What would happen to the gender wage gap if no minimum wage?
As a spin-off to my other thread on libertarianism (which is now an utter cluster**** of pure AIDS), assume that the minimum wage law would not exist. The gap for all employees, including part-timers, is currently at around 20% in the UK. Would the gap increase or decrease? By how much?
The 20 lowest gross full-time median salaries in 2011 (% change)
1. Waiter £12,117 -0.7
2. Hairdresser £12,219 -4.4
3. Bar staff £12,399 +2.0
4. Kitchen/catering assistant £12,422 -2.7
5. Leisure attendant £12,585 -3.9
6. Florist £13,227 -7.1
7. Sales assistant £13,449 + 7.7
8. Launderer/dry cleaner £13,479 +1.3
9. Cashier £13,542 +3.1
10. Domestic cleaner £14,144 +0.1
11. Hotel porter £14,515 +6.5
12. Shelf filler £14,364 +5.0
13. Retail assistant £14,521 +2.8
14. Nursery nurse £14,554 -1.2
15. Housekeeper £14,560 +2.9
16. Animal care assistant £14,830 -10.6
17. Office assistant £14,993 +4.8
18. Beautician £14,984 -1.6
19. Sewing machinist £15,057 +5.7
20. Fishmonger £15,453 +12.1
The 20 lowest gross full-time median salaries in 2011 (% change)
1. Waiter £12,117 -0.7
2. Hairdresser £12,219 -4.4
3. Bar staff £12,399 +2.0
4. Kitchen/catering assistant £12,422 -2.7
5. Leisure attendant £12,585 -3.9
6. Florist £13,227 -7.1
7. Sales assistant £13,449 + 7.7
8. Launderer/dry cleaner £13,479 +1.3
9. Cashier £13,542 +3.1
10. Domestic cleaner £14,144 +0.1
11. Hotel porter £14,515 +6.5
12. Shelf filler £14,364 +5.0
13. Retail assistant £14,521 +2.8
14. Nursery nurse £14,554 -1.2
15. Housekeeper £14,560 +2.9
16. Animal care assistant £14,830 -10.6
17. Office assistant £14,993 +4.8
18. Beautician £14,984 -1.6
19. Sewing machinist £15,057 +5.7
20. Fishmonger £15,453 +12.1
(edited 10 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
I still haven't seen any evidence of the gender wage gap. I find it hard to believe that an employer would pay women less, for the same job, if there were just as good as a man doing the same job. Surely, if they did, employers would just higher a lot of women. Perhaps you can show me some information suggesting there is a gap? 
In response to your question, I suspect no minimum wage may just lead to employers attempting to pay their workers as little as possible. I'm not too sure how it would affect the 'wage gap' if it exists.
In response to your question, I suspect no minimum wage may just lead to employers attempting to pay their workers as little as possible. I'm not too sure how it would affect the 'wage gap' if it exists.Original post by EXTREMEninja
I still haven't seen any evidence of the gender wage gap. I find it hard to believe that an employer would pay women less, for the same job, if there were just as good as a man doing the same job. Surely, if they did, employers would just higher a lot of women. Perhaps you can show me some information suggesting there is a gap? In response to your question, I suspect no minimum wage may just lead to employers attempting to pay their workers as little as possible. I'm not too sure how it would affect the 'wage gap' if it exists.
In response to your question, I suspect no minimum wage may just lead to employers attempting to pay their workers as little as possible. I'm not too sure how it would affect the 'wage gap' if it exists.It doesn't, not in terms of wages paid for the same position in the exact same conditions (99% of the time). If anything , young women are now out- earning young men in the UK and the US when counting all jobs. I am talking about the gap caused by the choices men and women make.
There isn't a wage gap. It's statistics bull**** based on the fact that the same job at a different company doesn't have to pay the same and that women have different jobs on average than men.
It's not the fact that it's being thrown about as if it exists that pisses me off the most, it's that they've abused the name of this phenomenon. It should be called the gender job preference, not a gender wage gap. Why the **** do both genders have to earn an identical amount of money to consider this an equal country? If you split men into two random groups there's going to be a 'gap', why the **** are you surprised when you split the entirety of working people into two groups?
It's not the fact that it's being thrown about as if it exists that pisses me off the most, it's that they've abused the name of this phenomenon. It should be called the gender job preference, not a gender wage gap. Why the **** do both genders have to earn an identical amount of money to consider this an equal country? If you split men into two random groups there's going to be a 'gap', why the **** are you surprised when you split the entirety of working people into two groups?
Original post by Snagprophet
There isn't a wage gap. It's statistics bull**** based on the fact that the same job at a different company doesn't have to pay the same and that women have different jobs on average than men.
