5 ms·

No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men

21 points by Claudus 13y ago

slvv 13y ago
This article assumes that there's nothing affecting or constraining people's career choices besides interest in a particular field. It's not that women choose careers that pay less - it's that careers dominated by women are frequently perceived to be less valuable to society and are therefore paid at a lower rate. Careers in which men historically dominated, but which later become "female professions", pay less when done by women. "Women make less remunerative life choices" seems like a fairly ignorant way to explain wage disparity.
- malandrew 13y ago
  "Careers in which men historically dominated, but which later become "female professions", pay less when done by women." Citation please? And is the converse true. i.e. Do careers that later became "male professions", pay more when done by men?
  - moomin 13y ago
    Ask Grace Hopper... (and I think you'll find the answer was yes)
    - malandrew 13y ago
      I couldn't find anything about what wage gap may have existed for her prior to 1964, but after June 11, 1964 until 1986 when she retired she was probably paid the same as men in the same position. Edit: Found some more information, showing that she was likely paid the same wage as men for the same position: "The pay and training received by the WAVES was identical to the men's."[0]. From a biographical blurb on her: "Rejected by the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Services) in 1942 for not weighing enough, she was finally admitted in December of 1943 and in 1944 was commissioned as a lieutenant junior grade, thus beginning her 42-year career with the Navy and her life-long relationship with computers." [0] http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/AirSpace/text/SSAS-0007.txt http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/AirSpace/text... [1] http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/alumni/grace-murray-hopper.html http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/alumni/grace-murray-hopper....
    - drallison 13y ago
      Sad to say, Grace Murray Hopper died January 1, 1992. She broke down many sexual discrimination barriers. She is the second woman ever to have a Naval vessel named after her. (The USS Hopper (DDG-70) is an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer of the United States Navy.)
- twic 13y ago
  I am dubious about this "perceived to be less valuable to society and are therefore paid at a lower rate" idea. Wages are not set according to the social values of jobs. They are set according to how many people want to do the job. (supply) and how much money the employer can make by hiring someone (whence demand). There are not many people who want to be petroleum engineers, because it is difficult and boring (i imagine, it's all pipes and oil and whatnot). However, oil companies make immense amounts of money from the work they do. Hence, they are paid a lot. Lots of people want to be early childhood teachers, because it is noble and rewarding, it is, actually, greatly valued by society, and is not that academically demanding (it is tremendously personally demanding, of course). However, primary schools are not exactly profitable. Hence, they are not paid a lot. So, i think the claim that "women make less remunerative life choices" does hold water. But here's the thing: that's not the problem. The problem is that the choices they happen to make are less remunerative, because of the operation of the above mechanism. The problem that needs fixing here is that people who choose to do work that is socially valuable but not directly connected to a mechanism of profit are not paid as well as those who do. The solution is something far more radical than just getting more women to take up engineering.
  - vannevar 13y ago
    They are set according to how many people want to do the job. (supply) and how much money the employer can make by hiring someone (whence demand). Not exactly; they are set by what people are willing to pay. Short-term profitability is one factor an employer takes into consideration. ...primary schools are not exactly profitable. They are not profitable at all, which would mean teachers would not get paid at all under your model of supply and demand. I think what critics are getting at is that even ignoring the effects of sexism when men and women hold the same jobs, wages in male-dominated professions are driven by simplistic short-term profit considerations and discount social benefits (which translate ultimately into long-term profit for everyone). This results in systematic undervaluation of the kinds of work which tends to attract more women.
    - malandrew 13y ago
      "simplistic short-term profit considerations" --> "direct profit considerations" FTFY. For example, Petroleum engineering is anything but short-term. What matters is that there is a very direct attribution of profit to work done. The attribution to profit for work done in all the poorly paid professions is very very indirect.
moomin 13y ago
Hey, apparently patriarchy costs women 23% of their wages. But I want to ignore 18% of that. That leaves me with 5% which I don't think is a problem. And I'm a woman, so I can't possibly be perpetuating patriarchy, can I?
- parennoob 13y ago
  Are there fundamental premises of the article you can disprove?
DanBC 13y ago
This article is typical of the hateful shit that gets too many HN upvotes. It starts with a headline saying that women don't get paid less than men, but then shows that they do, argues that the gap is less than we think (but still exists) and then argues that it's all the fault of women anyway. It does have an interesting bit in a tble though: 1. Petroleum Engineering: 87% male 2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% male 3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male 4. Aerospace Engineering: 88% male 5. Chemical Engineering: 72% male 6. Electrical Engineering: 89% male 7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male 8. Mechanical Engineering: 90% male 9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male 10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male Seems like mathematics and computer science are doing reasonably well at recruitin women. Better than anything but pharmacy. That's good.
- malandrew 13y ago
  This didn't get upvotes because it's "hateful shit", but because it focuses on facts and statistics (which happen to be pretty hard to argue with in this case), and the population that is HNers like facts and statistics, especially when it helps provide clarity to a controversial topic. I don't know about anyone else, but I upvoted this because those two tables were valuable information which I did not know previously. I didn't upvote it based on the prose around the tables. Can you instead find a factual/statistical counter argument instead of discounting the entire article because you disagree with the conclusions? Or at the very least, provide a different constructive conclusion based on the facts/statistics presented if you happen to disagree with theirs. This probably also got upvotes because it promotes "less wrong" and it's an articles correcting someone who was flat out wrong, that someone one is POTUS and the flat out wrong statement was made during POTUS' most important speech of the year, the state of the union address. Duty calls. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
- ggchappell 13y ago
  > Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male > Seems like mathematics and computer science are doing reasonably well at recruitin women. Better than anything but pharmacy. That's good. I would imagine that 33% female is almost entirely due to mathematics. The percentage of female C.S. majors in the U.S. is very low. (No source, but I am a C.S. professor who used to be a math professor.)
malandrew 13y ago
I really wish we could stop focusing on statistics based on a gender binary and instead used a continuous measure for masculine/feminine traits like ring to index finger ratios instead, since that is a pretty solid proxy for the levels of testosterone present in the womb during gestation.
ergoproxy 13y ago
Fallacy of negation... The Daily Beast denies Obama's statement A:"Women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns" and conclude B:"No, Women Don't Make Less Money Than Men," a non sequitur. Unfortunately, A and B aren't mutually exclusive, so not-A doesn't imply B. Daily Beast refers to a "correction" printed in the Washington Post which says: "Women earn 91 cents for every dollar men earn--if you control for life choices." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/women-earn-91-cents-for-every-dollar-men-earn--if-you-control-for-life-choices/2012/06/04/gJQAqrHkEV_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/women-earn... So, Yes, Women Do Make Less Money Than Men (even after controlling for different life-choices). It's just that the wage gap isn't nearly as wide as Obama said. Obama exaggerated the wage gap. But Daily Beast made an invalid argument and reached a false conclusion. False dilemma seems to be programmed into the US psyche. For instance, they seem to think they need to choose between Democrats and Republicans, and dismiss third parties. This kind of manichean thinking, reinforced by poorly thought out op-ed pieces like this, make civilized conversation and progress in the US difficult.

