Gender Pay Gap

Nix

Nix

Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2005
Posts
19,841
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

Surely this study effectively debunks the myth of there being pay inequality this day and age?

I can't help but feel that Ann Pickering has missed the point, that come the 30s most women will probably be becoming a mother which inevitably means that those full-time mums skew the statistics. As consequence there are less women to fill those senior positions simply because there are less women.

Now, I'm not saying that discrimination may not still exist in some spheres (it seems here that they're suggesting that it's evident at the senior levels) but surely that is not evidence of a pay gap, especially if women are in fact, earning more than men now?

Without looking closer, I'd assume causally speaking that women may be surging ahead either due to stereotypical career options (have certain industries been booming?) or more likely due to the fact that girls are doing better than boys in education at present.

I particularly dislike this statement:

Smethers described the decline in income as a worrying trend. “Women have been suffering [from the economic downturn] more than men because they had even less job security,” she said. “They were more at risk and thus worse hit when the recession struck.”

Firstly, I dislike it as it's attempting to play top-trumps with people's suffering. It's all relative.

Secondly, it doesn't at all take a moment to understand how the economic downturn has psychologically effected gender types. Men for example -- stereotypically speaking -- tend to need to feel that they're useful or otherwise needed; it's part of masculinity. To be surplus to requirement, or unneeded (i.e. underemployed or unemployed) can be very psychologically damaging to a man's sense of well-being. Likewise, what about the support that women tend to receive versus men? Men tend to bottle up and are expected to get on with it, whereas women don't have such a pressure and support is more forthcoming. Furthermore, being underemployed can be really detrimental for a man's relationship chances. For women, it's less so.

It's nonsense.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
There is NO gap, bunch of liberal soft-brained folk keep clinging to the idea because its not about equality its about social minority's being 'more equal'.

All the while ignoring the bigger bloody issue - wage depression by greedy dividend-focused corporations.

Also I wish to note that we need to change the rules regarding pregnancy, as right now you can get hired, have a child within the first bloody year... Really disingenuous to smaller companies, who would thus never bother hiring women ever.
 
Last edited:
Really disingenuous to smaller companies, who would thus never bother hiring women ever.

So, is the unemployment rate for young women higher than young men? If it's not, then that would suggest there isn't a problem.

The way to make it easier for small businesses to cope with maternity leave is to increase the support for small businesses, not remove rights from women.
 
I always find these generalist figures pretty meaningless as you need to be comparing men and women in the same industry, of similar ages and similar experience as different industries pay different amounts. Overall figures are very susceptible to being skewed by careers dominated by one gender (e.g. women in nursing, men in engineering).
There needs to be a push from a younger age not to stereotype or discourage particular subjects, for example the gender disparity in STEM subjects.
 
There needs to be a push from a younger age not to stereotype or discourage particular subjects, for example the gender disparity in STEM subjects.

I'm still at University but have got a years experience in the field, Civil Engineering, and at uni there seems to be a lot going on encourage girls to become engineers even to the point where they get extra grants and such not available to me and other men JUST because they are female.

Whilst we need to make sure no one is discouraged to take a subject, I don't think the right move is to encourage them like my University does.
 
So a middle-class female with a calm home life and by consequence better grades, has more support to study STEM than a lower-class male from a dysfunctional background with inevitably poor grades?

Sounds fair.
 
I always see these campaigns to get more women into engineering or computer programming, which is fair enough, but I never see any campaigns to get more men into HR. Just a thought anyway.
 
Ultimately these stats are always skewed by gender preferences. I run the marketing team at an asset manager and when I am recruiting I get ten female CVs for every one from a guy. Although I've not had any issues I do know of a lot of people wary to employ women because of the maternity risk and also because female staff are often extremely high maintenance, particularly if they are even slightly attractive (or think they are).


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
 
Just spotted this in the comments:

CapeofGoodHope 2h ago

Figures compiled by the Press Association have shown that between the ages of 22 and 29, a woman will typically earn £1,111 more per annum than her male counterparts.

Using data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), PA analysed the comparative earnings of men and women between 2006 and 2013. Statistics for 2014 have yet to be verified and were excluded.

While younger women in their 20s came out top in the earning stakes, the story was vastly different for workers in their 30s. A man turning 30 in 2006 would have brought in on average £8,775 more than a woman of the same age.

You have to love the Guardian misandry in the way it presents data.
For 7 years (ages 22-29) women earn £1,111 per year more.
For 7 years (ages 30-37) men earn £1,253 per year more.

When you use the same basis and units, things don't look so different, especially if one looked at it as a percentage of salary (people in their 30's earning more than those in their 20's).

Good catch.

The article is essentially saying (badly), that males who turned 30 in 2006 (who would be 38 in 2014) have earned an average of £8,775 more than women. If we divide that total by seven, it is only £1,253 more per year.
 
Last edited:
I always see these campaigns to get more women into engineering or computer programming, which is fair enough, but I never see any campaigns to get more men into HR. Just a thought anyway.

That's because we don't need anymore HR people (we really don't!).
 
I think the whole thing is a myth. Nothing but a bunch of feminists making something out of nothing.

What's next... Study showing people in their twenties earning at least 10k less than those who are 40 and over..
 
Brunel in London is running a program starting September this year that is offering grants to women in engineering

That to teach, not study.

But yes, ok, I find that distasteful, so I agree with you in principle.
 
Another commenter has linked to the provisional 2014 ONS results, which show clearly that women actually now earn more than men in the two age groups 22-29 and 30-39.

Women who are 39 in this report, would have been turning 30 in 2006 as mentioned in the article.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_385428.pdf (See pages 11 & 12)
 
There isn't a pay gap if you take into account life choices. There was a thread on this topic recently.
The figures I read indicated that when considering equal qualifications, positions and hours worked, women earned approximately 3% more than men on average.
There is no gender wage gap of note. Anyone who says there is is trying to push their own agenda for whatever reason.

Women earn less than men on average between 30 to 37? That's truly shocking... when you consider that that's when the majority of women decide to have a child.
I'm actually astonished that the gap at that age range isn't higher. But that doesn't mean it isn't fair. Why should women get paid the same quantity of money for less hours worked? They shouldn't, end-of.
 
Apples to oranges really if you compare men vs women as a whole, as some people have rightly pointed out.

There was some research by a lady at Harvard (I forget her name), who compared like for like, and found the gender pay gap wasn't true. And like for like, things rightly so should be fair and equal.

Milo Yiannopoulos argues there isn't a gap eloquently, with logic and facts. Many of his debates and interviews can be found on youtube. He refers to getting his statistics from a feminist academic. Could be the one I just mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
That's because we don't need anymore HR people (we really don't!).

Well if I had my way we wouldn't have any HR people at all (anyone else object to being labelled a 'resource'? I'm not a resource I'm a person!). You have to hand it to women in some regards, they've managed to invent a profession where they can sit around gossiping about people all day while getting paid for it.
 
Where's that picture that shows the top earning careers and the bottom earning ones and the gender distribution women seem to choose caring careers over stem careers (despite most stem companies begging for women) you can't legislate choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom