Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quiton)
    Throughout the post we are talking about working hours/job type/ability being constant, while wages a woman receives is less than that of a man receives?
    Not sure how you starting to bring in part time job? comparing woman working part-time with a full-time male is ridiculous.. Did you study biology or chemistry before btw?
    I agree it's ridiculous, but you continue to listen to statistics that are formed by doing this.

    There exists nobody that is paid less for the same job. If there is, you must report it to an authority because it's illegal, so can you please do that thanks.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Can you not imagine the uproar if there wasn't.

    There's no significant pressure. People are not being told to pay women more, they're being told to employ more women. That's because people think numerical inequality means we live in a sexist society, which is just plain simple-minded and ignorant. Nobody ever digs into the statistics. People just believe them.

    "OMG I flipped a coin 100 times and it landed on heads 56 times!! OMG INEQUALITY WE LIVE IN A HORRIBLE SOCIETY WHY IS THE COIN BIASED TOWARDS HEADS" It's just pathetic. No further info, no proof.

    Plus half the "studies" done on wages are surveys. So people could just make up their salaries, but who knows.
    We are not talking about chance here (e.g. coin tossing), we are talking about society.

    The wage gap reporting is not based on people disclosing their salaries and therefore at a risk of them making it up. It is based on pay roll data from individual companies, so would be pretty accurate.

    It is designed to look at like-for-like jobs within organisations and to see if there are trends to suggest there are wage discrepancies. It would factor in things you have suggested (like holiday/maternity and paternity leave/contracted working hours) to identify where there are wage discrepancies.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    you also have to consider the fact that comapanies may be less likely to employ women due to the fact they're probably going to have a baby, go on maternity leave etc etc thus increase costs for the business, whereas males dont have babies and although they might go on maternity/paternity leave, they are far less likely to and thus more realiable
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am glad you finally realise wage discrimination does exist in 21st century.


    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    I agree it's ridiculous, but you continue to listen to statistics that are formed by doing this.

    There exists nobody that is paid less for the same job. If there is, you must report it to an authority because it's illegal, so can you please do that thanks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Whenever we mention wage discrimination does exist in the current world, they always bring in ' it is illegal, please report it, there is no sign it exists but please can you report it?' They don't want to believe the facts so there is no ways we can help them jerks.

    (Original post by J-SP)
    We are not talking about chance here (e.g. coin tossing), we are talking about society.

    The wage gap reporting is not based on people disclosing their salaries and therefore at a risk of them making it up. It is based on pay roll data from individual companies, so would be pretty accurate.

    It is designed to look at like-for-like jobs within organisations and to see if there are trends to suggest there are wage discrepancies. It would factor in things you have suggested (like holiday/maternity and paternity leave/contracted working hours) to identify where there are wage discrepancies.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes that is true, indirectly cause pregnant ladies to only be able to seek part-time jobs, and get paid lesser!

    (Original post by Rainbowcorn)
    you also have to consider the fact that comapanies may be less likely to employ women due to the fact they're probably going to have a baby, go on maternity leave etc etc thus increase costs for the business, whereas males dont have babies and although they might go on maternity/paternity leave, they are far less likely to and thus more realiable
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rainbowcorn)
    you also have to consider the fact that comapanies may be less likely to employ women due to the fact they're probably going to have a baby, go on maternity leave etc etc thus increase costs for the business, whereas males dont have babies and although they might go on maternity/paternity leave, they are far less likely to and thus more realiable
    Although shared paternity leave now means that isn't exclusive to women at all.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by KRin)
    Maybe in organisations where cultural sensitivity and experience was very important, but in those cases the persons background will directly affect their job performance so its still down to suitability for the job. I'm talking about situations where a persons gender/race/orientation would have no specific advantages. Eg. If a software engineering company has a majority of male workers and they are looking to employ someone, should they hire a woman even if she was less qualified, just to make a diversity quota?
    Well:
    1) Client representation
    2) Cultural assimilation for foreign markets
    3) Diversity of thought/mitigation of group think; if everyone had the same cookie cutter background growing up they'd think in similar ways
    etc.
    etc.
    etc..


    You seem to equate female with being less qualified? Competition is still present to get into your so called 'quota' bracket, the implication that because someone is female they are therefore less qualified is false. It's no different to two dudes being presented on paper with the exact same qualifications and experience, but one happens to have done something out with their job suitability (e.g. they visited the office to meet up with their potential interviewers
    ), that tips the scale - they're both equally qualified but luck played in the other dude's fate.

    Girls can be equally qualified but have the slight glimmer of luck involved in being underrepresented.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quiton)
    Yes that is true, indirectly cause pregnant ladies to only be able to seek part-time jobs, and get paid lesser!
    truee
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    We are not talking about chance here (e.g. coin tossing), we are talking about society.

    The wage gap reporting is not based on people disclosing their salaries and therefore at a risk of them making it up. It is based on pay roll data from individual companies, so would be pretty accurate.