21 points by Claudus 13y ago

slvv 13y ago

This article assumes that there's nothing affecting or constraining people's career choices besides interest in a particular field. It's not that women choose careers that pay less - it's that careers dominated by women are frequently perceived to be less valuable to society and are therefore paid at a lower rate. Careers in which men historically dominated, but which later become "female professions", pay less when done by women. "Women make less remunerative life choices" seems like a fairly ignorant way to explain wage disparity.

malandrew 13y ago
"Careers in which men historically dominated, but which later become "female professions", pay less when done by women." Citation please? And is the converse true. i.e. Do careers that later became "male professions", pay more when done by men?
- moomin 13y ago
  Ask Grace Hopper... (and I think you'll find the answer was yes)
  - malandrew 13y ago
    I couldn't find anything about what wage gap may have existed for her prior to 1964, but after June 11, 1964 until 1986 when she retired she was probably paid the same as men in the same position. Edit: Found some more information, showing that she was likely paid the same wage as men for the same position: "The pay and training received by the WAVES was identical to the men's."[0]. From a biographical blurb on her: "Rejected by the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Services) in 1942 for not weighing enough, she was finally admitted in December of 1943 and in 1944 was commissioned as a lieutenant junior grade, thus beginning her 42-year career with the Navy and her life-long relationship with computers." [0] http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/AirSpace/text/SSAS-0007.txt http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/AirSpace/text... [1] http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/alumni/grace-murray-hopper.html http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/alumni/grace-murray-hopper....
  - drallison 13y ago
    Sad to say, Grace Murray Hopper died January 1, 1992. She broke down many sexual discrimination barriers. She is the second woman ever to have a Naval vessel named after her. (The USS Hopper (DDG-70) is an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer of the United States Navy.)
twic 13y ago
I am dubious about this "perceived to be less valuable to society and are therefore paid at a lower rate" idea. Wages are not set according to the social values of jobs. They are set according to how many people want to do the job. (supply) and how much money the employer can make by hiring someone (whence demand). There are not many people who want to be petroleum engineers, because it is difficult and boring (i imagine, it's all pipes and oil and whatnot). However, oil companies make immense amounts of money from the work they do. Hence, they are paid a lot. Lots of people want to be early childhood teachers, because it is noble and rewarding, it is, actually, greatly valued by society, and is not that academically demanding (it is tremendously personally demanding, of course). However, primary schools are not exactly profitable. Hence, they are not paid a lot. So, i think the claim that "women make less remunerative life choices" does hold water. But here's the thing: that's not the problem. The problem is that the choices they happen to make are less remunerative, because of the operation of the above mechanism. The problem that needs fixing here is that people who choose to do work that is socially valuable but not directly connected to a mechanism of profit are not paid as well as those who do. The solution is something far more radical than just getting more women to take up engineering.
- vannevar 13y ago
  They are set according to how many people want to do the job. (supply) and how much money the employer can make by hiring someone (whence demand). Not exactly; they are set by what people are willing to pay. Short-term profitability is one factor an employer takes into consideration. ...primary schools are not exactly profitable. They are not profitable at all, which would mean teachers would not get paid at all under your model of supply and demand. I think what critics are getting at is that even ignoring the effects of sexism when men and women hold the same jobs, wages in male-dominated professions are driven by simplistic short-term profit considerations and discount social benefits (which translate ultimately into long-term profit for everyone). This results in systematic undervaluation of the kinds of work which tends to attract more women.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    "simplistic short-term profit considerations" --> "direct profit considerations" FTFY. For example, Petroleum engineering is anything but short-term. What matters is that there is a very direct attribution of profit to work done. The attribution to profit for work done in all the poorly paid professions is very very indirect.

