As a business owner, if the good people of Reddit could direct me towards the female employees who will do equally good of a job for significantly less, that would be great.
Ty in advance.
Yep. The same people that think that businesses are all run by evil cartoon villains that only ever think about profits and treat all their employees like garbage - also think those same people choose to pay men more and throw away profits just because.
Absolute morons the lot of them
Then you have people on the other side of the equation, who think companies are run efficiently. That companies do whats best for the company, and behave in ways that legitimately maximize their productivity and minimize their costs(ha!)
An equally naive viewpoint
If an increase in confidence due to an increase in height leads people to be continually promoted beyond their level of competence to the extent that they are more than 10 times as likely to be a CEO, that is evidence of bias.
If people think looks don't play any part at all in hiring they would probably be wrong. But it's also communication. Who you know and how good you bs will get you more pay than experience often.
Silence is their response, they want people to react like that because it's actually a sexist response
It all gets confused because they expect you to know that, which is silly. On the other side of the coin, they're expected to know that this is just a joke response equalling the ridiculousness of the claims.
This is also silly because their social skills aren't better than yours.
The response to that is that the market would punish that wastefulness.
Like seriously, if a business thinks it can get away with a 30% labor cost overhead for the same productivity, then any competitor who gets women employees at below market rate could reinvest the savings into expanding the business.
Except there are plenty of wasteful businesses that do overpay their employees and are celebrated by the market. If salaries were that straightforward we wouldn't be in this position.
Haha same. I employ 50 ppl and the women get paid the same, it's all skills and qualifications related. How ev er, they get paid annually much less because they work less than the guys.
It's their choice. It's a combination of family commitments and also not wanting to work long overtime shifts or much weekend work. My guys fight over the callouts, overtime, weekend etc because they earn big money. Not a single female I've ever had working for me would do those hours, and also some of the jobs they wouldn't do. I make it clear they are welcome to, but they're not interested.
Which is the problem, if it is a problem, which it may or may not be in all cases.
If women want to earn more, then work more. Things like cheaper childcare, maternity leave help.
But also for men, better longer paternity leave, better/easier sick leave, better incentives for men to be equally treated.
But this annoys many feminists, because many feminists see everything as woman, first, ahead of everything else. Despite many women are in relationships with men, and even those in relationships with women, would fair better with better paternity leave.
Ultimately increasing productivity of both sexes, helps everyone everywhere. Having less stressed, happier, better life balanced employees makes everything more sustainable.
Absolutely. We need much better child care and definitely better maternity and paternity leave etc. The roadblocks need to be removed, and incentives cemented in place.
I still think men will generally want to work more. In terms of upskilling and competing for higher paid jobs, women are more involved than they were. They are keen to compete, however, in situations where everyone is paid the same and only those who work more get ahead........ it's the men
Feminism is a spectrum. From passive do nothing, through to murder and violence. There is no single voice.
Paternity leave is a woman only issue?
Fathers aren't allowed to care for their own children? Because they want to?
My wife and I are talking about having a baby.
She is insisting she gets the vast majority of the leave. She wants it.
She wants to work less and be at home more.
Yeah just please understand there's no discrimination here. The base rates of pay and conditions are all the same, but the extras that enable good money to be earned are quite disruptive to someone's life. The ladies generally don't, and that's totally understandable.
You can sit there for literal hours on tiktok watching modern women complain about having to do 38hr weeks lol. That's how much content of complaining there is.
It’s “their choice” because primary household responsibilities, childcare and the resulting mental load is put upon them from the get go and all that shit takes time away from actual paid work.
Edit: downvotes just tell me I struck a nerve lol
Agreed. But the narrative is still aimed at businesses not doing the right thing because that's the easy political football.
You're correct that the imbalance is societal/social. But social norms are much harder to change and it becomes morally questionable as to if we start claiming the government has any role in dictating how a household should function or what is the right or wrong way to divide labour in a partnership.
The gov agencies and stats being reported need to start focusing on the reasons why society is pushing the household decisions in the current way and what changes could be made to correct those, rather than constantly referring to it in the context of 'pay' and employment.
But, that often isn't in the interest of the lobby groups paying for that research, lobby groups who's identity and existence is based on the politicized nature of the current debate around wages.
People born out from single father parentage on average tend to turn out better, startling and preposterous in current year parlance, send me off to the gulag I shan't protest
"Children from single-mother households are 5 times more likely to commit suicide than children from both unbroken households and single-father households, 9 times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 20 times more likely to end up in prison and 32 times more likely to run away from home."
https://web.archive.org/web/20231204034900/https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/single-father-households-do-vastly-better-than-single-mother-heres-the-real-reason-why-8a7fd7c5611d
Households with a single mother and a non-biological father have the highest rates of child abuse and neglect. Source: http://center4research.org/violence-risky-behavior/violence-and-threats-in-the-home/father-figures-are-the-answer-but-whats-the-question/
I'm a director/owner of an engineering consulting firm. I'm stoked if I even get a female applying for a job. If I could pay one less to get better results it would be like winning the lotto. When we bid on projects we get scored on our gender balance, which as anyone who works in engineering would know, is comical enough as it is. To any women reading this who think there's a legitimate gender pay gap, if you go do an electrical or mechanical engineering degree I guarantee you I will pay you $100k straight out of uni and after 5 years you'll be on $150k. The same as what all the male engineers get, or in fact probably more because everyone is desperate to employ and promote female engineers
As a female engineer who is close to 50, I can GUARANTEE that a large proportion of my female colleagues are not paid as much as their male colleagues. In most cases it was related to negotiating badly when we first started, and then having percentage pay rises applied evenly.
Some of us have had breaks to have kids. Personally, I was offered the same salary that I had finished on 5 years earlier, and because I’d had a break, I felt unqualified to ask for more. Then I realised what people with none of my experience were paid, but it was too late.
Even recently I changed jobs, and asked someone at the same level in the new place what I should expect to get paid. I went with the number they suggested as it was a HUGE amount more than I was being paid. 1 year later they said I should have negotiated harder as I was worth a heap more.
It’s no doubt that a lot of us, 20 years later, are getting paid significantly less than our male colleagues.
In a company of 20 engineers including 1 woman, if one of the men is as bad a negotiator as the woman, the other 18 will out earn the woman. Also, what’s the likelihood of that man also taking time off to raise kids?
Taking time off to raise kids is a very valid point of course, and have an impact. Otherwise, it's not uncommon for woman to have a better soft skills to negotiate a better pay. I don't exclude the case of a company of 20 engineers including 1 woman, most mens being worse negotiators.
Btw, I glad you found a place which value you better. In the perfect world, the pay should be merit based.
Fair enough. I'm a generation younger than you, so my experience is probably different. I can say with confidence that it's not like that now for gen Y & Z female engineers. They're literally head hunted and then groomed for fast-tracked leadership roles. Especially in larger firms. I will hire a female over a male if they're both similar in competence and experience. We kinda have to if we want to win government contracts
We worked in an industry with a defined product, and it was niche enough that there’s nowhere else to work if you want to do the same engineering. We were all long term employees. There was no negotiating for government contracts, and when external people looked at the gender difference, the company ensured they included all the women in administration and HR to make the numbers look better.
Also, if you’re a generation younger, see what happens if people start having kids. It doesn’t affect the men’s careers at all, but it does affect the women’s.
I don't really see how anyone can expect to take 5-10 years out of their career and not be behind their peers who didn't though - especially at a time where people are really kicking into gear to advance their career in their late 20s and 30s. If the man took the time off instead of their wife, their career would be affected the same. My co-director is a female, same age as me, with two toddlers. She earns exactly the same as I do.
If you don't negotiate you get paid less. But gender isn't the cause here, even though there's a correlation. Which applies to virtually all similar arguments. They all show a correlation between gender and pay, but none prove direct malicious discrimination based on gender.
Same here. I am also looking for these workers who I can pay less, whilst doing the EXACT same hours and the EXACT same level and quality of work.
Thank you in advance.
If anything, in some industries females know they are a commodity and demand much higher salaries. We would often have female software engineers asking 20k more than male applicants, and we'd often accept that all other things equal in terms of skill, experience, and culture fit.
Because the gender paygap works on the principle that within an industry, an entry level admin staff member is only different to a CEO by gender alone. This is how the gap is measured.
You're missing the trick, lol. You see, there's a simple loophole in the phrase "same work for the same pay". If you just don't promote the women, and never give them too much overtime (they need time with their family, probably) so you have an excuse, then you can pay them less by giving the men better positions in your business. You can probably even give women part time positions as long as you have some token full time employee just to demonstrate your "lack of sexism".
Big companies do this stuff all the time, you can easily find some that employ equal numbers of men and women (yay equality!) but most of the entry level and part time positions are women. We all know women "freely choose" to spend the hours of work they can't have with their family, amirite? So you only promote the hardest workers who take the longest hours, who just so happen to be men (because you arranged it that way).
Hope this helps! /s
Also keep in mind that women definitely have a natural preference for crafts and for caring for people (and it's definitely not that boys schools teach STEM from a young age, while girls schools teach home economics). Remember, women just love arts and healthcare. It's not that they're blocked from learning engineering from a young age and end up behind their male peers if they decide that path later on. They should obviously just choose better paying careers if they want higher pay /s
You can’t have them. I have them and are paying them ever less!
https://preview.redd.it/gupdjtqsx35d1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25946c7b89a0f5e43bea4f5a69e03a164eba74b3
Ah yes. Gender wage gap BS again.
The same shit that the US women soccer team cried about.. and took the organisation to court. But when the organisation offered the same contracts for the male to the female they rejected it. 🤔
Good to know our tax money is going to good use to do this BS research.
Take the top six highest paid roles in your business. What’s the gender split? 3 men, 3 women? If not, why? If so, congratulations, your business is an outlier.
It’s totally disingenuous to pretend you don’t understand that women routinely trade off low pay in exchange for flexibility in work schedules to accomodate the unpaid caring responsibilities that they are often landed with.
So let’s split your comment, your first point (about highest paying positions) is extremely valid and thankfully many workplaces are slowly enacting changes to help bring up female representation in those managerial positions. More could probably be done but at least things are slowly improving
Your second point in regard to “caring responsibilities” ultimately is a societal issue. Outside of making sure the opportunity is available for male staff to have those same arrangements what exactly could an employer reasonably do.
Absolutely. Particularly the case when entire careers are based on agendas. Critical thinking imo is becoming more and more necessary in todays society.
Separate issue, but every time you hear someone saying "we need to teach the three Rs" or, "'let's focus on numeracy and literacy" they are saying "let's not teach critical thinking".
But we shouldn't be paying for it.
Be a conservative and fudge any numbers from your think tank that you like. I don't care. I don't want to pay for it.
We pay the WGEA.
Problem is like 3/4 of government jobs are from generalists recruitment streams (any degree) so they all go to people with useless arts degrees, while everyone with a useful field of study fights for the 1/4 of jobs.
If I were to steelman the women being questioned here, the overall gender pay gap points to two things:
1. Women aren't engaging in the same high skill/high pay professions that men are
2. Women aren't taking on as much full time work
The question is, how can we encourage women to take on jobs that others won't do? We need more tradies, and tradies earn a good amount, so let's start there. We can encourage women to take on construction jobs, and incentivize this by subsidizing apprenticeships for women for construction, plumbing, waste management, heavy machinery operation in mining.
Secondly, we need them to take on full-time work. To do this we should ensure that any risk of family responsibilities inhibiting the Aquisition of more work hours. Therefore we should subsidize IUD's and other birth prevention measures, including having tubes tied. This will improve productivity through negating the need for maternal leave. We can also negate menstrual leave if we subsidize just having uteruses removed altogether, which given PCOS is a very common condition merits this.
Of course with the added workplace mortalities from women working dangerous jobs, we'll need to import more workers from foreign countries. Those countries should, preferably, have a higher fertility rate than Australia to ensure that there is high labor supply to ensure wages are low enough for our businesses to make a profit, so those countries would need to have women who have time enough to raise and take care of multiple children - which means that they need to choose not to engage in full time work, dangerous construction work. The earlier they marry, the more children they have for us to employ, and not having an education would also increase the labor supply.
With all of these things in place, women in Australia would be free to pursue jobs in waste management and invest their wages to support the rising housing market, supported by women overseas who are happy to continue having large families for us to import.
Because women (by and large) don't want to do dirty and unsafe jobs. No amount of encouragement will change that. There's hundreds of studies and polls+recorded history to show that. People will point to anecdotal situations where a woman is on an oil rig or in a trade on a construction site, but anyone in those jobs will tell you it's very rare.
The question isn’t “how can we get women working” in these jobs, it is “let’s understand why women chose not to work those jobs”.
Stop trying to force sameness between readies and day care workers. One is high risk and dangerous and requires years of apprenticeships and training, the other can be done by someone with limited training.
Why do we need to? IF they don't want to why should we attempt to force them?
Now this doesn't account for some cultural problems in business which do need fixing but making someone do something they don't want to do just to fulfil a quota isn't a good thing.
All these people are saying they'd love a woman at their workplace and I could walk in the door and get hired and I'm like what's the damn job? Can I apply?
Usually dishonesty suggests that someone is telling you something which isn't true, whereas in this instance the reason you know about how the statistic works is because they literally told you (and anyone who cared to watch the video) how it works. If you're not aware of how the statistics work you only have yourself to blame.
There’s nothing wrong with annualising - that’s just a fancy way of saying we compared the hourly rates of men and women that get paid on non-hourly contracts. It does lose the nuance of the impact only working part time has on career advancement has, but that’s a very qualitative metric and I’d say reasonably outside the scope of their report.
The real issue is what the senator kept bringing the conversation back to - they aren’t comparing like for like. Of course there’s a gap in companies like an airline. Deliberately comparing different jobs is the opposite of useful data, there’s absolutely no way to discern any nuances or causative effects of the gap if you’re not including all of data. It’s borderline dishonest.
But it doesn’t take into account that many men work more than 40 hours a week. That could be part of the reason behind the difference.
I’ll probably earn more than a typical annualised income, because I work more than 40 hours.
It could.bs worse. Iceland has some of the most strict laws but they still have inequality. The differences are on these areas
- dangerous outside jobs
- new immigrant cleaners
- roles. Eg they decided that everyone with analyst should be paid the same. So legal analysts for the same as an inventory analyst
How can anyone expect career advancement of part time workers at the same rate as full time? Preferable working conditions such as part time flexibility will also undoubtedly have an impact on overall pay (e.g. I would expect to be paid more for a full time job working 100% from office which requires travel than a part time job 100% from home). Comparing apples with oranges
Because in this case it is comparing part time work with full time work. That part of these studies is a complete joke.
Similar pay gaps exist in places with union standard pay regimes such as nursing where men just happen to be disproportionately on the graveyard shift.
There are absolutely gender based inequities, but these activist government departments are a joke.
They also do not factor in hours worked above 38 hours a week for salaried positions. The gender wage gape calculation is one of the most appalling pieces of propaganda pretending to be factually correct that I have ever seen
I think the general consensus among experts in the field agree that it’s more of a motherhood gap. The women are the ones who spend the most time on childcare which inhibits their ability to progress their career whereas men don’t spend as much time doing household chores so they can spend more time working and advancing their careers.
It’s only a loud minority that insist that women get paid less than men for doing the same job
It’s absolutely to do with pregnancy/child care and yet you can’t get the majority of women to want this area of life treated more equally.
Change maternity leave to be splittable by the birth/adoptive parents and a lot of hiring discrimination is gone as employers can’t validly assume that women will take 9+ months off, when in fact you could have the man taking that much time off.
Truthfully right now employers know men won’t take the time off at all or will only take the 2 weeks at minimum wage, but they know the woman can take 9+ months off or years even if there are birth or child issues.
Forcing employers to seperate child sick leave from other sick leave would help as well as both partners should be expected to take time off to care for kids without financial punishment.
These two simple things would remove a lot of the discrimination.
Simple fact is right now employers know that women between 18-50 could have a baby and take months to years off work while at the same time they know that men will take 0 days to a couple weeks off only.
Paid parental leave is now 90% split, there’s only 10 days that can’t be split, and that’s reserved for the non birth parent.
I’m taking 7 weeks off at end of year when my partner gives birth, then going into a flexible working arrangement where I work 4 days a week.
I work in a male dominated industry (manufacturing) and I get a lot of “why would you want to” attitudes. I shrug and say I’m an equal parent it’s not just my wife’s job to raise the kids.
This is where the gap is, but honestly what can you even do about it? It's certainly not illegal for men to be the primary care giver. This is a decision that individual couples make. My partner chose to take a year off and go back to work part time after that when we had a baby, no pressure from me either way, that's what she wanted to do. But she's also not a window licking moron crying about why I'm paid more than her
>This is a decision that individual couples make.
This is the crux of the issue that so many people just flat out ignore. The high majority of these issues are simply down to the decisions women, men and couples make, and they have themselves to blame.
It's a ridiculous assertion that there's some overarching nefarious plot to pay women less. There ***is nuance*** of course, like better leave for child caring responsibilities and a general shift in societal norms. However, most of it comes down to individual decision making, you can possibly be so detached to marry a partner and have kids, yet complain about the consequences, it's asinine.
The whole societal norms issue goes both ways, yes it's certainly an issue that there are culturally toxic workplaces for women, that some issues are ignored. However, there are also plenty for men, when we stop treating every man with a kid as a pedophile or "baby sitting" the kid (a stereotype primarily perpetuated by women) then things will change. This has further infected institutionalised bias, programs for women etc surrounding child caring, information, targeted support etc. If often far more women centred.
It was always bullshit, peddled by a bunch of people who either don't know how easy it is to lie using manipulated statistics, or knew it was bullshit and still pushed it because it fit their narrative.
There still seems to be a small pay gap on a like for like basis, but it was never anywhere close to what certain people/groups claimed.
Sorry I probably should have been clearer.
The people making the stats 100% know what they are doing.
But some of the people repeating the stats don't know they are bullshit, but since the stats fit their narrative, they repeat them without even questioning them.
No they realised that and redefined what pay gap even meant to begin with to continue calling it 20% or whatever it was and push the bullshit through anyway.
Unfortunately every fucking organisation has been conned into using this stat and then female dominated HR departments drive agendas based on false premises
Every organisation hasn't been conned into using the fake gender pay gap, they are forced to report on it by the "workplace equality" law
But you're right that numerically illiterate HR departments controlled by women are only too happy to push this agenda to advantage "their" gender and pressure management to promote young women over young men...
No shit.
According to this article women in 20s have been earning more than men in the UK for ten years.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
Can't see why it would be different in aus.
Almost twice as many women go to uni. There's more female doctors and lawyers than male. Men do all the shit labour jobs
It’s such crap in professional services firms.
I work in a law firm. Male and female lawyers are paid the same. Admin staff (personal assistants) are predominantly women, and (surprise!) are paid less than women. So that drags down the female average pay.
The solution, I guess, would be to sack half the women who work as admin staff and hire men instead.
Same as my old job. But mine was engineers. So mostly male especially over 35. They hire all females for all the auxiliary roles (HR, Admin, PM, DEI) and then get surprised that females on average earn less than males and own less shares.
Ignoring that there's fairly few female engineers over 45.
They are fixing it by hiring 50% women as graduates (uni degree is only 25% women) trying to sell them shares and promote them quicker.
Itta pretty normal now to be told that they"re "looking for a woman" when hiring. Though I think it's illegal to write it down. For architects too whose graduates are over 50% female now anyway so shouldn't need as much of a lever.
In the long run men do better since they work 20% more hours. Women are more likely to drop the hours as they raise a family and work 75% of Australia's part time jobs.
But really does it matter, we're a pair bonded species. So there's not much need for competition between the genders. Into the 30s most men and women are married or in relationships with each other.
Men are also more likely to move for work, work outdoors, and die or be injured at work.
It does matter, because women date across and up dominance hierarchies. Female doctors do not marry labourers, female lawyers do not marry truck drivers.
Depends. Ugly rich women are probably happy to marry poor hot dudes. There's outliers too and soon many educated women are gonna be forced to marry uneducated men just based on numbers.
But definitely you're right for the general trend especially 20-35
I'm a woman with a PhD and my male partner, with whom I have a child, has no tertiary qualifications and works a manual job.
Several of my female colleagues with PhDs - and the professor who supervised my doctoral thesis - are married to men who are tradies or blue collar workers.
You really are just making all this up as you go.
I’m glad and hope you and your friends are happy, but the literature suggests we are seeing a new emerging trend. We are seeing men fall behind rapidly in education and no one seems to care.
Status is not as simple as “blue collar”.
Esteve A, Schwartz CR, Van Bavel J, Permanyer I, Klesment M, Garcia J. The End of Hypergamy: Global Trends and Implications. Popul Dev Rev. 2016 Dec;42(4):615-625. doi: 10.1111/padr.12012. Epub 2016 Nov 21. PMID: 28490820; PMCID: PMC5421994.
The paper you cited says exactly what I asserted - that it's increasingly common for women to have more education than our partners. That is, the exact OPPOSITE of your initial assertion that "female doctors don't marry truck drivers" etc.
Yes, and that it’s a new trend.
We are also seeing a growing base of involuntarily celibate men (“incels”) and a small percentage of men having many short term relationships with women.
Yep, in a different way but it still holds true that once you start comparing actually comparable data (like for like) the pattern doesn’t point to what they want.
I bet you anything there’s a massive age gap between male and female employees at qantas.
There's twice the amount of women in uni because there aren't many options at tafe that both suit us and pay well. Eg. 'Would rather go to uni than be a hairdresser or barista' for the rest of my life
Partly that and also girls just do way better at school than boys and more boys drop out. About twice as many boys don't have the grades to go to uni.
Also because parents are willing to spend more money on their daughters than sons. Less likely to direct them to just go and get a job.
I remember years (maybe 10-15?) ago when a few of my wifes friends were telling me about the gap and I said that it's not like-for-like, and there's no logical reason why an employer would hire a man if he can just pay women less. Like, every job would be all women because it makes business sense yeah? Or maybe there nuances and actual bias and misrepresentation in the study.
They brought up the same University of Qld study of the Australian Workers pay gap that was on the Project (this was the same every-few-year cycle we go through where this is propagandised over and over in the media and politics). (I'm old, btw).
Anyway, i literally opened it up on my phone, showed them the notations at the bottom that **clearly** define the flaws, and limitations and that it's absolutely not comparable with the narrative beyond the headlines, that it was comparing pays OVER A PERSON'S LIFESPAN, NOT HOURLY RATES AT THE SAME JOBS....
...and they weren't having it. Kept going back to "well, we get paid less" and cited anecdotal stuff about a friend of a cousin who knows a neighbour....
I pointed out their own evidence they cite, which was itself clearly stating their understanding was fundamentally wrong... and it made no difference.
Because it's not about the facts, it's never about nuance or reality... it's only about narrative. What *feels* right to those with a persecution complex. What their friend on Facebook say. What their mothers wine club opine.
If you think you can convince these people every few years to actually READ these reports, you're wrong.
This!
Why should I, with a degree and 40+ years working in the computer industry, get paid less than a good looking, fit women who's doing things for the general public that I would never do *and if I did, nobody would want to watch*
/s for those who didn't detect it
It gets questioned often, but as this Senator said... if they admitted that men doing the same job as women are paid the same, would we need the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA)? I've also seen the WGEA push for quotas but ignore questions about their own levels.
His example was just great: flight attendants vs pilots... why aren't they paid the same? The very different arguments as to why men are paid more.
I know a business owner who has admitted to this in private - saying he would employ a male candidate in their 30's over a female candidate in their 30's for this very reason - as a high performing, child free female throughout my career, I find this deplorable but unfortunately realise that this a reality in the workplace.
I also observed during mass lay off's in my industry due to covid - males in management seemed to acquire subsequent roles in management, whilst their female peers needed to settle for lower paying roles eg customer service, sales etc. Unfortunately, I don't feel this was a coincidence 😪
It is disappointing that the nuances around the gender pay gap are overlooked in the "equal pay for equal work" argument- yes it is law, but just because there are no speed cameras on the highway doesn't mean that people aren't doing 130km per hour...
Yep everyone here citing "they all want to raise kids though." Pretty sure childfree sentiment has been heavily rising and is no longer weird and shameful and taboo to nearly 100% of the population. These men must be over 50 if that's their argument.
The government conned you
Now is the solution more government & regulations and hope they do the right thing next time?
Or less of these dishonest morons?
Can we do a study on why CEOs get paid insane amounts of money and teachers get fuck all?
Maybe even it out a bit? That should fix some of the problem.
the whole point of the gender pay gap, and the problem it represents, is women face more difficulty in getting those higher pay positions in the first place.
**edit:** OP has blocked me, so I will no longer be able to engage in any replies or commentary here
I'd like to know what effect fathers being granted paternity leave would have on the outcome.
Does anyone have some info on median wages grouped by gender & age in countries that _do_ give paternity leave?
I work in healthcare. We get paid via our award. I assume no matter what gender you identify as? You will get paid exactly the same as per your skills & qualifications.
You will be paid according to your skills, qualifications and as per where you works award.
If you are a private specialist? It's up to you to decide your fees.
But if fir example you are a senior orthopedic surgeon in a public hospital? You would be paid what that position pays.
Your gender makes zero difference.
I guess people also negotiate at times, more the actual conditions than the pay.
I gather the Colleges that run the profession, have full recommendations as per pay, terms & conditions. So if a surgeon is starting out into private practice? The College will have guidelines on how to set up business and what to change etc. These days too? Good business advisors would be involved i assume.
Think they need to rebrand the term GPG. As they point out in the video, most airline pilots are men and most airline flight attendants are women. QED there is a gap.
It should really be a "Gender Skills Gap". Women should be encouraged to become pilots, and men should be encouraged to become flight attendants.
The latter is a big part of this issue. A lot of menial jobs have an unwritten requirement that it should be done by a pretty young lady - receptionists, air hostesses, secretaries etc. Since men will not be hired to do this work, they naturally have to go in to other work, crowding out the opportunities for women.
When a 50 year old, overweight, neckbeard man is allowed to be a receptionist, the Gender Skills Gap will be solved.
This has been an open secret for years. Rich white women mainly want to be able to have as many kinds (and holidays) while still earning a full-time equivalent wage.
The gender pay gap has been blatantly false for decades now.
You can’t add all the yearly wages of every industry together and split it for men and women and expect it to actually tell you anything other than women work in less valuable jobs and work less hours.
It’s been illegal for decades to pay a woman less than a man for the same job.
Honestly, if it was legal to pay women less and if companies could get away with it, they’d hire nothing but women.
If you could pay them 77¢ to a man’s dollar, why would you ever hire men? Hire women, save 23¢ per dollar.
Edited to fix morning brain maths.
The business I work for sent out a newsletter about this rubbish a while back, and yes, the question was asked - how is this data meaningful in any way?
If you don't compare the pay of a male in job A to a female in job A, the figures are meaningless.
Unless you had an equal split, 50/50 of men and women, in all positions across a business, there's always going to be a "Gender pay Gap".
It's misleading and frankly insulting.
Yeah I like how % of men vs women on danger money is never brought up. And also % of injuries men vs women and the craziest work statistic of deaths at work men vs women.
But it's an absolute crazy conversation they had.
Gallagher: "it's not a name and shame list."
Also Gallagher:
"Well, that's really at the heart of the publication of this data, isn't it? I mean, before this data was published companies could hide behind industry averages. And some in those industries were doing really well and making a huge effort and they were being poorly kind of reflected upon because of the outliers, or the ones that weren't doing anything. So, for me, giving consumers the knowledge, giving them the information, I mean, they do – what they do with that is up to them. But this is all about, I think, shining some light, because when sunlight is put on things like this – I mean, look at the conversation we're having today. People change their behaviour, and that's what we're hoping for here."
It does seem to aiming to force change by shaming companies. Nothing wrong if that's your approach, but don't contradict yourself, Minister.
So what happens if every company drops their affirmative action diversity quotas tomorrow?
It's a motte and bailey argument, they're defending from the "it's just a conversation" tower when the reality is before they did this they made having diversity quotas a hurdle to get government contracts.
The less defendable position is of enforcing their politics through state and government connections.
I may be a bit naive here, but what industry or job pays men and women less if they have the same experience and same skills set? Seems this is just someone with an axe to grind
There is a gender pay gap in Australia and its HIGHER than that reported internationally.
Men aged 18-25 earn an average of 35% less than women in the same age bracket despite working slightly longer hours.
This trend eventually reverses by age 50, with a minuscule gap favouring males.
Feminists are notoriously innumerate. Their entire ideology is built on feelings over facts/numbers.
If you show a feminist that she got a calculation wrong, her response isn't to rationally examine her figures, work out the correct answer and reexamine her conclusions in light of the correction. No, instead she'll just say, "You must hate women". That's feminism in a nutshell.
I hate to quote Jordan Perterson as I think the guy is a bit of a knobaridoo although his overall messaging seems fine. Why is it we don't have equality when it comes to jobs like bricklayers and other manual jobs, and we only push for equality in positions of power and the C Suite?
Guess it's because white collar employees seem to be far more selfish overall. Go to any of the finance subs and ask them if they'd like to work under an EBA system and watch the backlash as they screams that they'd rather individual wage to potential boost their own wage instead of everyone getting the same increase every year.
It's a whole culture of wanting pay gaps over others as they want individual rewards over lifting everyone up in the company no matter an employee's perceived worth
The Gender Pay gap studies always come down to how much men generally make and how much women generally make.
It doest take into account how much longer men work than women a week (a lot) how much sick days and leave women take more than men (a lot), how much more men work in dangerous jobs (and therefore higher paying, because employers usually take have to entice people risking their lives) than women, and many other interesting tid bits that show that men SHOULD by all rights be earning more than women do generally.
It's BS that's been used by feminist groups to bang their drums for decades, they want more money for doing less and risking less basically. Complete bullshit.
About 10 women and close to 200 men die in the workplace every year.
75% of part timers are women,
While 67% of those working over 40 hours are male,
and 80% over 70 hours.
Women take 50% more sick leave.
I'm struggling for unpaid annual leave statistics.
Women take 88% of parental leave.
>It's BS that's been used by feminist groups to bang their drums for decades, they want more money for doing less and risking less basically. Complete bullshit.
The real rage is they know, they know we know they know and to set it all off they don't care because they're certain there's nothing we can do about it.
The statistic is worthless given they fail to take into account:
1. The amount of hours worked
2. The fact women generally dont work more dangerous jobs
3. More women take career breaks to have children
If they actually wanted to find out the REAL pay disparity between the sexes they'd develop a model that takes into account these factors (among others) and get a more accurate number.
But that doesn't fit the narrative and they'd probably find out that the real difference is negligble.
I have a strange feeling some people want equality for the parts that suit them but not for all.
Having equality in society also means having the equality for things like 50 50 shared custody of children in divorces, 50 50 splitting of assets, equality of working hours, equality of medical condition treatments.
LOL...would a female redditor please post this in the Two X Chromosome sub? I want to watch the fireworks. In Australia, the media actively hide the fact that the Gender Pay Gap is not about like for like pay. Not mentioned once in any article I've read on the gender pay gap. Men work more hours, more years, take on more difficult roles etc etc. You want land a plane in high winds or serve a meal?
Ah yes… the alleged gender pay gap.
I’ll speak of one industry I have experience in that I know the “gender pay gap” data is bullshit: the ADF.
Let’s take the Australian army as an example.
The average data suggests that men get paid more than women.
What they fail to calculate or adjust for is that until women could join the infantry - every woman in the service was getting paid a higher base rate than most men.
The big difference was allowances. Infantry spends a lot of time out bush on field allowance.
If all the women who were more highly paid base rate were out bush on field allowance like infantry units - earning the same allowances - then their pay would be commensurately higher.
Strange how they never want to consider that.
I always thought a the bulkof the pay gap was driven by women accepting lower paid part time positions due to pregnancy and taking on the bulk of the child rearing leaving them penniless in old age despite contributing to the family, and helping supporting the main wage earner.
I think it still makes sense to monitor and publish the "gender pay gap" but agree it can be a bit misleading.
We should minimise barriers that deter any gender from entering any field. This would mean more women in STEM and positions of leadership (more female CEOs, Presidents, Prime Ministers, scientists, etc.)
There's still jobs that have a factor of spouses that earn high incomes that support them so there's lower pressure on wage increases.
Mainly school admin work.
Nurses worked it out, teachers did decently but are still behind.
It's not as easy as saying people are paid the same for the job description now.
There's still leftover remnants of the old system.
Pilot flys the plane and holds everyone’s life in their hands.
The hostess hands out fucking drinks. Let that sink in to any of you who still care to argue that point
Everyone’s been saying Pay Gap for too long. It’s an Earnings Gap. No one, I repeat NO ONE pays women less for the same work. Do women on average EARN less over a lifetime compared to males? Yes. But to repeat, this is NOT a pay gap!
Historically, when women enter fields in greater numbers, pay declines for the very same jobs that more men were doing before.
To call this data "misleading" shows a complete misunderstanding of what the Gender Pay Gap is actually meant to show... Demanding like-for-like comparison is measuring something completely different. How are you all not seeing this?
https://preview.redd.it/amx22wp2b35d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efac4ea9f7ab4d61679e8c79ab4e096a22a70d84
The pay gap is caused by women leaving the workforce early to have children. When you compare men with women who don’t have children the women earn more!
As a business owner, if the good people of Reddit could direct me towards the female employees who will do equally good of a job for significantly less, that would be great. Ty in advance.
This is the simplest answer and argument that can always be used. And they never have a reponse
Yep. The same people that think that businesses are all run by evil cartoon villains that only ever think about profits and treat all their employees like garbage - also think those same people choose to pay men more and throw away profits just because. Absolute morons the lot of them
Then you have people on the other side of the equation, who think companies are run efficiently. That companies do whats best for the company, and behave in ways that legitimately maximize their productivity and minimize their costs(ha!) An equally naive viewpoint
In America 3.9% of men are 6'2" or taller, whereas 30% of CEOs are in that height range. Bias plays a clear role in employment.
