Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    The "gender" pay gap is not a problem because it doesn't exist.
    I can only assume you mean the gender pay gap as in the pay gap between people in equivalent employment. The discriminatory component still 'exists' and is in the region of about 5-8% as far as I know, which is still unacceptable. You're also implying that that's the pay gap that campaigners are talking about, which simply isn't the case. It's a wider issue.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    i thought you were talking about TSR bans until i read the OP...:getmecoat:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I can only assume you mean the gender pay gap as in the pay gap between people in equivalent employment. The discriminatory component still 'exists' and is in the region of about 5-8% as far as I know, which is still unacceptable. You're also implying that that's the pay gap that campaigners are talking about, which simply isn't the case. It's a wider issue.
    Yes, but people still quoting statistics (even Obama did so in a recent speech) which have been proven wrong doesn't really help their wider cause, does it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Yes, but people still quoting statistics (even Obama did so in a recent speech) which have been proven wrong doesn't really help their wider cause, does it?
    The average earnings of women in the US are 22% less than the average man's earnings. In what sense has this been proven wrong?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Social media has magnified the problem. In the old days people would shrug their shoulders and move on with life. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook have made it trendy to show outrage
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    So we were wrong to ban guns.

    You want a society were anybody can ge ttheir hands on guns then?

    I'm not talking about guns, I'm talking about media, opinions, and language.

    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    TIL totalitarianism = banning an explicit pop song in a school.
    It was the banning of a pop song on a university campus. A place for grown adults. I can't really think of anything more totalitarian than deciding what music adults are allowed to listen to.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    The next group of black people I see I am going to insult their race as it is my right due to free speech.
    Hopefully they will tell you to go f*** yourself, because that's also their right to free speech.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The average earnings of women in the US are 22% less than the average man's earnings. In what sense has this been proven wrong?
    The pay gap doesn't exist when you control for the different choices women make. Women still get paid the same amounts when they have the same job roles.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I've got fed up of seeing people decry how our rights to freedom of speech are being taken away from us, and in the same breath saying the gender pay gap is not a problem, making racist remarks, treating women as objects or perpetuating demonstrably false myths about differences in cognitive ability between different socio-economic groups.
    Would you like to have the power to stop people from spouting opinions contrary to yours? Would you like to be able to control what people say and think by using punitive governmental force as a threat?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The average earnings of women in the US are 22% less than the average man's earnings. In what sense has this been proven wrong?
    Yes, they earn less but are not paid less because as far as I know, it's illegal to pay a women less than a man in the exact job with the same requirements. However, you will earn more if you work overtime and do not take any leave (such as maternity). Men on average spend more time at work and paternity leave is way shorter than maternity so the man earns more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The average earnings of women in the US are 22% less than the average man's earnings. In what sense has this been proven wrong?


    Yes, they earn less but are not paid less because as far as I know, it's illegal to pay a women less than a man in the exact job with the same requirements. However, you will earn more if you work overtime and do not take any leave (such as maternity). Men on average spend more time at work and paternity leave is way shorter than maternity so the man earns more.
    There's also the fact that many women choose, on completely their own terms, to be stay at home mothers. They also are more likely to choose careers which pay less. For example more women will do courses like fine art and english lit, which are hard to land a job with.

    I don't see a problem with this if everyone is happy.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    There's also the fact that many women choose, on completely their own terms, to be stay at home mothers. They also are more likely to choose careers which pay less. For example more women will do courses like fine art and english lit, which are hard to land a job with.

    I don't see a problem with this if everyone is happy.
    Yes, even with equal opportunity, there will never be equal outcome because this is real life.
    People really to be informed on the "wage gap" before trying to use it...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The average earnings of women in the US are 22% less than the average man's earnings. In what sense has this been proven wrong?
    It is precisely the comparison between the average earnings of men and women which distorts everything. It paints a picture that women are, on average, paid 78% of men's wages in the US for tasks which are the same. However, this is patently false: the study which this statistic cites does not take into account factors such as:

    1. the number of hours worked by the participant (and whether the job is full-time);
    2. the seniority/age of the participant in the organisation/responsibilities, and especially the phenomenon of women leaving work to care for their family; in fact, the average UK woman outearns men her age, until she turns 35);
    3. the job sector the participant works in; and
    4. the risks and choices which individuals take (which is somewhat linked to the job sector and seniority points).

    Without accounting for these factors, the statistic is warped because you're comparing the salaries of different jobs which require different skill sets and have different responsibilities for the job holder, which likewise have different remuneration packages.

