I tried to argue to it recently in work as there are a bunch of us all doing the same role and the same hours, all on different levels of pay. When a woman joins the team, they are paid more to avoid "discrimination" issues despite everyone else on different levels of pay based on years served/experience etc. Literally can't have it both ways.
Ethnicity pay gap and dodgy BBC reporting
- Thread starter checjb
- Start date
I tried to argue to it recently in work as there are a bunch of us all doing the same role and the same hours, all on different levels of pay. When a woman joins the team, they are paid more to avoid "discrimination" issues despite everyone else on different levels of pay based on years served/experience etc. Literally can't have it both ways.
Soldato
It's an odd one.
Once you have the data and can identify any differences, you can try to attribute those differences to a cause/causes and decide whether there is anything that inherently needs 'fixing' to alleviate those causes.
Clearly, for some people, the difference is entirely due to 'inequality and racism' which must be 'confronted with bold action'… I'd love to see the data that supports the conclusion but they'd probably just point to this study!
Us Cornish have got to be one of the lowest paid ethnic groups. Yes, we are a recognised minority in this country
I wonder if we could demand to be paid like you Londoners.
Yes, if you moved to London.
Last edited:
No thanks! I'd rather live in Stoke. Or SomaliaYes, if you moved to London.
Actually I take that back (the bit about Stoke).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
The stats don't really tell the full story.
Like Bangladeshis are the lowest paid. Why? it's probably due to them being more backwards than everyone else.
So backwards that their women earn more. Most likely because the majority of their women don't work and those that do likely come from either more liberal families or left home or are in such good jobs their parents couldn't say no. Therefore their women earn more than the majority of men because the majority of men will be backwards and therefore in low paid jobs.
Chinese and Indians who earn more than the average white is because they will be self employed running restaurants, takeaways and shops compared to the average white person working in said shops. However when you get to big companies or public services these are all dominated by whites with chinese and indians finding it difficult to climb the ladder because of nepotism and not having the right contacts in these worlds. So those chinese and indians competing with white counterparts usually end up suffering when it comes to career progression because of this.
Brilliant
Are you by any chance a poster with Indian ancestry? These threads are hilarious for brining out this stuff...
Well that is nonsense, by nature of how a big company works nepotism doesn't in general. In a large company, certainly in large banks, the main beneficiaries will be non-white and quite often Asian - because they're the son of someone who has considerable influence within the government of a particular country or has significant control over the business of a large client etc... some trading desk will then be lumbered with a mediocre intern for the summer etc..
Just being the nephew of someone senior (literal nepotism) isn't necessarily going to cut it these days, HR gets in the way of that sort of thing most of the time... ditto to the school tie being the right one or going to the right sort of church (or synagogue) etc...
So because of culture then?
It's funny you say that because my boss is Indian, his boss is Indian and in my office there is probably 40% white, 40% Indian 20% other. It's a big tech company. At my previous company again I didn't see any 'white people nepotism'. It's amazing how certainly you can jump to these conclusions, you should be interviewed for the BBC article.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 May 2018
- Posts
- 152
I can't help but feel as though the writer of that article (and the BBC as a whole) was sad to report that white people aren't the lowest earners in the UK. Mind you I've long thought the BBC represents anything but Britain, despite it's name and the fact that the majority of people that pay for it, are probably white and British.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
You're in London where there is a lot of Indians so 2 made it there. But apportionment wise a lot more Indians at the bottom.
As in 10 million people in London. What percentage of the Indian live there and work on the top percentile compared to whites.
What do you mean by that? Clearly they earn more on average, you've claimed that this is due to takeaways and small businesses but have provided no evidence for this.
Anecdotally what you claimed doesn't appear to be true IME and HR policies in most large organisations would prevent what you claimed.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
okay top 100 earners in the BBC how many are indian?
You tell me? Also that is just one organisation - what does that have to do with your rather broad claim?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Pick any company you want that is British.
BP
Legal & General
Unilever
Tesco
Let me know how many Indians are in their top 100 earners
How do you expect me to get this info and what are you too lazy to do it yourself, given you made the claim?
Why do you think that making an observation of 100 people at a single company has any value here?
I mean if we're going to cite anecdotal facts here then what about the horrible discrimination that lead to the CEOs of Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Nokia and various other global tech businesses being people who were born in India? Oh wait...
Are those Indian CEOs the guys that we'd need to speak to about the apparent obvious anti Indian discrimination which you seem to believe they oversee at those massive companies?
Last edited: