Women CONSISTENTLY Earn More Than Men.

And where is this empirical wage data?

This is US data, so I hope it counts in your eyes.

This is a report prepared for the US Department of Labor detailing how 65.1 - 76.4% of the raw wage gap is due to differences in hours worked, experience held and employment options taken (reducing the 'unexplained' gap to 4.8 to 7.1%): http://www.consad.com/content/report...l%20Report.pdf

This report: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2012.pdf by the US Bureau of Labour Statistics breaks down wages by hours worked, marital status, race, etc. In table 1 it can be seen that women who were never married earn a median weekly wage of only a few dollars less than the average for both sexes (full time and part time combined). Also, female part-timers earned a higher median weekly salary than their male counterparts. Full time female workers (40 hours per week) earned 88% of the male wage, but males worked more hours per week overall in this category (table 5).

As it can be seen, when things are broken down into more comparable categories, differences between male and female wages can become very small (and we start to see what's skewing the lumped averages). This is why it's problematic to talk about the wage gap without considering hours worked, marital status, and so on; not just profession.

I'd pay a premium for a pair of boobs to stare at too.

Sorry not sorry.

You're just making your own gender look bad mate.

Ahh don't we just love how the presentation of statistics is so easily twisted to meet people's agenda.

There's no breakdown of type of jobs there, it just encompasses every single job available. So could just as well be a reflection of the differences in types of part-time careers favoured by each gender. Women are more likely to choose part time employment in higher paid careers than men,

Until we see a side by side comparison with type of industry, contract hours and salary, your statistics mean **** all.

I'm sure you're being obtuse, to look at such vague statistics and to think 'herpy derpy women must get paid more than men in the exact same part time jobs!'. But something tells me this stupidity isn't deliberate, oh dear.

I will admit that the gap is smaller than I thought. However, again, you're cherry-picking points to support your argument. The statistics speak for themselves and I'm not going to deny what you say. The table shows that women working fewer than 35 hours a week earn more than men, but the difference is absolutely tiny (4$/week). For people working over 35 hours, men earn considerably more than women (74$/week). And again, scrolling down the entire list comparing mean wages between jobs, I counted maybe 10 careers out of the hundreds that must have been on that list where women earned as much as men. Again, I will admit that I was surprised by how close some careers were, but the general situation is still that men are earning more than women for the same profession. And that list is about full-time workers only, so you can't blame it on women working part-time.

Also, your first link doesn't appear to be working.

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.

You're just making your own gender look bad mate.

Ahh don't we just love how the presentation of statistics is so easily twisted to meet people's agenda.

There's no breakdown of type of jobs there, it just encompasses every single job available. So could just as well be a reflection of the differences in types of part-time careers favoured by each gender. Women are more likely to choose part time employment in higher paid careers than men,

Until we see a side by side comparison with type of industry, contract hours and salary, your statistics mean **** all.

I'm sure you're being obtuse, to look at such vague statistics and to think 'herpy derpy women must get paid more than men in the exact same part time jobs!'. But something tells me this stupidity isn't deliberate, oh dear.

Yes you should ignore the first part of the argument because 33% is a HUGE proportion of the job market.... and in that HUGE proportion women are out earning men on an average. The wage gap NEEDS to be closed no matter which gender is the winner and you need to understand that. Women can't complain about everything, get positive discrimination and then give nothing in return.

Claims 1 and 2 are baseless and thus nothing more than a bunch or rumours.

'Women' aren't a homogeneous entity. As a matter of course, I do not complain, and I have never asked for positive discrimination, so I reserve the right to make any argument.

The first part simply says the graph is not proportionally representative. Large proportion it may be, but the graph makes it look like 50%+.

Men lead in 67% of jobs. Of course the wage gap needs closing in both instances - I was reacting to the OP's massive line 'stop discrimination against men', and the (completely incorrect) title 'Women consistently earn more than men'.

My suggestions were speculative, as is the inference the cause is discrimination against men.

I have every sympathy for closing gender gaps wherever they may be. However, I have very little sympathy for the original post.

If a whole gender can look "bad" to you because of the actions of a single man, then you're an idiot.

That's it, ignore the part that was actually addressed to you, because it's undeniably the truth, and there's absolutely nothing more you can say on the matter.


You made a basic school boy stats error, everyone with half a brain cell on this thread has seen that, may as well just close the thread.

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.

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.

Anyone have a theory why employers wouldnt just employ mostly women and save a massive 35% on their wage bill?

Once you reach past the ~mid-20k you will largely negotiate your own salary as part of the recruitment process. If people arn't negotiating; that's their problem.

I work alongside someone who largely does the same job as me, with the same qualifications and same experience. I know I earn £5k more than him because I negotiated it. I wasnt willing to work for £5k less.. he was. How is that my problem?

Once you reach past the ~mid-20k you will largely negotiate your own salary as part of the recruitment process. If people arn't negotiating; that's their problem.

I work alongside someone who largely does the same job as me, with the same qualifications and same experience. I know I earn £5k more than him because I negotiated it. I wasnt willing to work for £5k less.. he was. How is that my problem?