The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Women CONSISTENTLY Earn More Than Men.

As long as the amount of work is less than 40 hours a week. Take a look:







Considering that over 33% of jobs are part time and this percentage is continuously growing, we have a serious problem at hand that NEEDS to be addressed.

STOP DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN!
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I agree with you. However, please may you give us the source?
Reply 2
Avatar for Nobility
Nobility
Wow, this is news to me! But I always suspected that this "war on women" thing is just BS propaganda. The ladies have it much better than us and everybody knows it.
Rather than cherry-picking data to fit your agenda, how about you actually look at the entire picture? The wage-equality for similar work index, as set by the World Economic Forum is 0.65 in the United Kingdom. This means that for the same work, women on average get paid only 65% as much as a man would for the exact same task.

I think this tells us a bit more about the situation than your sourceless, cherry-picked graph.
Reply 4
Avatar for lucaf
lucaf
13
Original post by Chlorophile
Are you telling me that the World Economic Forum is lying?


your own source says that the gender wage gap is 15%
Original post by Chlorophile
Are you telling me that the World Economic Forum is lying?


I'm telling you that your interpretation is wrong. I can give you multiple sources that the wage gap is only 15 % overall. Google it yourself, rather.
Original post by lucaf
your own source says that the gender wage gap is 15%


Firstly, SuperDuperNoob told me that my source is "****ing wrong", which implies that he thinks it's lying. Secondly, my source puts wage inequality at 32%, the metric which is most important for calculating inequality. The gap in actual income is 27%.
Reply 7
Avatar for Riku
Riku
2
This is *******s, the glass ceiling still exists for the majority of women and institutionalised sexism is still present within some workplaces. The number of corporate alpha females in executive positions remains a minority
Reply 8
Avatar for lucaf
lucaf
13
Original post by Chlorophile
Firstly, SuperDuperNoob told me that my source is "****ing wrong", which implies that he thinks it's lying. Secondly, my source puts wage inequality at 32%, the metric which is most important for calculating inequality. The gap in actual income is 27%.


my bad that was a stupid calculation error :tongue:
Reply 9
Avatar for McMicheal
McMicheal
Original post by SuperDuperNoob
As long as the amount of work is less than 40 hours a week. Take a look:







Considering that over 33% of jobs are part time and this percentage is continuously growing, we have a serious problem at hand that NEEDS to be addressed.

STOP DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN!


I don't believe you. I've never came across or heard of job that offers higher salary if you have dick than if you don't. So what your statistics could be saying is that women choose ****tier paid jobs on average or they're worse workers.
Original post by SuperDuperNoob
As long as the amount of work is less than 40 hours a week. Take a look:







Considering that over 33% of jobs are part time and this percentage is continuously growing, we have a serious problem at hand that NEEDS to be addressed.

STOP DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN!


Where did that graph come from?
Reply 11
Avatar for Brolyfe
Brolyfe
Women have it better than men that's for sure.
I couldn't give a toss what the stats are for part time, in most companies the senior staff are full time.
Original post by Chlorophile
Rather than cherry-picking data to fit your agenda, how about you actually look at the entire picture? The wage-equality for similar work index, as set by the World Economic Forum is 0.65 in the United Kingdom. This means that for the same work, women on average get paid only 65% as much as a man would for the exact same task.

I think this tells us a bit more about the situation than your sourceless, cherry-picked graph.


In fairness, a lot of this is because women are significantly more likely to work part time. Part-timers get paid less per hour.

Plus historical discrimination has long-tailed effects. Amongst the under 30s, women earn more than men.
As a straight, white, male i can't say i have too many issues with this pay gap. Women have the right to work, if they can't match my wage then that's their fault.
Original post by Chlorophile
Rather than cherry-picking data to fit your agenda, how about you actually look at the entire picture? The wage-equality for similar work index, as set by the World Economic Forum is 0.65 in the United Kingdom. This means that for the same work, women on average get paid only 65% as much as a man would for the exact same task.

I think this tells us a bit more about the situation than your sourceless, cherry-picked graph.


It's odd that the report you cited doesn't care to explain what the 'Similar Work Index' is or how it was derived in any detail. On investigation, the index was not derived from any empirical income data, but on voluntary survey data which represents the opinions of the responding businesspersons.

It would be against the law (several, in fact) to pay a woman less on the grounds of her gender if she was in the same work position as a man, had the same years of experience, worked the same number of hours and negotiated for the same wages. In fact, when reports take things like this into account, there is usually very little disparity in wages to speak of. Furthermore, if firms or economic sectors as a whole really were paying women less for the same work, why employ men at all? There would be no efficiency in do so.
Original post by Dandaman1
It's odd that the report you cited doesn't care to explain what the 'Similar Work Index' is or how it was derived in any detail. On investigation, the index was not derived from any empirical income data, but on voluntary survey data which represents the opinions of the responding businesspersons.

It would be against the law (several, in fact) to pay a woman less on the grounds of her gender if she was in the same work position as a man, had the same years of experience, worked the same number of hours and negotiated for the same wages. In fact, when reports take things like this into account, there is usually very little disparity in wages to speak of. Furthermore, if firms or economic sectors as a whole really were paying women less for the same work, why employ men at all? There would be no efficiency in do so.


You say it's against the law - but that doesn't change the fact that it's happening. The statistics speak for themselves. You claim that "the report... doesn't care to explain what the 'similar work index' is." By "investigation", I assume you mean you read the report? Because the report explains pretty clearly that it's a survey?
Original post by Chlorophile
You say it's against the law - but that doesn't change the fact that it's happening. The statistics speak for themselves. You claim that "the report... doesn't care to explain what the 'similar work index' is." By "investigation", I assume you mean you read the report? Because the report explains pretty clearly that it's a survey?


The statistics do speak for themselves, and, like I said, when they take important details such as hours worked, experience, leave etc. into account, the wage gap shrinks to near non-existence. An 'opinion survey' isn't the most reliable basis for argument - you need empirical wage data that breaks things down appropriately and compares apples to apples.
Your graph doesn't take into account the amount of total work that is each number of hours (which you yourself have said is only 33% for under 40 hours). It makes it look like women get paid massively more, because the under 40% part is over-represented. Even ignoring this, the reasons for your observation are most likely:

1. Women are more likely to do high paying jobs part time (eg. doctors), due to childcare.
2. Women are more likely to do jobs that often take part time workers (e.g. being a secretary).

Neither of these translate into discrimination against men.

You can select statistics to back up virtually any argument on Earth.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Dandaman1
The statistics do speak for themselves, and, like I said, when they take important details such as hours worked, experience, leave etc. into account, the wage gap shrinks to near non-existence. An 'opinion survey' isn't the most reliable basis for argument - you need empirical wage data that breaks things down appropriately and compares apples to apples.


And where is this empirical wage data?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you