6 ms·

The truth about the gender wage gap (2017)

10 points by shawndumas 10y ago

11thEarlOfMar 10y ago
If we take this at face value: "As Goldin put it in her speech, "The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might even vanish if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who worked long hours and worked particular hours."" This does not violate equal pay for equal work, because it implies there is unequal work. A company is going to look at accomplishment as a guide for whom to promote, and in general, a worker who works more hours is going to accomplish more. It's self evident, but it paints a picture that is cast in a different light than 'the gender gap' which we (including I) infer to mean an unfair bias against women. It's going to be really tricky to solve. Do we tell men and women they must work the same number of hours? Or do we tell companies they must promote and pay men and women the same, regardless of how many hours each works? Or they must promote such that the executive ranks, or overall pay, is shared to some target equanimity?
- ng12 10y ago
  Why do we need to solve it? Male or female, childcare is a burden. If I refused to work more than 40 hours a week because I decided I need to spend as much time underwater basket weaving as possible I can't claim shenanigans when the guy putting in 60 hours a week gets promoted over me.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    No, it doesn't make any sense, but that is indeed what they're trying to claim.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    And why does they person doing more hours need to be promoted? I does not show they care more, it shows that they just do not have life.
- leereeves 10y ago
  What feminists want is what unions wanted: a fixed pay schedule for everyone (no negotiations) [1], lots of time off. That probably will preclude rewards for hard work. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/08/15/how-to-reduce-the-pay-gap-between-men-and-women/salary-negotiations-often-preclude-women-from-equal-pay http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/08/15/how-to-reduc...
  - ng12 10y ago
    But this whole article is predicated on the fact that these are highly educated people. I doubt the same facts are true for lower-skill professions.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    It's not just "feminists" who want fixed pay schedules; it's also several very well-known tech companies, Fog Creek being an example that immediately comes to mind. As someone with just a little bit exposure to the manager's side of salary negotiation, let me just say: most (not all) of the people jealously guarding their right to negotiate are chumps being taken for a ride by their employers.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      > most (not all) of the people jealously guarding their right to negotiate are chumps being taken for a ride by their employers. That's probably true of all people, whatever they think of negotiations, but I can't imagine that employers will voluntarily pay employees more without negotiations.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Why not? That's how markets work. When I put a market or limit order in for a lot of stocks or grain futures or forex options, I don't haggle with the market: I (electronically) compare my options and simply take the best one.
        leereeves 10y ago
- nailer 10y ago
  Yes, it's misleading, but it's better to simply flag the article rather than give Vox more page views.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  I have a radical idea - what if men share some of the responsibilities with women. Fixation on some silly metric like hours worked (over the threshold, mind you) just does not let it happen.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 10y ago
What's changed in this article since it was first published in August 2016?
johngalt 10y ago
I despise the subtle shifting of definitions: > The highest-paying jobs disproportionately reward those who can work the longest, least flexible hours. These types of job penalize workers who have caregiving responsibilities outside the workplace. Those workers tend to be women. It's not a penalty if people who sacrifice more get paid more. You might even call it fair.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  And yet it is another way around.
maxcan 10y ago
tl;dr people who are able and willing to work more demanding schedules will earn more than those who aren't and that correlates with gender and having children. in other news, the sky is blue, housing in S.F. sucks, and computers are useful.
Neliquat 10y ago
Seems like the same old gap=kids explaination to me... And the only suggestion is make all hours equally valuable? Right after I get rid of 'prime time', 'rush hour', and the solar cycle, I will focus on that. Wtf.

10 points by shawndumas 10y ago

If we take this at face value: "As Goldin put it in her speech, "The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might even vanish if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who worked long hours and worked particular hours."" This does not violate equal pay for equal work, because it implies there is unequal work. A company is going to look at accomplishment as a guide for whom to promote, and in general, a worker who works more hours is going to accomplish more. It's self evident, but it paints a picture that is cast in a different light than 'the gender gap' which we (including I) infer to mean an unfair bias against women. It's going to be really tricky to solve. Do we tell men and women they must work the same number of hours? Or do we tell companies they must promote and pay men and women the same, regardless of how many hours each works? Or they must promote such that the executive ranks, or overall pay, is shared to some target equanimity?

ng12 10y ago
Why do we need to solve it? Male or female, childcare is a burden. If I refused to work more than 40 hours a week because I decided I need to spend as much time underwater basket weaving as possible I can't claim shenanigans when the guy putting in 60 hours a week gets promoted over me.
- gozur88 10y ago
  No, it doesn't make any sense, but that is indeed what they're trying to claim.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  And why does they person doing more hours need to be promoted? I does not show they care more, it shows that they just do not have life.
leereeves 10y ago
What feminists want is what unions wanted: a fixed pay schedule for everyone (no negotiations) [1], lots of time off. That probably will preclude rewards for hard work. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/08/15/how-to-reduce-the-pay-gap-between-men-and-women/salary-negotiations-often-preclude-women-from-equal-pay http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/08/15/how-to-reduc...
- ng12 10y ago
  But this whole article is predicated on the fact that these are highly educated people. I doubt the same facts are true for lower-skill professions.
- tptacek 10y ago
  It's not just "feminists" who want fixed pay schedules; it's also several very well-known tech companies, Fog Creek being an example that immediately comes to mind. As someone with just a little bit exposure to the manager's side of salary negotiation, let me just say: most (not all) of the people jealously guarding their right to negotiate are chumps being taken for a ride by their employers.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    > most (not all) of the people jealously guarding their right to negotiate are chumps being taken for a ride by their employers. That's probably true of all people, whatever they think of negotiations, but I can't imagine that employers will voluntarily pay employees more without negotiations.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Why not? That's how markets work. When I put a market or limit order in for a lot of stocks or grain futures or forex options, I don't haggle with the market: I (electronically) compare my options and simply take the best one.
      - leereeves 10y ago
nailer 10y ago
Yes, it's misleading, but it's better to simply flag the article rather than give Vox more page views.
eveningcoffee 10y ago
I have a radical idea - what if men share some of the responsibilities with women. Fixation on some silly metric like hours worked (over the threshold, mind you) just does not let it happen.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

leereeves 10y ago

What's changed in this article since it was first published in August 2016?

johngalt 10y ago

I despise the subtle shifting of definitions: > The highest-paying jobs disproportionately reward those who can work the longest, least flexible hours. These types of job penalize workers who have caregiving responsibilities outside the workplace. Those workers tend to be women. It's not a penalty if people who sacrifice more get paid more. You might even call it fair.

eveningcoffee 10y ago
And yet it is another way around.

maxcan 10y ago

tl;dr people who are able and willing to work more demanding schedules will earn more than those who aren't and that correlates with gender and having children. in other news, the sky is blue, housing in S.F. sucks, and computers are useful.

Neliquat 10y ago

Seems like the same old gap=kids explaination to me... And the only suggestion is make all hours equally valuable? Right after I get rid of 'prime time', 'rush hour', and the solar cycle, I will focus on that. Wtf.