It's not the fact that it's being thrown about as if it exists that pisses me off the most, it's that they've abused the name of this phenomenon. It should be called the gender job preference, not a gender wage gap. Why the **** do both genders have to earn an identical amount of money to consider this an equal country? If you split men into two random groups there's going to be a 'gap', why the **** are you surprised when you split the entirety of working people into two groups?
It's not the fact that it's being thrown about as if it exists that pisses me off the most, it's that they've abused the name of this phenomenon. It should be called the gender job preference, not a gender wage gap. Why the **** do both genders have to earn an identical amount of money to consider this an equal country? If you split men into two random groups there's going to be a 'gap', why the **** are you surprised when you split the entirety of working people into two groups?
If you split men into two equally sized random groups the difference would be less than £50. Probably less than £20 if you took out the highest earning 100.
It is a gap though, just as there is a life expectancy gap (as opposed to a 'gender life expectancy preference')
If basically boils down to only one of the sexes being able to have kids. I wouldn't really call that a preference.
What you object to (I think) is people saying the gap is wrong, or average wage should be equal.
Don't try rebranding the gap, it doesn't serve your arguement well.
Original post by Snagprophet
There isn't a wage gap. It's statistics bull**** based on the fact that the same job at a different company doesn't have to pay the same and that women have different jobs on average than men.
It's not the fact that it's being thrown about as if it exists that pisses me off the most, it's that they've abused the name of this phenomenon. It should be called the gender job preference, not a gender wage gap. Why the **** do both genders have to earn an identical amount of money to consider this an equal country? If you split men into two random groups there's going to be a 'gap', why the **** are you surprised when you split the entirety of working people into two groups?
It's not the fact that it's being thrown about as if it exists that pisses me off the most, it's that they've abused the name of this phenomenon. It should be called the gender job preference, not a gender wage gap. Why the **** do both genders have to earn an identical amount of money to consider this an equal country? If you split men into two random groups there's going to be a 'gap', why the **** are you surprised when you split the entirety of working people into two groups?
Dude, I know there isn't, look at my other post. It happens because of gender choices.
My question is what would happen if businesses could pay any salary. And just a glance at those ****ty jobs on the list you tell you the vast majority of them are done by women. The more public healthcare, more benefits, more welfare, more wage and price control laws there are the more they benefit women much more than men (since men pay the majority of taxes and get so little back in comparison). The wage gap would skyrocket imo. By far, the most important goal of the welfare state is to transfer the wealth from men to women and children who aren't their family.
Original post by Quady
If you split men into two equally sized random groups the difference would be less than £50. Probably less than £20 if you took out the highest earning 100.
It is a gap though, just as there is a life expectancy gap (as opposed to a 'gender life expectancy preference')
If basically boils down to only one of the sexes being able to have kids. I wouldn't really call that a preference.
What you object to (I think) is people saying the gap is wrong, or average wage should be equal.
Don't try rebranding the gap, it doesn't serve your arguement well.
It is a gap though, just as there is a life expectancy gap (as opposed to a 'gender life expectancy preference')
If basically boils down to only one of the sexes being able to have kids. I wouldn't really call that a preference.
What you object to (I think) is people saying the gap is wrong, or average wage should be equal.
Don't try rebranding the gap, it doesn't serve your arguement well.
While the baby part is very obvious, many other things are at least as important. Women just don't choose degrees and careers with money in mind, they go for the things they like doing. Same with female entrepreneurs (making half the money of male ones on average), money is not the number one reason for starting a business. A guy is far more likely to do something he hates for a living because the money is better (I should know, I'm one of them). Women also go for less stressful and lower paid specializations (plenty of female doctors but very few surgeons).
And then there's all the other stuff about men choosing jobs involving awful working conditions ( cold, heat, rain, snow etc) , danger, risk of death, disgusting environments, long hours, traveling, weekends etc
In spite of that, I know quite a few women around my family circle who have had 1-3 kids are did just fine as surgeons, managers etc. The women who want to do it can, but most don't. Women just have different priorities and working yourself to death isn't one of them.
Low or no skill would be paid even less. And since it's obvious the vast majority of these employees are women, the current wage gap is a joke compared to what it could be. It seems that the ''patriarchy'', through laws, taxes and the welfare state, is men in power forcing all the other men to transfer much of their wealth to women.
The gap would definitely increase. The main beneficiaries of the minimum wage law have been women who work in low paid jobs who don't have much choice in employment due to family commitments. This meant that before before the minimum wage was introduced employers were able to use the weak bargaining power of low skilled women to extract economic rent.
Women earn less because they do lower paid jobs. That wage gap is inevitable and legitimate.
