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

Does the gender pay gap exist? watch

Announcements
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If women get paid whatever % less than men why don’t companies just hire women?
    The only possible answers are:
    Women are less productive
    There is no gap
    Companies don’t care about profits
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    My company works off pay scales & grades where your pay increases slightly in line with performance, what roles you can perform, your value to the team etc. So everyone will earn a slightly different salary - e.g if you're a grade X your pay bracket is 27-34k.

    If you add all the mens salaries together and all the womens salaries together, there would almost certainly be a bias in favour of men or women. Does that mean my company is deliberately paying one gender less? Of course not, otherwise they'd only hire that gender.

    Another point that nobody mentions is that a lot of women will be content in their current roles because it's easy, stable work and it allows them to provide for their family. If you've been at the same place for years, you're earning good money and your partner is as well, there's little need to look for another job. Why take the risk of spending less time with your kids or the chance of failing probation? I know this is gender stereotyping a bit and i'm sure men get affected by this too, but if you look in any non management job most of the "lifers" will be women.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Has it indeed. Does all IQ research agree with that?
    All is a strong word. I've heard numerous scientists say it is correlated, and I just had a quick look and can't find any dissenting voices. Wikipedia gives multiple examples of research supporting the hypothesis, and none against, so unless you've read multiple studies disagreeing then I think it's reasonably safe to say a correlation exists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intell...uotient#Income
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    If women get paid whatever % less than men why don’t companies just hire women?
    The only possible answers are:
    Women are less productive
    There is no gap
    Companies don’t care about profits
    Do you actually think that reasoning makes sense?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawlieto)
    It's not disrespectful, being a maths teacher at lower level is not intellectually challenging as opposed to becoming a professor, and "plenty of female maths professors" actually means not that many academics in maths compared to how many men there are... (Also, the difference between being a teacher/professor is not teach/lecture, what I meant is that mathematicians do "active research" whatever they call it in maths, and a university probably pays that better than a secondary school paying for teaching).
    You are wrong lecturing is relatively simple - a few lectures a wekk with studnet who want to learn.

    Teaching maths - classes of 30 and students that sometimes want to be somewhere else. [Think bottom set Year 10 for 90 minutes on a Friday afternoon] You have to inspire them and prepare really good lessons to engage their interest. You need to think of different ways to help students understand - just as demanding as at a uni. Every student I teach has to make good progress - unis aren't accountable like that.
    I think teachers are actually better paid than uni academics.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    That's for couples to work out. It makes sod all difference to anyone else and it's none of anyone else's business anyway.
    That's irrelevant to the question.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Do you actually think that reasoning makes sense?
    It makes perfect sense, what flaw do you see?

    The gap either exists or doesn't.

    If it does, it is either justifiable or unjustifiable from the perspective of profit-seeking enterprises.

    For people who believe that the gender-pay gap is real and pervasive, you must logically think companies care less about profit than maintaining the patriarchy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    If women get paid whatever % less than men why don’t companies just hire women?
    The only possible answers are:
    Women are less productive
    There is no gap
    Companies don’t care about profits
    I'd like to see pay gap believers argue this!
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Do you actually think that reasoning makes sense?
    Yes if women were as productive as men and could be payed less no one would hire men as it would be a lot cheaper to hire women
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yaboi)
    What does it stand for
    The psychometric g factor, google it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Yes if women were as productive as men and could be payed less no one would hire men as it would be a lot cheaper to hire women
    It oversimplifies the recruitment practices of businesses. If it were simply about reducing labour costs at all costs, there would be no stratified pay scales as all companies would push towards hiring less qualified people. There would be a veritable race to the bottom. Clearly, companies care about things other than reducing overhead costs.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    It oversimplifies the recruitment practices of businesses. If it were simply about reducing labour costs at all costs, there would be no stratified pay scales as all companies would push towards hiring less qualified people. There would be a veritable race to the bottom. Clearly, companies care about things other than reducing overhead costs.
    So you are saying that women would have some negative effect on a business?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you are saying that women would have some negative effect on a business?
    No, I was simply saying that your mathematical approach to recruitment is misconceived. There still is an underlying need for quality. For the more specialist roles, that quality is more numerously found when searching across both sexes rather than just one.

    I think a company which recruited exclusively women would face legal and political problems, too.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Do you actually think that reasoning makes sense?
    It basically does make sense tbh, as far as it goes anyway. Enough to refute the 'equal pay day' rubbish, anyway.

    You're a businessman and you want to fill a position in your business. You have two tremendously competent, appropriately qualified, eager candidates. One is a man, one is a woman. According to the 'equal pay day' people, you only have to pay the woman until early November. That's a substantial saving which, if I were making hiring decisions, I'd want to put in my pocket. This demonstrates that it is implausible that the pay gap actually exists as pictured.