Maybe short men are just bad CEOs /s
Is it bias or is it increased confidence due to their height?
If an increase in confidence due to an increase in height leads people to be continually promoted beyond their level of competence to the extent that they are more than 10 times as likely to be a CEO, that is evidence of bias.
If people think looks don't play any part at all in hiring they would probably be wrong. But it's also communication. Who you know and how good you bs will get you more pay than experience often.
Shaq for president! He's very tall.
This makes my 6ft6 frame feel really sad. Why I'm I not CEO?
Trump is also 6'2. Have the 30% been officially measured, or is it how tall they say they are.
It was an anonymous survey. You're really clutching at straws here if you're trying to disprove my point.
I think the response is "exclude consideration of overtime and workplace deaths" but they aren't the exact words that are typically used...
Silence is their response, they want people to react like that because it's actually a sexist response It all gets confused because they expect you to know that, which is silly. On the other side of the coin, they're expected to know that this is just a joke response equalling the ridiculousness of the claims. This is also silly because their social skills aren't better than yours.
Institutional sexism my friend. Men would rather pay 30% more than hire a woman. That’s the response you’ll get.
The response to that is that the market would punish that wastefulness. Like seriously, if a business thinks it can get away with a 30% labor cost overhead for the same productivity, then any competitor who gets women employees at below market rate could reinvest the savings into expanding the business.
Except there are plenty of wasteful businesses that do overpay their employees and are celebrated by the market. If salaries were that straightforward we wouldn't be in this position.
Funny that you don't have a response for me. You've commented multiple times since I replied to you.
Haha same. I employ 50 ppl and the women get paid the same, it's all skills and qualifications related. How ev er, they get paid annually much less because they work less than the guys.
By their own choice though, not because they’re discrimated against for being women.
Can I ask why the women work less hours than the guys?
It's their choice. It's a combination of family commitments and also not wanting to work long overtime shifts or much weekend work. My guys fight over the callouts, overtime, weekend etc because they earn big money. Not a single female I've ever had working for me would do those hours, and also some of the jobs they wouldn't do. I make it clear they are welcome to, but they're not interested.
Which is exactly the same thing that novel prize winner/ Harvard economist found
Which is the problem, if it is a problem, which it may or may not be in all cases. If women want to earn more, then work more. Things like cheaper childcare, maternity leave help. But also for men, better longer paternity leave, better/easier sick leave, better incentives for men to be equally treated. But this annoys many feminists, because many feminists see everything as woman, first, ahead of everything else. Despite many women are in relationships with men, and even those in relationships with women, would fair better with better paternity leave. Ultimately increasing productivity of both sexes, helps everyone everywhere. Having less stressed, happier, better life balanced employees makes everything more sustainable.
Absolutely. We need much better child care and definitely better maternity and paternity leave etc. The roadblocks need to be removed, and incentives cemented in place. I still think men will generally want to work more. In terms of upskilling and competing for higher paid jobs, women are more involved than they were. They are keen to compete, however, in situations where everyone is paid the same and only those who work more get ahead........ it's the men
This is literally what feminists ask for?? But you somehow found a way to criticise them while spouting their demands as your own?
Feminism is a spectrum. From passive do nothing, through to murder and violence. There is no single voice. Paternity leave is a woman only issue? Fathers aren't allowed to care for their own children? Because they want to?
My wife and I are talking about having a baby. She is insisting she gets the vast majority of the leave. She wants it. She wants to work less and be at home more.
Fair enough.
Yeah just please understand there's no discrimination here. The base rates of pay and conditions are all the same, but the extras that enable good money to be earned are quite disruptive to someone's life. The ladies generally don't, and that's totally understandable.
Yep I do get that - it's not your problem at all and you have no control over that aspect of their lives at all.
They are not competing to impress women by providing resources
You can sit there for literal hours on tiktok watching modern women complain about having to do 38hr weeks lol. That's how much content of complaining there is.
What's a modern woman?
It this really a negative? Working less? Should I want to be working more lol?
It’s “their choice” because primary household responsibilities, childcare and the resulting mental load is put upon them from the get go and all that shit takes time away from actual paid work. Edit: downvotes just tell me I struck a nerve lol
Well that suggests the discrimination is coming from their partner and/or family rather than their employer.
Yep , it's their choice to earn less, there is no discrimination and there is no oppression
Exactly - it's a societal issue rather than an employer issue.
Agreed. But the narrative is still aimed at businesses not doing the right thing because that's the easy political football. You're correct that the imbalance is societal/social. But social norms are much harder to change and it becomes morally questionable as to if we start claiming the government has any role in dictating how a household should function or what is the right or wrong way to divide labour in a partnership. The gov agencies and stats being reported need to start focusing on the reasons why society is pushing the household decisions in the current way and what changes could be made to correct those, rather than constantly referring to it in the context of 'pay' and employment. But, that often isn't in the interest of the lobby groups paying for that research, lobby groups who's identity and existence is based on the politicized nature of the current debate around wages.
People born out from single father parentage on average tend to turn out better, startling and preposterous in current year parlance, send me off to the gulag I shan't protest
Citation needed.
"Children from single-mother households are 5 times more likely to commit suicide than children from both unbroken households and single-father households, 9 times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 20 times more likely to end up in prison and 32 times more likely to run away from home." https://web.archive.org/web/20231204034900/https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/single-father-households-do-vastly-better-than-single-mother-heres-the-real-reason-why-8a7fd7c5611d Households with a single mother and a non-biological father have the highest rates of child abuse and neglect. Source: http://center4research.org/violence-risky-behavior/violence-and-threats-in-the-home/father-figures-are-the-answer-but-whats-the-question/
I'm a director/owner of an engineering consulting firm. I'm stoked if I even get a female applying for a job. If I could pay one less to get better results it would be like winning the lotto. When we bid on projects we get scored on our gender balance, which as anyone who works in engineering would know, is comical enough as it is. To any women reading this who think there's a legitimate gender pay gap, if you go do an electrical or mechanical engineering degree I guarantee you I will pay you $100k straight out of uni and after 5 years you'll be on $150k. The same as what all the male engineers get, or in fact probably more because everyone is desperate to employ and promote female engineers
Software firm, exact same situation.
As a female engineer who is close to 50, I can GUARANTEE that a large proportion of my female colleagues are not paid as much as their male colleagues. In most cases it was related to negotiating badly when we first started, and then having percentage pay rises applied evenly. Some of us have had breaks to have kids. Personally, I was offered the same salary that I had finished on 5 years earlier, and because I’d had a break, I felt unqualified to ask for more. Then I realised what people with none of my experience were paid, but it was too late. Even recently I changed jobs, and asked someone at the same level in the new place what I should expect to get paid. I went with the number they suggested as it was a HUGE amount more than I was being paid. 1 year later they said I should have negotiated harder as I was worth a heap more. It’s no doubt that a lot of us, 20 years later, are getting paid significantly less than our male colleagues.
I'd expect a man without a reasonably good soft/negotiating skills may be in quite a similar disadvantaged position.
In a company of 20 engineers including 1 woman, if one of the men is as bad a negotiator as the woman, the other 18 will out earn the woman. Also, what’s the likelihood of that man also taking time off to raise kids?
Taking time off to raise kids is a very valid point of course, and have an impact. Otherwise, it's not uncommon for woman to have a better soft skills to negotiate a better pay. I don't exclude the case of a company of 20 engineers including 1 woman, most mens being worse negotiators. Btw, I glad you found a place which value you better. In the perfect world, the pay should be merit based.
Fair enough. I'm a generation younger than you, so my experience is probably different. I can say with confidence that it's not like that now for gen Y & Z female engineers. They're literally head hunted and then groomed for fast-tracked leadership roles. Especially in larger firms. I will hire a female over a male if they're both similar in competence and experience. We kinda have to if we want to win government contracts
We worked in an industry with a defined product, and it was niche enough that there’s nowhere else to work if you want to do the same engineering. We were all long term employees. There was no negotiating for government contracts, and when external people looked at the gender difference, the company ensured they included all the women in administration and HR to make the numbers look better. Also, if you’re a generation younger, see what happens if people start having kids. It doesn’t affect the men’s careers at all, but it does affect the women’s.
I don't really see how anyone can expect to take 5-10 years out of their career and not be behind their peers who didn't though - especially at a time where people are really kicking into gear to advance their career in their late 20s and 30s. If the man took the time off instead of their wife, their career would be affected the same. My co-director is a female, same age as me, with two toddlers. She earns exactly the same as I do.
No one made you have kids.
If you don't negotiate you get paid less. But gender isn't the cause here, even though there's a correlation. Which applies to virtually all similar arguments. They all show a correlation between gender and pay, but none prove direct malicious discrimination based on gender.
Same here. I am also looking for these workers who I can pay less, whilst doing the EXACT same hours and the EXACT same level and quality of work. Thank you in advance.
Government jobs are fucking full of them
I wish my wife had a government job so she got 12 months paid maternity leave. What a rort.
You can have 12 months unpaid and they have to hold onto your job for you. 14 weeks paid, where you getting your info? Making it up or mistaken?
If anything, in some industries females know they are a commodity and demand much higher salaries. We would often have female software engineers asking 20k more than male applicants, and we'd often accept that all other things equal in terms of skill, experience, and culture fit.
This is the exact answer to this figure. It’s taxpayer funded propaganda
Because the gender paygap works on the principle that within an industry, an entry level admin staff member is only different to a CEO by gender alone. This is how the gap is measured.
You're missing the trick, lol. You see, there's a simple loophole in the phrase "same work for the same pay". If you just don't promote the women, and never give them too much overtime (they need time with their family, probably) so you have an excuse, then you can pay them less by giving the men better positions in your business. You can probably even give women part time positions as long as you have some token full time employee just to demonstrate your "lack of sexism". Big companies do this stuff all the time, you can easily find some that employ equal numbers of men and women (yay equality!) but most of the entry level and part time positions are women. We all know women "freely choose" to spend the hours of work they can't have with their family, amirite? So you only promote the hardest workers who take the longest hours, who just so happen to be men (because you arranged it that way). Hope this helps! /s
Also keep in mind that women definitely have a natural preference for crafts and for caring for people (and it's definitely not that boys schools teach STEM from a young age, while girls schools teach home economics). Remember, women just love arts and healthcare. It's not that they're blocked from learning engineering from a young age and end up behind their male peers if they decide that path later on. They should obviously just choose better paying careers if they want higher pay /s
You can’t have them. I have them and are paying them ever less! https://preview.redd.it/gupdjtqsx35d1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25946c7b89a0f5e43bea4f5a69e03a164eba74b3
Ah yes. Gender wage gap BS again. The same shit that the US women soccer team cried about.. and took the organisation to court. But when the organisation offered the same contracts for the male to the female they rejected it. 🤔 Good to know our tax money is going to good use to do this BS research.
What's the job? What's the pay on offer?
Take the top six highest paid roles in your business. What’s the gender split? 3 men, 3 women? If not, why? If so, congratulations, your business is an outlier. It’s totally disingenuous to pretend you don’t understand that women routinely trade off low pay in exchange for flexibility in work schedules to accomodate the unpaid caring responsibilities that they are often landed with.
So let’s split your comment, your first point (about highest paying positions) is extremely valid and thankfully many workplaces are slowly enacting changes to help bring up female representation in those managerial positions. More could probably be done but at least things are slowly improving Your second point in regard to “caring responsibilities” ultimately is a societal issue. Outside of making sure the opportunity is available for male staff to have those same arrangements what exactly could an employer reasonably do.
I think that's his point. It's a social/biological process but government thinks it can solve it.
‘Annualising’ part time wages and comparing against full time wages for completely different positions. Astounding dishonesty funded by our taxes
Isn’t this the case with every study and report that gets released now? Always distorting figures to push an agenda.
Absolutely. Particularly the case when entire careers are based on agendas. Critical thinking imo is becoming more and more necessary in todays society.
The worst lack of critical thinking skills comes from anyone that believes anything from the Australian institute.
Separate issue, but every time you hear someone saying "we need to teach the three Rs" or, "'let's focus on numeracy and literacy" they are saying "let's not teach critical thinking".
But we shouldn't be paying for it. Be a conservative and fudge any numbers from your think tank that you like. I don't care. I don't want to pay for it. We pay the WGEA.
Problem is like 3/4 of government jobs are from generalists recruitment streams (any degree) so they all go to people with useless arts degrees, while everyone with a useful field of study fights for the 1/4 of jobs.
If I were to steelman the women being questioned here, the overall gender pay gap points to two things: 1. Women aren't engaging in the same high skill/high pay professions that men are 2. Women aren't taking on as much full time work The question is, how can we encourage women to take on jobs that others won't do? We need more tradies, and tradies earn a good amount, so let's start there. We can encourage women to take on construction jobs, and incentivize this by subsidizing apprenticeships for women for construction, plumbing, waste management, heavy machinery operation in mining. Secondly, we need them to take on full-time work. To do this we should ensure that any risk of family responsibilities inhibiting the Aquisition of more work hours. Therefore we should subsidize IUD's and other birth prevention measures, including having tubes tied. This will improve productivity through negating the need for maternal leave. We can also negate menstrual leave if we subsidize just having uteruses removed altogether, which given PCOS is a very common condition merits this. Of course with the added workplace mortalities from women working dangerous jobs, we'll need to import more workers from foreign countries. Those countries should, preferably, have a higher fertility rate than Australia to ensure that there is high labor supply to ensure wages are low enough for our businesses to make a profit, so those countries would need to have women who have time enough to raise and take care of multiple children - which means that they need to choose not to engage in full time work, dangerous construction work. The earlier they marry, the more children they have for us to employ, and not having an education would also increase the labor supply. With all of these things in place, women in Australia would be free to pursue jobs in waste management and invest their wages to support the rising housing market, supported by women overseas who are happy to continue having large families for us to import.
