The Student Room Group

Gender pay gap equates to 1.2 billion women working for nothing

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ByEeek
There is plenty of evidence. However, you have constructed your own narrative. No amount of my posting evidence will make you think differently, so what is the point?


Well provide me with some evidence that, on a broad scale, men and women are paid unequally for equal work.
Original post by ByEeek


Yes, women look after children, but that does not rot their brain. I can think of any number of incompetent men who earn vastly more than much more able women in lower positions who can not progress because they are held back.

I find it interesting that it is men on this forum who are pretending the pay gap is some fictional idea that is made up by some form of conspiracy. It really isn't. My wife has experienced it first hand.


You can know 30 such examples and you'll still be unable to dispute with averages. It's perfectly easy for me to support equal chances for women as I'm a former socialist, bred mostly by women and I come from a family in which men and women generally perform rather equally, and my female cousins have outperformed me both in education and salaries. Now, all I want is to act on a basis of proper scientific evidence. And speaking of science, basic math concepts tell us that you cannot disprove averages with individual examples.

Btw. my mother works in a private company, where the owner hires only women for the white collar work, because he thinks that women are the best for the job, and he prefers to hire those who already have children because once they have children, it is less likely they will get pregnant again and go for holiday. Does that prove something on averages estimated for large populations? Absolutely nothing.

Original post by ByEeek

Yes. Quite simply. If we live in an equal society, which we don't, if you took a random selection of working men and a random selection of working women and added up how much they earned, we should see them earn the same. And if we are going to look at meritocracy, women and girls consistently out perform men and boys in our education system yet seem to fail so badly in work.


Formal education has very little to do with the reality of actual jobs. To prove your point, you'd need to calculate the average number of working hours for men and women, time spent on maternity leaves, risk of going on such leave (btw. that is why I say that both parents should be obliged to go for a leave for the same amount of time!), also confront it with data on education, and various mental qualities not only IQ. If then your point will be proven, I will support it. But so far I haven't seen such research, and classical liberals argue that there is no gender pay gap, because women on average work less hours etc. etc.

And remember even then it may turn it is impossible to balance the wages, because some not very intelligent or educated or even unintelligent men work in jobs which are very physically demanding, thus they are not suitable for most of women, but they give quite high salaries, because the jobs are really hard and they must be well paid to so someone picks such hard job instead of easier one. As well as they also need to be paid more because people who take a lot of fatigue in their job also have to eat a lot more.
I guess that even if it possible to balance wages between genders in highly skilled jobs, without any damage to anyone's capabilities, it will not be possible for the low skilled and unskilled work, for the reason mentioned above. There are many jobs which most of women cannot perform because they are too weak on average, and this physically demanding jobs are well paid. So even if women were more intelligent, it can't help them, because mental abilities are not relevant in those jobs.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by brimstone131
completely agree that the findings this week from the BBC were shocking, totally wrong..... but his point is that there is not one case of two presenters, one male and female, doing exactly the same workload being paid differently.... what is apparent is that the opportunities given to male presenters and actors are far greater, and the amount they are paid for these even more so


No my argument was pretty clear; entertainment is results driven, if you're on a more popular show or come in with a track record of success you can demand more money.
Original post by Underscore__
No my argument was pretty clear; entertainment is results driven, if you're on a more popular show or come in with a track record of success you can demand more money.


ah ok i see that, maybe part of the issue is that the viewing public prefer male presenters and actors, and we're blaming the BBC for ultimately giving us what we want, at the sacrifice of their female employee's salaries and opportunities?
Original post by ByEeek
No. That will come out next year when all companies over 250 will have to publish their figures. So far we have seen public organisations like Birmingham City Council pay out millions in back pay and the latest revelation from the BBC was no real surprise. We can continue this conversation in April if you like?


As others alluded to though, looking just at raw figures isn't going to tell you much. How many people were offered promotions but turned it down? How many hours are one set of people doing who are earning more, compared to another set of people who are earning less but doing less hours? How many people decide not become very well paid oil rig workers because of the high levels of mortality associated with the job?