    In fact, let me illustrate my point: the profession which I am entering, law, is perhaps dominated by women, contrary to the "old white men in white wigs" image of the profession (maybe they're women too, after all!). A few facts:

    1. On average, there are more female than male law university students; 62.4% are female, in fact.
    2. For most of the big law firms in the UK (especially the Magic and Silver Circle firms), female and male representation at trainee/associate level are almost equal, if not leaning slightly towards women.
    3. Some firms of course are anomalies of course and only have 37% females at associate level (to be noted: this firm practices commercial law and is a top-payer, and its annual cohort is 14 lawyers), but other firms are also conversely disproportionate; one large regional firm of which women comprise 74% of its associates (to be noted: this firm practices personal injury and pays much less than the aforementioned firm, and its annual cohort is 50 lawyers a year).
    4. Sadly a lot of female lawyers start quitting the profession in their 30s and 40s, for whatever reason, and the percentage of female partners in law firms are much lower (even for that 74% law firm, only 34% of its partners were female).
    5. Salaries at law firms usually follow a lockstep payment system (i.e. a system where salaries are based on seniority), and bonuses in the legal profession are not outrageous like those of bankers (like only a few months only); there isn't much variance in wages for the same seniority bracket within a law firm.
    6. The difference between what a partner and an associate earns can be in the millions for some law firms, but then again the gulf between the responsibilities of the two are immense.

    So what do all these numbers mean? For one thing, the supposed wage gap looks very different when we compare male/female wages through the various filters of the size of the firm, type of law practiced, and the seniority of the lawyers, swinging both ways favouring men sometimes, and women at other times, even though the average earnings of all male lawyers exceed that of women. But in truth, male and female lawyers in general are paid equally for the same amount of responsibilities they hold and the work they do, because of the lockstep payment system!

    Now, if we add together the salaries of lawyers and that of nurses (who are predominantly female) and compare the wage gap, like what the study did... we get an incoherent picture of the difference in average wages, because it would be highly illogical to compare the work, responsibilities, and remuneration of nurses with lawyers - they are apples and oranges (disclaimer: I'm not in anyway demeaning either professions).

    So what I'm getting at is that the study which the US wage gap statistic cites is extremely flawed and is an illogical tool to measure the equality of opportunity and equality in result. It is very true that women do face problems in their careers later on in life and need help in this area (like my female law firm partners example), but this fact is masked by the US wage gap statistic and is unhelpful to the cause.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Flak Jacket)
    Social media has magnified the problem. In the old days people would shrug their shoulders and move on with life. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook have made it trendy to show outrage
    "Britain is not twitter" - someone who is not Jeremy Corbyn.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    So we were wrong to ban guns.

    You want a society were anybody can ge ttheir hands on guns then?
    Who has banned guns?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    So we were wrong to ban guns.
    Yes. (though I should point out that most guns aren't actually banned)

    You want a society were anybody can ge ttheir hands on guns then?
    Of course not, much in the same way I don't want a society where anybody can drive a car. That doesn't mean I want to see cars outright banned, just that appropriate vetting and training is undertaken before one is allowed to drive a car.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's a good thing that the majority of the gender pay gap is made up of women choosing lower paid careers or to be stay-at-home mothers. Families where both parents work are becoming increasingly common and we are seeing increasing recognition of women's career aspirations. Also, I think back to not that long ago, it's crazy just how many completely bogus assumptions about gender differences are inculcated in young people before they have a chance to think for themselves. Obviously I can't claim that the gender pay gap would be eliminated completely if every possible measure was taken, but I believe it could be much lower. Also, even adjusting for variables such as part-time work, care and so on the unexplained pay gap is 4.8 - 7.1% (http://www.consad.com/content/report...l%20Report.pdf) and I don't think any component of this could be a good thing.

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Would you like to have the power to stop people from spouting opinions contrary to yours? Would you like to be able to control what people say and think by using punitive governmental force as a threat?
    Thank you for rewording your post to be more on point. The short answer is absolutely not, and I think the action of the students' unions are ridiculous. However, in cases where false assertions are being used, despite being clearly challenged or refuted, to justify a culture of discrimination I think some form of legal action has to be taken, it doesn't have to infringe freedom of speech, but just a binding legal principle, like the equality act, that people have to be treated the same. In the case your post I questioned the validity of bringing up 'man up' being banned in schools because I think that's a case where 'freedom of speech' has to be heavily counterbalanced with the necessity of protecting child welfare, so people growing up knowing full well what they are capable of and aren't influenced into perpetuating an outdated view of work and the family.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    There are many, many things I dislike that people say. There is no doubt that I'd like to hear people stop saying all these things. However, I do not want anyone to be banned from saying them. I do not want to influence people by sheer force of power and fear. I would be delighted if people heard my views, and on completely their own terms, came to agree with them. I, however, would not like to force people to pretend to agree with them.

    It seems though, that in the eyes of many today, if you don't like certain a word, phrase, opinion, song, film, TV show, video game, or publication, then you must therefore want it banned.

    Whenever I see someone complaining about something such as the phrase "man up" being banned in schools, or pop songs being banned on campuses, or public figures being banned from debates, I can always expect to see a response that constitutes something along the lines of: "So you think they/it have/has a good influence on society?"