    It is designed to look at like-for-like jobs within organisations and to see if there are trends to suggest there are wage discrepancies. It would factor in things you have suggested (like holiday/maternity and paternity leave/contracted working hours) to identify where there are wage discrepancies.
    They should. But they don't (referring to your last paragraph)

    Look at the actual studies. Their either suggest a much smaller discrepancy or they ignore many important factors.

    Look I wouldn't deny someone as ridiculous as this if it were true, but I am also very speculative when I see such an absurd statistic. I really researched it, and you have to look at the data used by the studies that conclude that there's a wage gap. They just simply ignore too many factors, purely because it would take too long to consider it all I imagine. It's much easier to take an average and conclude you need more money than it is to do some research to conclude by saying "yes we were all right there's no wage gap" - that seems a waste of time to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    Although shared paternity leave now means that isn't exclusive to women at all.
    thats true, however, men are still less likely to use paternity leave or if they do, usually not for a long term (obviously with exceptions) as it is women who carry a baby for 9 months and then might breast feed etc. This still means men are far less likely to be away for a long time thus the 'safer' option if you will
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quiton)
    Whenever we mention wage discrimination does exist in the current world, they always bring in ' it is illegal, please report it, there is no sign it exists but please can you report it?' They don't want to believe the facts so there is no ways we can help them jerks.
    You have got to be the most deluded person on this forum.

    I do hope you're on tumblr, makes it much easier when everyone with this high level of ignorance is on the same platform, makes it easier to ignore them when they're grouped up.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    They should. But they don't (referring to your last paragraph)

    Look at the actual studies. Their either suggest a much smaller discrepancy or they ignore many important factors.

    Look I wouldn't deny someone as ridiculous as this if it were true, but I am also very speculative when I see such an absurd statistic. I really researched it, and you have to look at the data used by the studies that conclude that there's a wage gap. They just simply ignore too many factors, purely because it would take too long to consider it all I imagine. It's much easier to take an average and conclude you need more money than it is to do some research to conclude by saying "yes we were all right there's no wage gap" - that seems a waste of time to me.
    They don't yet - the way the latest government consultation is going though, it is something that is probable. And as I started with, why would the government be pushing for this to go through if they didn't honestly think this is an issue.

    They clearly think it is measurable to some extent, even with variables and ultimately it is actually fairly easy to look at. The consultation and its recommendation is pushing for companies of over 250 employees to have to disclose their individual wage gap reports to the public, so it would be looking at things on a micro rather than macro scale.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You are not confident that you can form logical and sound arguments to defend wage gap never exist that is why you resort to personal attacks. All the best with you asking your mother to teach you social etiquette.


    and
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    You have got to be the most deluded person on this forum.

    I do hope you're on tumblr, makes it much easier when everyone with this high level of ignorance is on the same platform, makes it easier to ignore them when they're grouped up.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rainbowcorn)
    thats true, however, men are still less likely to use paternity leave or if they do, usually not for a long term (obviously with exceptions) as it is women who carry a baby for 9 months and then might breast feed etc. This still means men are far less likely to be away for a long time thus the 'safer' option if you will
    I think its only small businesses that see it as an issue. Given how many organisations provide enhanced maternity leave packages, they clearly value women as much as they do men and actively pursue financial remuneration packages that mean they might recruit and retain women (and men) whether they have children or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Well:
    1) Client representation
    2) Cultural assimilation for foreign markets
    3) Diversity of thought/mitigation of group think; if everyone had the same cookie cutter background growing up they'd think in similar ways
    etc.
    etc.
    etc..


    You seem to equate female with being less qualified? Competition is still present to get into your so called 'quota' bracket, the implication that because someone is female they are therefore less qualified is false. It's no different to two dudes being presented on paper with the exact same qualifications and experience, but one happens to have done something out with their job suitability (e.g. they visited the office to meet up with their potential interviewers
    ), that tips the scale - they're both equally qualified but luck played in the other dude's fate.

    Girls can be equally qualified but have the slight glimmer of luck involved in being underrepresented.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Of course I don't think women are less qualified, its just an example. I am a women and in my year I'm the only girl doing computing, I also got the highest marks for AS level last year. I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying cause I agree with a lot of the points you make here, so I'll try to be more clear.

    In some jobs having a mix of different types of people allows the job to be done better.
    However, in my opinion hiring certain people just to fill a diversity quota is going to result is less qualified people getting jobs they wouldn't have otherwise been able to get. And that's not fair.
    If I get hired by a software engineering company I want it to be because I was the best and most skilled applicant, not because the company wanted to look good an paper.

    In your example of the twos guys being presented on paper with the exact same qualifications and experience, the guy who visited the office displayed dedication and enthusiasm, which are desirable job traits, making him better suited to the job. So he would get hired.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    I never understood the whole "encouraging women to do X" stuff. If they need encouragement to want to do it, they aren't cut out for it. If they want to do it but need encouragement anyway, they're weak and thus not cutout for it.

    Before I learned about feminist policies I never realised how weak and pathetic women supposedly are.
    PRSOM!