Everything has to be normalised and examined against wider economic criteria before we can take any serious meaning away from it. If there is a problem people have to be rationale, measured and understand what the precise nature of the problem is. If people want to have emotive arguments based on faulty logic and unprocessed data, I would argue they aren't actually interested in examining any real issues regarding pay and society.
Original post by brimstone131
ah ok i see that, maybe part of the issue is that the viewing public prefer male presenters and actors, and we're blaming the BBC for ultimately giving us what we want, at the sacrifice of their female employee's salaries and opportunities?


Well why those programs are more popular I don't know, I don't really see any reason to assume it's because of some unconscious bias.
Original post by Samendra
Why will bosses choose people to replace them? That's not how corporations work.


I wasn't talking about CEOs as the only bosses in companies.
Original post by brimstone131
ah ok i see that, maybe part of the issue is that the viewing public prefer male presenters and actors, and we're blaming the BBC for ultimately giving us what we want, at the sacrifice of their female employee's salaries and opportunities?


I'm surprised that you even give a toss about one millionaire earning slightly less than other, but you don't care that public television pays huge amounts of money to people that could be replaced with tens and hundreds of others, sometimes even making really stupid entertainment shows.


Original post by Underscore__
Well why those programs are more popular I don't know, I don't really see any reason to assume it's because of some unconscious bias.


It doesn't matter why. What matters is that they produce more income than others.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by PTMalewski
I'm surprised that you even give a toss about one millionaire earning slightly less than other, but you don't care that public television pays huge amounts of money to people that could be replaced with tens and hundreds of others.



don't get me wrong, I despise much of what the beeb stands for and does, and I wholeheartedly agree that most of the airheads who work for them could be bettered by anyone else, paid far less, while employing far more....

All I was pointing out was that seeing as little of what I say is going to matter to the bbc, i was trying to rationalize the deltas in pay, not the overall amount. It annoys me how the bbc is allowed to operate relatively uncontrolled, and because of its public funding, compulsory may I add, can pay stars and directors what it pleases.

IMHO, the sandard of bbc television has declined sharply recently (last few years) - the amount of repeats in prime time skyrockets, actually decent shows (not all my taste) are cancelled, and any show with any kind of token minority is shoved down our throats. Nothing against her, but can someone please explain why tf i turned on my tv in march to see claire balding commentating rugby, swimming, gymnastics and tennis on the same weekend... horse racing she knows her stuff, but it seems that because of what she represents, the bbc exploit it.

anyway, i appear to have diverged from the actual topic at hand
Original post by PTMalewski
It doesn't matter why. What matters is that they produce more income than others.


I completely agree
Original post by ByEeek
So are you suggesting that the fact that almost no women exist on the boards of FTSE 100 companies is because only the best people end up on the boards and those people happen to be men?

Which world do you live in?


you actually have no understanding of the real world, look at the number of men entering finance and then look at the number of woman, woman are just not interested in finance and so men will earn more creating the illusion of this 'wage gap' when in reality men just choose career with a higher earning potential.
Original post by yudothis
I wasn't talking about CEOs as the only bosses in companies.

No matter what boss your talking about it doesn't matter no one chooses who replaces them lol unless its not a public company even then there are shareholders who get a vote and then the director makes a decision. No man will choose another man just because he is a guy, if he does then he obvs has no common sense and will not have a business in the first place.
Original post by PTMalewski

Formal education has very little to do with the reality of actual jobs. To prove your point, you'd need to calculate the average number of working hours for men and women, time spent on maternity leaves, risk of going on such leave


No - you don't need to do that at all. If you want to be specific just pick a single age and compare working men of that age with working women and hey presto, there is your gender gap. It appears across the board. Since women raising children is something our society needs it makes absolutely no sense to penalise them for taking time out to work. Scandinavia don't. Why should we?
Original post by Samendra
you actually have no understanding of the real world, look at the number of men entering finance and then look at the number of woman, woman are just not interested in finance


Is that actually true? Or is is that women don't want to work with chauvinistic, egotistical, alpha males in their den? Same goes for politics. Parliament opens for business at 12pm but can finish at midnight. What sort of working hours are those? They are working hours that suit men. That is what they are. No wonder women don't want to go into politics.