    That is beside the point. The point is that we don't want to live under the regime of little totalitarians who have appointed themselves the arbiters of what other people can and can't say, think, watch, listen to, or read.

    And no, people such as myself do not want to be totalitarians. I would not like to use the state to punitively enforce my opinions. I would not even like to gather up hundreds and thousands of supporters to pressure a publication (that I do not purchase) to stop printing something on one of it's pages for it's own paying customers. I am very happy to criticize things and I hope that people come to agree with me, but I would not be happy to try to force people to live in my personal conception of some utopia against their will.
    I totally agree.

    The only thing that is amusing, and makes it remotely tolerable is when those repulsive liberals who seek themselves to stifle freedom of thought get hoist with their own petard.

    Step forward Emily Thornberry...

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...et-row-4959926
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    It is precisely the comparison between the average earnings of men and women which distorts everything. It paints a picture that women are, on average, paid 78% of men's wages in the US for tasks which are the same.
    I'm sure there are newspapers that interpret the statistics inaccurately, but it's pretty clear from Whitehouse statements that all aspects of the gap are considered undesirable. There are actually two paragraphs in this report (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...rief_final.pdf) that put it quite nicely:

    "The real question, though, is why men and women end
    up in different occupations in the first place. It’s not clear
    whether we should account for differences in industry
    and occupation in wage gap decompositions. If these
    differences stem from preferences, it is reasonable to
    account for them. On the other hand, if men and women
    choose different jobs because of discrimination, industry
    and occupation should not be included. In many
    situations, the line between discrimination and
    preference is ambiguous.


    Take the example of computer science, where the share
    of women is lower today than it was in 1985. This gap
    doesn’t start when workers are making career choices;
    rather, it results from a series of events and decisions
    that begin at very young ages. A recent OECD report finds
    that even high school girls who score high on math and
    science tests report low levels of confidence and
    proficiency in math and science.
    And once in college,
    women pursue science and math degrees at lower rates
    than men: in the 2013 school year, women received 57
    percent of all bachelor degrees, but only 35 percent in
    STEM fields. Even among women who begin a sciencerelated
    career, more than half leave by mid-career,
    double the rate of men. Forty percent of those who leave
    cite a hostile or “macho” culture as the primary reason.

    Given why women leave these fields, at least some
    occupational differences appear to be driven by negative
    factors that prevent the full range of talented Americans
    from succeeding in the workplace."

    This caricature that the world's most important government is not intelligent enough to be aware of all the factors behind a statistic is simply false. This report, may I add, also highlights the importance of affordable childcare in giving families the ability to have both parents in work, something that's also been identified by the Conservative government. It's quite funny to think you may be less effective at detecting societal injustice than a government accused of penalising the poor through cutting tax credits.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I'm sure there are newspapers that interpret the statistics inaccurately, but it's pretty clear from Whitehouse statements that all aspects of the gap are considered undesirable. There are actually two paragraphs in this report (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...rief_final.pdf) that put it quite nicely:

    "The real question, though, is why men and women end
    up in different occupations in the first place. It’s not clear
    whether we should account for differences in industry
    and occupation in wage gap decompositions. If these
    differences stem from preferences, it is reasonable to
    account for them. On the other hand, if men and women
    choose different jobs because of discrimination, industry
    and occupation should not be included. In many
    situations, the line between discrimination and
    preference is ambiguous.


    Take the example of computer science, where the share
    of women is lower today than it was in 1985. This gap
    doesn’t start when workers are making career choices;
    rather, it results from a series of events and decisions
    that begin at very young ages. A recent OECD report finds
    that even high school girls who score high on math and
    science tests report low levels of confidence and
    proficiency in math and science.
    And once in college,
    women pursue science and math degrees at lower rates
    than men: in the 2013 school year, women received 57
    percent of all bachelor degrees, but only 35 percent in
    STEM fields. Even among women who begin a sciencerelated
    career, more than half leave by mid-career,
    double the rate of men. Forty percent of those who leave
    cite a hostile or “macho” culture as the primary reason.

    Given why women leave these fields, at least some
    occupational differences appear to be driven by negative
    factors that prevent the full range of talented Americans
    from succeeding in the workplace."

    This caricature that the world's most important government is not intelligent enough to be aware of all the factors behind a statistic is simply false. This report, may I add, also highlights the importance of affordable childcare in giving families the ability to have both parents in work, something that's also been identified by the Conservative government. It's quite funny to think you may be less effective at detecting societal injustice than a government accused of penalising the poor through cutting tax credits.
    The quote you cited simply sidesteps the main question at hand. The wage gap is meant to prove/disprove the fact/myth that men and women are paid unequally; all the quote does is acknowledge the barriers to entry to various professions and the discrimination and work/life patterns of individuals and families - which even I did point out in my earlier post (perhaps you didn't read it?). But that is besides the point. The quote you cited has failed to show that, pound for pound, the men and women are not generally paid the same money for the same job at the same level of seniority.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.