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

251–260 of 362 posts

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

#251

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #161
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…

> 3. Women tend to choose lower paying jobs, such as teacher, caregiver etc. In general women tend to care about people while men care about things (STEM). Again: biology or social construct Social construct. Look at Asian countries that by all accounts have less gender quality than the west but have more women science graduates. India is double the U.K. on that metric. The fact that Sweden has skewed representation…

[deleted]

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

#253

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #161
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…

> 3. Women tend to choose lower paying jobs, such as teacher, caregiver etc. In general women tend to care about people while men care about things (STEM). Again: biology or social construct Social construct. Look at Asian countries that by all accounts have less gender quality than the west but have more women science graduates. India is double the U.K. on that metric. The fact that Sweden has skewed representation…

[deleted]

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

#254

Post by soneca »

deno wrote: post #220
soneca wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I believe this is a very weird ponderation. The whole point is that capitalists don't do that because there is sexism among them. They are ignoring rational evidence because they have a preconceived idea that women are worse employees. If capitalists were…

And your model only requires that all men are equally sexist. There are, believe it or not, women entrepreneurs (and btw the very conservative Poland is leading the rankings[1]), so even if all male employers were in fact equally sexist, that would just mean female-led companies would out-compete them. [1] http://wbj.pl/poland-high-in-global-women-entrepreneur-leade...

civilian has a point, but what would fix my model, I believe, is that good hiring practices is one among a myriad of variables that affect the bottomline.

Business books for ages are trying to give the "formula" to make a business success (and no one succeeded). It is irrealistic to assume that a company with undoubtably better hiring practices would necessarily and immediatelly (or in a short term) beat the competitors with worse hiring practices.

This even assuming the company would be hiring more productive employees. If the assumption is that it is the same productivity but less cost (as it is in the case we are discussing), the impact at the bottomline is even more diluted.

EDIT: I would add that if the impact was such straightforward and objectively measured it would be much easier to fight it as a society. This (how subjective is to measure productivity and business impact of knowledge workers) is the may reason why we are discussing pay gap as a gender issue and not still voting rights)

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

#255

Post by monochromatic »

ebola1717 wrote: post #247
monochromatic wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

>equivalent skill

At a quick glance, your links don't speak to that aspect at all. And that's sort of the most important thing.

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

#256

Post by FT_intern »

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…

It's not ridiculous because the alternative is almost impossible to quantify and calculate

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

#257

Post by gertef »

micahbright wrote: post #244
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.

What does "women pay no taxes" mean? On its face, that's trivially false.

More people sharing a larger total benefit doesn't imply that the average individual receives a larger benefit.

Raising a child alone is a privilege?

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

#258

Post by Noos »

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.

or it could be these careers speak more to women's aspirations than others. If an important goal for a woman is to have a family and children, working at higher paid jobs that require tremendous hours and travel are not going to be attractive. If the same is for men, likewise...the family man who turns down traveling or relocating, and can't work massive overtime will see his prospects decline too.

A lot of the problem with gender roles is many feminists have internalized male actions as the norm and female actions as inferior...so they see women as underpaid over as having the flexibility to raise a family

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

#259

Post by belorn »

MartinCron wrote: post #177
x220 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it is because many women put their career advancement on hold if they choose to have children?

There's another way to frame that... too few men put their career advancement on hold when they choose to have children. Instead of sharing the burden, society expects a disproportionate sacrifice from women. Typical example: Nobody asks a male CEO or politician who is staying home to take care of the kids.

Let ask our self why anyones career advancement should be held on hold because they got children.

8 hours work day for 5 days a week was fought for and became standard by the work force during a time where men worked and women stayed at home. The balance became that the home got half the work force and the work got the other half.

Today when both adults are expected to work and people decide to have children, that change in society comes to a breaking point. It is problem that a disproportionate amount of women need to sacrifice their career to restore some part of the hours needed to raise children, but is the solution really that men too should sacrifice their career in equal amount, or is the problem on the 8hrs work day that was based on a society that no longer exist?

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

#260

Post by Noos »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #164
haikuginger wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over...

That's such a silly article. There are so many confounding factors as to make any attempt at determining causation specious. Women's employment rate grew massively over that time period. This means that jobs requiring no specialized skills would receive an influx of job seekers. If we assume the employment rate of men stayed the same over that period, we would expect all jobs that require no specialized skills or phy…

i think one forgotten issue is the part-time economy. I know in retail just as the work shifted to part time on demand hours, women's participation increased because it's easier for women to work part time than men.
Post reply on HN