But more to the point - have you actually asked women why they don't want to work in finance? You are doing that typical ignorant male thing or dictating what women are interested in or not.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Samendra
No matter what boss your talking about it doesn't matter no one chooses who replaces them lol unless its not a public company even then there are shareholders who get a vote and then the director makes a decision. No man will choose another man just because he is a guy, if he does then he obvs has no common sense and will not have a business in the first place.


Oh you vastly overestimate humans.

And shareholders choose promotions of everyone? Okay then. Sound like the typical TSRian who has read a few things and thinks they know **** and must show that off at every opportunity.
Original post by yudothis
Oh you vastly overestimate humans.

And shareholders choose promotions of everyone? Okay then. Sound like the typical TSRian who has read a few things and thinks they know **** and must show that off at every opportunity.


i was talking about directors i never said anything about choosing promotions for everyone.
Original post by Samendra
i was talking about directors i never said anything about choosing promotions for everyone.


And what makes a career that puts you into contention for the upper jobs that men still dominate?
Original post by ByEeek
No - you don't need to do that at all. If you want to be specific just pick a single age and compare working men of that age with working women and hey presto, there is your gender gap. It appears across the board.

You didn't even bother to read all what I wrote, did you? Men and women are slighly different and they specialise in different work. It may be impossible to remove the gender gap, estimated the way you suggest.
Simple example: take men and women who work physically. If men earn more, it's most likely because they do the jobs which require more physical strenght or taking more risk, or both. A retard who carries wooden boards in a sawmill, earns as much a an accountant in the same sawmill, because it requires a lot of physical strenght and stamina to carry this wooden boards at quick pace for whole day in full sun, and he must be paid well, because he needs to spend more money on food to recover strenght, and he would pick an easier job if it was paid as much. This job is so demanding that only a very strong man can perform it, therefore vast majority of women cannot do it, and if they are similarly not qualified for better jobs, they don't have other choice but to earn less in jobs which do not require to be so strong.

Original post by ByEeek

Since women raising children is something our society needs it makes absolutely no sense to penalise them for taking time out to work.


I've already told you how to deal with this problem. And stop bringing it up again and again, you make me look like I said they should be penalised, while I never said anything of the sort!


Original post by ByEeek
You are doing that typical ignorant male thing or dictating what women are interested in or not.


I don't want either. Now you're blaming women for their characters.

Let this be my final statement: do whatever you want, only as long it has solid scientifical evidence to base upon. So far I haven't seen much of evidence in this thread, if any, while you keep ignoring the fact, that men and women slightly do vary on average, and there it is possible, just possible that some gap may always exist in meritocracy, just because it may turn up that women on average are better suited to jobs which, unfortunately, are slightly less paid, because they produce less income, there is more people avaible for the jobs, or the government does not value the resposible job of teachers and does not pay them too well in the state schools. In the last example, we can fix that, but in other, we cannot.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by yudothis
And what makes a career that puts you into contention for the upper jobs that men still dominate?


your question doesnt make sense, but anyway men dominate upper jobs because more men apply for those jobs as women are just not interested, as I said any good business mind will put the person most capable at the healm no one cares what gender you are, if you can produce the results you get promoted.
Original post by Samendra
your question doesnt make sense, but anyway men dominate upper jobs because more men apply for those jobs as women are just not interested, as I said any good business mind will put the person most capable at the healm no one cares what gender you are, if you can produce the results you get promoted.


if you can produce the results you get promoted

Join the real world for a few years :smile:

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you