In other news, in order to prove that us poor, silly girls can park cars much better than the clichée suggests, there will be a competition held at Sihlcity where you have to parallel park quickly and precisely, best in show gets to drive the Mercedes SLK you have to park with for the competition for six months.
Now regardless of gender, this is not a respectable sample set. In such an experiment, anyone who is not good at parallel parking will not partake.
This competition will however show some data on who is better based on those who are eager and willing to compete. I would not be surprised if the most skillful of the women who compete out perform the most skillful of the men who compete.
Now regardless of gender, this is not a respectable sample set. In such an experiment, anyone who is not good at parallel parking will not partake.
This competition will however show some data on who is better based on those who are eager and willing to compete. I would not be surprised if the most skillful of the women who compete out perform the most skillful of the men who compete.
Well, men are better drivers than women. However, since women crash less often and overall, don't feel the need to defend their manhood at every intersection, they're deemed to be better (saver) drivers. Now, apart from the aggressive behavior, men drive more than women (be it job wise or simply during leisure activity) and this also adds to the statistics of the male accident rate.
Bingo. You just (inadvertently) explained one reason why a wage gap exists.
This is one exemple. But put a man and a woman in the same field and position, same job description, same experience and studies and explain to us why the woman earn less?
This is one exemple. But put a man and a woman in the same field and position, same job description, same experience and studies and explain to us why the woman earn less?
What studies? I've never seen anything to support this. I'm being serious.
Their studies, their school education. Same school education. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Ahh, now I see.
No, the studies (research studies) I've seen all appear to avoid using a level playing field for their comparisons. The scenario that you describe is criminal and needs to be corrected. I think we're in full agreement on this.
I read a stat today that 57% of all female Harvard and Stanford graduates have left the workforce within 15 years of graduation. Why is that, and how should these women get compensated if/when they re-enter the workforce at a later date? Should they earn as much as a man who has most likely been working continuously (I regret not seeing a statistic for their male counterparts)?
This is one exemple. But put a man and a woman in the same field and position, same job description, same experience and studies and explain to us why the woman earn less?
By looking at a very specific and detailed sample of workers (graduates of the University of Michigan Law School) economists Robert Wood, Mary Corcoran and Paul Courant were able to examine the wage gap while matching men and women for many other possible explanatory factors - not only occupation, age, experience, education, and time in the workforce, but also childcare, average hours worked, grades while in college, and other factors. Even after accounting for all that, women still are paid only 81.5% of what men with similar demographic characteristics, family situations, work hours, and work experience are paid.
Or:
Similarly, a comprehensive study by the staff of the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the gender wage gap can only be partially explained by human capital factors and "work patterns." The GAO study, released in 2003, was based on data from 1983 through 2000 from a representative sample of Americans between the ages of 25 and 65. The researchers controlled for "work patterns," including years of work experience, education, and hours of work per year, as well as differences in industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. With controls for these variables in place, the data showed that women earned, on average, 20% less than men.
women are paid less because, among other things, they are worse at getting pay rises than men.
in general, they don't bargain hard (if at all) and are don't push for it.
when you get a job offer, ask yourself whether you simply accept it, or reject it and ask for more? most of the time women accept it. men will often push for more. ditto for pay rises and promotion.
i got 3% more on salary in my last job and on current job on joining (plus huge amounts of benefits i negotiated) because i asked for more. also push for higher pay on salary increases and push hard for promotion (a significant factor!). even a 2% increase each year will result in around 22% more pay after 10 years of compounding. in reality it will be much more as you will probably get a couple of promotions a year earlier.
i used to tell me ex this who would reply "well, if i do my job well, they will notice and promote me/give me a payrise". maybe eventually they will - to keep you on, but no sooner and no more than necessary.
i recently talked her into aggressively speaking to her manager to set a timeline for promotion - and guess what - she got it and admitted she would not have been promoted had she not gone through the process i suggested.
in my experience, people do not discriminate against women in the workplace. we recognise talent, but we also try to be economical with payrises (we do have a budget) and so give payrises that are just enough to keep people happy, but not more.
__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.
Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.
women are paid less because, among other things, they are worse at getting pay rises than men.
in general, they don't bargain hard (if at all) and are don't push for it.
.
This is an interesting point and very true. Copying a comment from an older thread:
If you are not assertive, won't ask for a payrise or promotion, you won't get it. This is what is usually cited as the reason men get ahead and are paid more for the same job. And research has also shown that this is absolutely correct, significantly more men will push for a better deal during a job interview and not surprisingly, will often get it.
So, women should just ask, right? And be more dominant? But no: assertive women are viewed negatively and punished for this.
See for example: Bowles, Hannah Riley, Babcock, Linda C. and Lai, Lei, Backlash: Social Incentives for Gender Differences in Negotiating Behavior: Results reveal a significant interaction effect between gender and negotiating behavior, such that participants judged female candidates who negotiated for benefits to be less hireable than females who did not negotiate or than males in either condition.
Yes and there are also many studies showing that difference in wages might not be almost entirely the result of the individual choices.
I do agree that there's some work to be done, but declaring a public crisis over a false 22 cent wage gap is rather disingenuous.
Here's the part I don't understand: HR, as an industry, is clearly female. Don't you think that whistles would have been blown a long time ago if a patriarchy were conspiring to keep female wages down? For a publicly traded institution, how would the shareholders react to the bad press?
n=1 here: The HR women I've known were definitely NOT pushovers.
I do agree that there's some work to be done, but declaring a public crisis over a false 22 cent wage gap is rather disingenuous.
Here's the part I don't understand: HR, as an industry, is clearly female. Don't you think that whistles would have been blown a long time ago if a patriarchy were conspiring to keep female wages down? For a publicly traded institution, how would the shareholders react to the bad press?
n=1 here: The HR women I've known were definitely NOT pushovers.
No but the HR department in every company I've ever worked for have been generally despised by the core - as they have been seen to be so consumed with in-fighting that their ability to deliver to the actual business is poor and their value-for-money perception a lot worse.
I have plenty of female friends at work who argue that when the percentage of female representation goes beyond a certain limit that in-fighting and backbiting increases tremendously.
Having said all that the most intense in-fighter I know within our company is a male.
No but the HR department in every company I've ever worked for have been generally despised by the core - as they have been seen to be so consumed with in-fighting that their ability to deliver to the actual business is poor and their value-for-money perception a lot worse.
I have plenty of female friends at work who argue that there when the percentage of female representation goes beyond a certain limit that in-fighting and backbiting increases tremendously.
Having said all that the most intense in-fighter I know within our company is a male.
This touches on another subject entirely, and my own belief that women, as a collective, are more misogynist than men overall. Women could rule the world if they could all get on the same page.
Linear Mode
