41–50 of 75 posts
So they are comparing two different types of firms (with > 35 employees and between 25 and 34 employees): Doesn't that invalidate their study right there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once read an interesting thought experiment about this, adapted to this story it goes like this: We assume: - Greedy capitalist bosses (wanting to pay less for more work) - Same productivity of men and women Now if there's an 18.9% pay gap, then women are on average 18.9% cheaper to employ than men. Greedy capitalist bosses should therefore only employ women, closing the gender pay gap by driving womens' wages high…
In any organisation it's only the owners who are ultimately concerned with overall cost - managers can have all sorts of incentives for larger or less efficient staff.
I wonder if that could be accounted for by performance/productivity related bonuses or other perks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I experienced this first hand and as a result I departed for greener pastures. Isn't diversity a great thing when it suppresses wages, no wonder all the big boys are pushing for it.
This is happening at my place right now. Leadership has dictated that priority is now to even out gender imbalances rather than giving raises. Since the women in our company are heavily skewed towards lower-paying roles (QA, customer support), this means the company will avoid giving raises to the roles that actually are in demand and have strong salary growth elsewhere. Needless to say, those of us with options have…
I'm all for paying people in lower-end jobs better, mind you, but using this as an excuse to hurt salary growth seems like it's intended to discredit the whole idea of gender equality. Well, unless the people involved are provably overpaid, like CEOs tend to be. But somehow I suspect the CEO is still getting his excessive raises.
Every time there is a public debate around that topic you end up with two major groups, one saying that women work less or are less productive because of XYZ, the other saying something close to "it's the patriarchy".
Striving for equality of outcome is a good first step, but it's attacking the symptoms and not the causes.
Just like for politics or employees quotas, you can bend the end of the process to make it look fair and balanced but if the 10 steps before are biased against women (and other groups) you end up with an illusion of parity while the only thing that changed is you now make "positive" discrimination.
Making the wages public is a good thing no matter the reason, after all the first step of making a decision is to have access to data. If it helps with pay gaps all the better.
Shouldn't remuneration depend on the amount of work done? Gender issue shouldn't come into it.
Given two employees, same education, same title, same working hours, same productivity (based on managers reports), nothing guarantee that the HR department won't "like" one more than another. Or one might ask for raises more often or with better arguments (having kids, longer commute, getting offers from other companies all the time).
Office politics are what they are, politics, as long as you have human in the process you'll have biases. Now if these biases are stronger against certain group it probably should be addressed.
>From 2003 to 2008, the gender pay gap at the reporting companies shrank 7 percent, from 18.9 percent down to 17.5 percent Is this really a large enough effect size to justify such a headline? >Our findings suggest that regulatory mandates on pay transparency, as a means to overcome biases against women in the workforce, may be effective in closing the gender pay gap. No, they really do not. A potential reduction fro…
I once read an interesting thought experiment about this, adapted to this story it goes like this: We assume: - Greedy capitalist bosses (wanting to pay less for more work) - Same productivity of men and women Now if there's an 18.9% pay gap, then women are on average 18.9% cheaper to employ than men. Greedy capitalist bosses should therefore only employ women, closing the gender pay gap by driving womens' wages high…
Your argument would work (-ish) if you were arguing against pay inequality. And, in fact, pay inequality is usually a lot lower than the pay gap.
But for many large organisations, the pay gap is due to women being more likely to be in lower paid roles while men are more likely to be in higher paid roles. Replacing men with women and vice versa would reduce the pay gap but wouldn't dent the overall wage bill significantly.
>From 2003 to 2008, the gender pay gap at the reporting companies shrank 7 percent, from 18.9 percent down to 17.5 percent Is this really a large enough effect size to justify such a headline? >Our findings suggest that regulatory mandates on pay transparency, as a means to overcome biases against women in the workforce, may be effective in closing the gender pay gap. No, they really do not. A potential reduction fro…
I once read an interesting thought experiment about this, adapted to this story it goes like this: We assume: - Greedy capitalist bosses (wanting to pay less for more work) - Same productivity of men and women Now if there's an 18.9% pay gap, then women are on average 18.9% cheaper to employ than men. Greedy capitalist bosses should therefore only employ women, closing the gender pay gap by driving womens' wages high…
If you're in a widget factory and both a man and a woman are producing 10 widgets per hour then your effect would be expected - because the boss would be able to evaluate true performance. In the real world however, no job is that simple. The problem with the gender pay gap partly is that women are assumed to be less productive than men in certain jobs. You don't hire a woman engineer because women are interested in people not things - so your expectation is that a women is 20% less productive than a man because you've decided being interested in people is bad for the job and that influences your expectations when hiring.
These articles tend to attract comments with dire predictions for US society if people knew each others salaries, so just a reminder Norway always does nationwide salary transparency https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239
True. But I think it is worth pointing out that the US is not Norway. There is a significant culture difference for one. Secondly the policy may simply not scale. The US population, workforce, economy is orders of magnitude greater than that of Norway.
Shouldn't remuneration depend on the amount of work done? Gender issue shouldn't come into it.
How do you remove biases from such a process though. Given two employees, same education, same title, same working hours, same productivity (based on managers reports), nothing guarantee that the HR department won't "like" one more than another. Or one might ask for raises more often or with better arguments (having kids, longer commute, getting offers from other companies all the time). Office politics are what they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once read an interesting thought experiment about this, adapted to this story it goes like this: We assume: - Greedy capitalist bosses (wanting to pay less for more work) - Same productivity of men and women Now if there's an 18.9% pay gap, then women are on average 18.9% cheaper to employ than men. Greedy capitalist bosses should therefore only employ women, closing the gender pay gap by driving womens' wages high…
Your assumption in your model is wrong. You aren't assuming the same productivity of men and women, you're assuming the same observed productivity of men and women. If you're in a widget factory and both a man and a woman are producing 10 widgets per hour then your effect would be expected - because the boss would be able to evaluate true performance. In the real world however, no job is that simple. The problem with…