    There are obviously some problems with this if it's taken as a serious argument beyond its quite limited point, but it makes for quite a good quick-fire response to this stuff.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by del1rious)
    I don’t understand the whole pay gap thing... it’s illegal to pay men and women different wages for doing the same job based on their sex?

    If the argument is that men get paid more because they occupy higher positions, perhaps women should work a bit harder and stop using the feminism card? Could this also be explained by the fact that (USUALLY) women will have children and take a hiatus in their careers, go part time or stop altogether? I appreciate this may be a generalised and not very PC statement to make. I am a woman by the way before anyone starts.
    That statement made it sound like it was okay that it's the *woman* that takes the hiatus in their careers when having children rather than the man which in itself is unfair and one of the causes for there being a pay gap. Therefore, the ''feminism card'' can still actually be played. Society still views it as the norm for the woman to be the one to take the leave since in the past it was the man that would work and the woman who would take care of the house and the children. Of course, society has changed a lot since then but the old views are not *completely* gone.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    There has been a long term decline in the numbers of male teachers, exactly as society has been becoming more equal. The reality is if you give women the freedom to choose their own paths there is nothing to say they will, or should, make the same choices on average as men do.
    Quoting for emphasis. You have it exactly right.

    Fundamentally most 'equal pay' arguments at this point revolve around freedom of choice for women vs a dogmatic and arbitrary insistence that they should behave, as a class, exactly as men do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It basically does make sense tbh, as far as it goes anyway. Enough to refute the 'equal pay day' rubbish, anyway.

    You're a businessman and you want to fill a position in your business. You have two tremendously competent, appropriately qualified, eager candidates. One is a man, one is a woman. According to the 'equal pay day' people, you only have to pay the woman until early November. That's a substantial saving which, if I were making hiring decisions, I'd want to put in my pocket. This demonstrates that it is implausible that the pay gap actually exists as pictured.

    There are obviously some problems with this if it's taken as a serious argument beyond its quite limited point, but it makes for quite a good quick-fire response to this stuff.
    It was a limited argument in your hypothetical scenario: one man vs one woman. However, the suggestion was instituting whole companies with exclusively female hiring, and that goes quite a bit further than one man vs one woman. At that point, you have to take into consideration realist issues of sourcing sufficient number of qualified candidates given your narrow pool.

    To answer your limited argument, in such a case it does not correspond with reality, because it would be almost impossible to have two completely equal candidates. The original argument by the other poster was if women are truly equal to men but cheaper, why don't we see exclusively women hired in reality. Because the situation you are describing does not exist in reality.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supremebeatle)
    That statement made it sound like it was okay that it's the *woman* that takes the hiatus in their careers when having children rather than the man which in itself is unfair and one of the causes for there being a pay gap. Therefore, the ''feminism card'' can still actually be played. Society still views it as the norm for the woman to be the one to take the leave since in the past it was the man that would work and the woman who would take care of the house and the children. Of course, society has changed a lot since then but the old views are not *completely* gone.
    There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    If, in a couple, the woman decides to spend a couple of years out to look after her kids, and the man decides to work to provide for them, that is there choice and it's a perfectly good one. It is literally no one else's business how people choose to organise their families, and the idea that the aggregation of individual choices might be a problem 'for society' is absolutely outrageous.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    It was a limited argument in your hypothetical scenario: one man vs one woman. However, the suggestion was instituting whole companies with exclusively female hiring, and that goes quite a bit further than one man vs one woman. At that point, you have to take into consideration realist issues of sourcing sufficient number of qualified candidates given your narrow pool.

    To answer your limited argument, in such a case it does not correspond with reality, because it would be almost impossible to have two completely equal candidates. The original argument by the other poster was if women are truly equal to men but cheaper, why don't we see exclusively women hired in reality. Because the situation you are describing does not exist in reality.
    Okay, but I think the point is really that applying any sort of commercial sense to the labour market shows that the pay gap as stated can't exist. Of course companies couldn't hire exclusively female staff in the real world, but if equivalent female labour were priced at a 20% discount to male labour you'd certainly see demand for female labour increase, which would of course raise its price.

    Of course there are rarely two exactly equal candidates, but a significant discount would still shift the market. The point of the argument is exactly that the situation described by the pay gap folks doesn't correspond with reality, and in particular commercial reality.

    You can of course pick apart how it was stated, but the basic point is sound.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supremebeatle)
    That statement made it sound like it was okay that it's the *woman* that takes the hiatus in their careers when having children rather than the man which in itself is unfair and one of the causes for there being a pay gap. Therefore, the ''feminism card'' can still actually be played. Society still views it as the norm for the woman to be the one to take the leave since in the past it was the man that would work and the woman who would take care of the house and the children. Of course, society has changed a lot since then but the old views are not *completely* gone.
    It’s not that society views it as the norm it’s that it IS the norm. It is usually the case that women chose to become the primary caregiver in a family
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.