a report out which reveals demographics on what the employees themselves ask for, and what employers offered them. It reveals, as in a piece of data that wasn't typically part of the conversation, that some groups ask for less to begin with while the employer offers them more. But this 'more' amount is still less than employees that asked for more than that to begin with. The average of black candidates, an…

> Much of the discussion seems to place a blame squarely on employers, describing a cabal of shadowy prejudiced men in the board room ensuring someone gets 30% less or 30% more just because Nobody says that. It's the larger society, which also teaches black people and women to ask for less

I think we agree that we should address it, but I have heard .... things. The understanding of this topic is a wide gradient, with lots of incomplete and incorrect information repeated by authoritative political figures including Presidents.

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

#247

Post by ebola1717 »

monochromatic wrote: post #84
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.

Did you even google it

http://www.nber.org/digest/feb07/w12321.html

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20761

http://www.wsj.com/specialcoverage/women-in-the-workplace

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

#248

Post by FlashGit »

How unsurprising. Firstly, for most professions there are plenty of resources documenting what typical salaries are for degree/experience, so if you end up making less than that, well that seems like that is on you.

It flies in the face of economic common sense that if you could hire an equally skilled women and they would consistently accept 75% the pay as a man, then companies would have taken advantage of that fact. Just like they do with lower paid immigrant workers.

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

#249

Post by jxramos »

sirgg0119 wrote: post #102

does anyone have any studies on breaking this down further to pay per hour? as men generally are seen as working more hours which could lead to why they get more pay too

Thomas Sowell dug into various figures on this debate over the course of several decades if I recall. He's pretty entertaining to watch on old Uncommon Knowledge videos.

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

#250

Post by forapurpose »

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…

> 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 it social construct?

Something to consider, though I can't back it up: Perhaps the whole method of determining salary, the negotiation process, is a social construct. I mean, it is a social construct almost by definition, but maybe that process, and many other constructs of the business world, are creations of an era when business was populated by men and when therefore the processes and customs naturally were based on the way men interact.

Sometimes I try to think of it this way: If the business world had been populated only by women for generations, and if men were now trying to break in, how would things be different? Perhaps an aggressive negotiating style would be unprofessional, and people would say that men don't get equal salaries not because of discrimination, but because they don't represent themselves well.

Post reply on HN