moomin 13y ago

Hey, apparently patriarchy costs women 23% of their wages. But I want to ignore 18% of that. That leaves me with 5% which I don't think is a problem. And I'm a woman, so I can't possibly be perpetuating patriarchy, can I?

parennoob 13y ago
Are there fundamental premises of the article you can disprove?

DanBC 13y ago

This article is typical of the hateful shit that gets too many HN upvotes. It starts with a headline saying that women don't get paid less than men, but then shows that they do, argues that the gap is less than we think (but still exists) and then argues that it's all the fault of women anyway. It does have an interesting bit in a tble though: 1. Petroleum Engineering: 87% male 2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% male 3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male 4. Aerospace Engineering: 88% male 5. Chemical Engineering: 72% male 6. Electrical Engineering: 89% male 7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male 8. Mechanical Engineering: 90% male 9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male 10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male Seems like mathematics and computer science are doing reasonably well at recruitin women. Better than anything but pharmacy. That's good.

malandrew 13y ago
This didn't get upvotes because it's "hateful shit", but because it focuses on facts and statistics (which happen to be pretty hard to argue with in this case), and the population that is HNers like facts and statistics, especially when it helps provide clarity to a controversial topic. I don't know about anyone else, but I upvoted this because those two tables were valuable information which I did not know previously. I didn't upvote it based on the prose around the tables. Can you instead find a factual/statistical counter argument instead of discounting the entire article because you disagree with the conclusions? Or at the very least, provide a different constructive conclusion based on the facts/statistics presented if you happen to disagree with theirs. This probably also got upvotes because it promotes "less wrong" and it's an articles correcting someone who was flat out wrong, that someone one is POTUS and the flat out wrong statement was made during POTUS' most important speech of the year, the state of the union address. Duty calls. http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/
ggchappell 13y ago
> Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male > Seems like mathematics and computer science are doing reasonably well at recruitin women. Better than anything but pharmacy. That's good. I would imagine that 33% female is almost entirely due to mathematics. The percentage of female C.S. majors in the U.S. is very low. (No source, but I am a C.S. professor who used to be a math professor.)

malandrew 13y ago

I really wish we could stop focusing on statistics based on a gender binary and instead used a continuous measure for masculine/feminine traits like ring to index finger ratios instead, since that is a pretty solid proxy for the levels of testosterone present in the womb during gestation.

ergoproxy 13y ago

Fallacy of negation... The Daily Beast denies Obama's statement A:"Women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns" and conclude B:"No, Women Don't Make Less Money Than Men," a non sequitur. Unfortunately, A and B aren't mutually exclusive, so not-A doesn't imply B. Daily Beast refers to a "correction" printed in the Washington Post which says: "Women earn 91 cents for every dollar men earn--if you control for life choices." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/women-earn-91-cents-for-every-dollar-men-earn--if-you-control-for-life-choices/2012/06/04/gJQAqrHkEV_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/women-earn... So, Yes, Women Do Make Less Money Than Men (even after controlling for different life-choices). It's just that the wage gap isn't nearly as wide as Obama said. Obama exaggerated the wage gap. But Daily Beast made an invalid argument and reached a false conclusion. False dilemma seems to be programmed into the US psyche. For instance, they seem to think they need to choose between Democrats and Republicans, and dismiss third parties. This kind of manichean thinking, reinforced by poorly thought out op-ed pieces like this, make civilized conversation and progress in the US difficult.