The notion that there is a difference between the pay of women and the pay of men doing the same job has little evidence to back it up. Most studies I've seen cite a 3% difference, which doesn't seem too bad.
Women earn less because they do lower paid jobs. That wage gap is inevitable and legitimate.
The notion that there is a difference between the pay of women and the pay of men doing the same job has little evidence to back it up. Most studies I've seen cite a 3% difference, which doesn't seem too bad.
(edited 10 years ago)
if women truly are equal to men then it shouldn't affect them noticeably
Original post by Monkey.Man
if women truly are equal to men then it shouldn't affect them noticeably
Women are not equal to men. Are they wonderful and incredibly useful in their own way ? YES. Are they equal ? No. Check anything from the IQ bell curve to powerlifting records. Women are not testosterone challenged men. We are complementary, as nature intended from day 1. Ying and Yang.
Original post by jamieTT
Women are not equal to men. Are they wonderful and incredibly useful in their own way ? YES. Are they equal ? No. Check anything from the IQ bell curve to powerlifting records. Women are not testosterone challenged men. We are complementary, as nature intended from day 1. Ying and Yang.
I'm not talking about power lifting, I'm talking about normal jobs
Original post by Monkey.Man
I'm not talking about power lifting, I'm talking about normal jobs
I know , I'm talking about the entire spectrum. And that includes physical jobs very few women can do like oil riggers, firefighters, construction etc. Since very few women are wiling or able to do physical, dangerous or nasty jobs or go into well paid maths based degrees/careers, the wage gap would instantly skyrocket.
Original post by jamieTT
I know , I'm talking about the entire spectrum. And that includes physical jobs very few women can do like oil riggers, firefighters, construction etc. Since very few women are wiling or able to do physical, dangerous or nasty jobs or go into well paid maths based degrees/careers, the wage gap would instantly skyrocket.
well I agree that women don't generally take the more highly paying jobs out of their own choices, but what about the minimum wage? are we assuming that women as a group are more reliant upon the minimum wage? sure, men based on their life choices become more wealthy than woman in general but at the same time I wouldn't say that means that women are more likely to be poor overall - it's just the fact that men are more likely to be in a rich category, although overall it's likely that it doesn't really cause a significant imbalance
Original post by Monkey.Man
well I agree that women don't generally take the more highly paying jobs out of their own choices, but what about the minimum wage? are we assuming that women as a group are more reliant upon the minimum wage? sure, men based on their life choices become more wealthy than woman in general but at the same time I wouldn't say that means that women are more likely to be poor overall - it's just the fact that men are more likely to be in a rich category, although overall it's likely that it doesn't really cause a significant imbalance
Did you see the jobs listed in the op? Most of them couldn't possibly be more female dominated.
Original post by Classical Liberal
The gap would definitely increase. The main beneficiaries of the minimum wage law have been women who work in low paid jobs who don't have much choice in employment due to family commitments. This meant that before before the minimum wage was introduced employers were able to use the weak bargaining power of low skilled women to extract economic rent.
Women earn less because they do lower paid jobs. That wage gap is inevitable and legitimate.
The notion that there is a difference between the pay of women and the pay of men doing the same job has little evidence to back it up. Most studies I've seen cite a 3% difference, which doesn't seem too bad.
Women earn less because they do lower paid jobs. That wage gap is inevitable and legitimate.
The notion that there is a difference between the pay of women and the pay of men doing the same job has little evidence to back it up. Most studies I've seen cite a 3% difference, which doesn't seem too bad.
Agree with everything.
Norway has no minimum wage but still has the third smallest gender pay gap.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/25/world-gender-gap-index-2013-countries-compare-iceland-uk
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/25/world-gender-gap-index-2013-countries-compare-iceland-uk
Original post by Comus
Norway has no minimum wage but still has the third smallest gender pay gap.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/25/world-gender-gap-index-2013-countries-compare-iceland-uk
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/25/world-gender-gap-index-2013-countries-compare-iceland-uk
Because it has an immense welfare state and a powerful feminist lobby. Women get paid absurd amounts for doing ''feminine'' jobs. Their convicts live better than 80% of the world. Not to mention it's a tiny country population wise. Release the dogs of war and everything changes. Everything.
Original post by jamieTT
Their convicts live better than 80% of the world
And a recidivism rate as low as 20%, your point is...?
Original post by Comus
And a recidivism rate as low as 20%, your point is...?
The point is that it has nothing to do with the wage gap. The other point is Norwegian women make so much because they live off the welfare state that can afford to pay them unrealistic amounts for state sponsored ''feminine jobs'' compared to what they would make in a non welfare/free market economy. Look at the jobs listed in the OP, 90% or more are an utter estrogen fest. Employers would pay whatever they wanted so the wage gap with go through the roof.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