    I'm a woman myself and I simply couldn't agree more. I'm also a scientist and I can tell you, in science what sets people apart is how great their love for their field is. If you need encouragement then you're just going to sink because no scientist worth their salt is going to waste their time dealing with you. If you don't love what you do then you become a burden on everyone else and have no business being a scientist. The mark of a true scientist is that everything (including their own lives) comes second to their research. If giving you encouragement is going to hinder their research in even the slightest way then you can expect to be ignored. It sounds pretty harsh but that's just how it is. Put simply, science > you.

    You've got to be a special kind of person to be a scientist, so this whole "get more women in science" thing is actually really destructive. It could end up causing STEM subjects to be saturated with the wrong kinds of people and that would severely impact on research output and progress in general. In fact, things like the "feminist" method of research are direct consequences of this. If you're unaware of what that is, it's basically the scrapping of all quantitative methods in favor of qualitative methods, simply because qualitative methods have a more "feminine aspect" (or so I'm told by feminists). Qualitative methods are riddled with all sorts of bias and should only ever be used alongside quantitative methods as supporting evidence, never as your concrete stuff. The feminist research methodology completely undermines the scientific method. It's quite literally one of the most ridiculous and stupid research methodologies I've ever seen, heck I'd even say it's on a par with scholasticism!

    Science is hard and most women falter at the first sight of a decent challenge, whereas men tend not to. It's no surprise really that men dominate the sciences.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elivercury)
    I have seen nothing requiring companies to legally have a quota for diversity?

    Regardless, this is a separate topic, the route does not necessarily need to be related to quotas.

    Lets go the whole hog and say they make a scheme for women, muslims, LGBT, minorities, jews...any others? We're at 5 at the moment. Assuming 1% of their hires come through this process that is a whopping 5% of their staff are hired through this route...while they will still continue to hire 70-80% white men via their normal routes. I'm really not seeing the problem, and I say this as a white man.

    I am perfectly confident in my ability to succeed and get a job and do not need to feel threatened by what is ultimately a positive initiative.

    Incidentally, I would be dead set against, say, a 40% quota as you will get people being hired for their gender rather than their ability. On the other hand, if you believe that the top 1% of 50% of the population are getting a "free ride" then that is rather ridiculous really.
    Why would a diversity quota be at 1%? that's like hiring one more black person to look diverse.
    If you don't believe there is a 40% quota on select Norway companies, then search it up.
    Even the EU has made a gender quota of 40%, but not every country agrees in a way like the UK
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...uota-plan.html
    and
    Glad that our confident in your ability
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys. OP here
    Everyone seems to be talking about the wage gap. Does it exist? Has it been debunked? etc etc
    Now, when making reference to this 'wage gap', are we talking about the same job? Are we talking about a male doctor earning more than a female nurse, or a male doctor who out earns a female doctor? If referring to the latter, this could be caused to a multitude of factors, such as numbers of hour worked, specialty etc etc and it could be inferred causation that women earn less than men - a correlation exists yet the causation is simply not there

    What do you guys think?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    PRSOM!

    I'm a woman myself and I simply couldn't agree more. I'm also a scientist and I can tell you, in science what sets people apart is how great their love for their field is. If you need encouragement then you're just going to sink because no scientist worth their salt is going to waste their time dealing with you. If you don't love what you do then you become a burden on everyone else and have no business being a scientist. The mark of a true scientist is that everything (including their own lives) comes second to their research. If giving you encouragement is going to hinder their research in even the slightest way then you can expect to be ignored. It sounds pretty harsh but that's just how it is. Put simply, science > you.

    You've got to be a special kind of person to be a scientist, so this whole "get more women in science" thing is actually really destructive. It could end up causing STEM subjects to be saturated with the wrong kinds of people and that would severely impact on research output and progress in general. In fact, things like the "feminist" method of research are direct consequences of this. If you're unaware of what that is, it's basically the scrapping of all quantitative methods in favor of qualitative methods, simply because qualitative methods have a more "feminine aspect" (or so I'm told by feminists). Qualitative methods are riddled with all sorts of bias and should only ever be used alongside quantitative methods as supporting evidence, never as your concrete stuff. The feminist research methodology completely undermines the scientific method. It's quite literally one of the most ridiculous and stupid research methodologies I've ever seen, heck I'd even say it's on a par with scholasticism!

    Science is hard and most women falter at the first sight of a decent challenge, whereas men tend not to. It's no surprise really that men dominate the sciences.
    Can we get an Amen?
    AMEN.
    **but why why is she voting to leave the EU** *sob*
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Articles and guides:

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A-Z of careers Advice on choosing a careerCV writing helpCovering letter helpInterview tips

    Featured recruiter profiles:

    CGI logo

    CGI is open for applications

    "Offering a range of apprentice and sponsored degree positions."

    Deutsche Bank logo

    Deutsche Bank is recruiting

    "Thrive in an international banking environment"

    ICAEW logo

    Merck

    "Merck is a global leader in specialized pharma & chemicals – join us!"

    Army logo

    The Army is recruiting now

    "With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

    Bianca Miller, runner-up on The Apprentice

    Handle your digital footprint

    What would an employer find out about you on Google? Find out how to take control.

    Quick links:

    Unanswered career sector and employment threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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