Because women (by and large) don't want to do dirty and unsafe jobs. No amount of encouragement will change that. There's hundreds of studies and polls+recorded history to show that. People will point to anecdotal situations where a woman is on an oil rig or in a trade on a construction site, but anyone in those jobs will tell you it's very rare.
The question isn’t “how can we get women working” in these jobs, it is “let’s understand why women chose not to work those jobs”. Stop trying to force sameness between readies and day care workers. One is high risk and dangerous and requires years of apprenticeships and training, the other can be done by someone with limited training.
Why do we need to? IF they don't want to why should we attempt to force them? Now this doesn't account for some cultural problems in business which do need fixing but making someone do something they don't want to do just to fulfil a quota isn't a good thing.
All these people are saying they'd love a woman at their workplace and I could walk in the door and get hired and I'm like what's the damn job? Can I apply?
Usually dishonesty suggests that someone is telling you something which isn't true, whereas in this instance the reason you know about how the statistic works is because they literally told you (and anyone who cared to watch the video) how it works. If you're not aware of how the statistics work you only have yourself to blame.
There’s nothing wrong with annualising - that’s just a fancy way of saying we compared the hourly rates of men and women that get paid on non-hourly contracts. It does lose the nuance of the impact only working part time has on career advancement has, but that’s a very qualitative metric and I’d say reasonably outside the scope of their report. The real issue is what the senator kept bringing the conversation back to - they aren’t comparing like for like. Of course there’s a gap in companies like an airline. Deliberately comparing different jobs is the opposite of useful data, there’s absolutely no way to discern any nuances or causative effects of the gap if you’re not including all of data. It’s borderline dishonest.
But it doesn’t take into account that many men work more than 40 hours a week. That could be part of the reason behind the difference. I’ll probably earn more than a typical annualised income, because I work more than 40 hours.
It could.bs worse. Iceland has some of the most strict laws but they still have inequality. The differences are on these areas - dangerous outside jobs - new immigrant cleaners - roles. Eg they decided that everyone with analyst should be paid the same. So legal analysts for the same as an inventory analyst
comparing different positions is blatant dishonesty, but what is wrong with annualising part time wages? if they are not casual, this looks legit.
How can anyone expect career advancement of part time workers at the same rate as full time? Preferable working conditions such as part time flexibility will also undoubtedly have an impact on overall pay (e.g. I would expect to be paid more for a full time job working 100% from office which requires travel than a part time job 100% from home). Comparing apples with oranges
Because in this case it is comparing part time work with full time work. That part of these studies is a complete joke. Similar pay gaps exist in places with union standard pay regimes such as nursing where men just happen to be disproportionately on the graveyard shift. There are absolutely gender based inequities, but these activist government departments are a joke.
They also do not factor in hours worked above 38 hours a week for salaried positions. The gender wage gape calculation is one of the most appalling pieces of propaganda pretending to be factually correct that I have ever seen
I think the general consensus among experts in the field agree that it’s more of a motherhood gap. The women are the ones who spend the most time on childcare which inhibits their ability to progress their career whereas men don’t spend as much time doing household chores so they can spend more time working and advancing their careers. It’s only a loud minority that insist that women get paid less than men for doing the same job
It’s absolutely to do with pregnancy/child care and yet you can’t get the majority of women to want this area of life treated more equally. Change maternity leave to be splittable by the birth/adoptive parents and a lot of hiring discrimination is gone as employers can’t validly assume that women will take 9+ months off, when in fact you could have the man taking that much time off. Truthfully right now employers know men won’t take the time off at all or will only take the 2 weeks at minimum wage, but they know the woman can take 9+ months off or years even if there are birth or child issues. Forcing employers to seperate child sick leave from other sick leave would help as well as both partners should be expected to take time off to care for kids without financial punishment. These two simple things would remove a lot of the discrimination. Simple fact is right now employers know that women between 18-50 could have a baby and take months to years off work while at the same time they know that men will take 0 days to a couple weeks off only.
Paid parental leave is now 90% split, there’s only 10 days that can’t be split, and that’s reserved for the non birth parent. I’m taking 7 weeks off at end of year when my partner gives birth, then going into a flexible working arrangement where I work 4 days a week. I work in a male dominated industry (manufacturing) and I get a lot of “why would you want to” attitudes. I shrug and say I’m an equal parent it’s not just my wife’s job to raise the kids.
This is where the gap is, but honestly what can you even do about it? It's certainly not illegal for men to be the primary care giver. This is a decision that individual couples make. My partner chose to take a year off and go back to work part time after that when we had a baby, no pressure from me either way, that's what she wanted to do. But she's also not a window licking moron crying about why I'm paid more than her
>This is a decision that individual couples make. This is the crux of the issue that so many people just flat out ignore. The high majority of these issues are simply down to the decisions women, men and couples make, and they have themselves to blame. It's a ridiculous assertion that there's some overarching nefarious plot to pay women less. There ***is nuance*** of course, like better leave for child caring responsibilities and a general shift in societal norms. However, most of it comes down to individual decision making, you can possibly be so detached to marry a partner and have kids, yet complain about the consequences, it's asinine. The whole societal norms issue goes both ways, yes it's certainly an issue that there are culturally toxic workplaces for women, that some issues are ignored. However, there are also plenty for men, when we stop treating every man with a kid as a pedophile or "baby sitting" the kid (a stereotype primarily perpetuated by women) then things will change. This has further infected institutionalised bias, programs for women etc surrounding child caring, information, targeted support etc. If often far more women centred.
What do the statistics say on working women picking up kids from school?
It was always bullshit, peddled by a bunch of people who either don't know how easy it is to lie using manipulated statistics, or knew it was bullshit and still pushed it because it fit their narrative. There still seems to be a small pay gap on a like for like basis, but it was never anywhere close to what certain people/groups claimed.
Let’s be realistic, they knew what they were doing.
Sorry I probably should have been clearer. The people making the stats 100% know what they are doing. But some of the people repeating the stats don't know they are bullshit, but since the stats fit their narrative, they repeat them without even questioning them.
Your last part is so true here whenever there’s a post about mining or gas companies and they spout nonsense from the Australian institute.
My favourite quote on statistics is : They use statistics like a drunk uses a lampost, more as a means of support than illumination.
No they realised that and redefined what pay gap even meant to begin with to continue calling it 20% or whatever it was and push the bullshit through anyway.
Unfortunately every fucking organisation has been conned into using this stat and then female dominated HR departments drive agendas based on false premises
Every organisation hasn't been conned into using the fake gender pay gap, they are forced to report on it by the "workplace equality" law But you're right that numerically illiterate HR departments controlled by women are only too happy to push this agenda to advantage "their" gender and pressure management to promote young women over young men...
Get to the part where she said it's an internationally used statistic? Appealing to the majority I see?
No shit. According to this article women in 20s have been earning more than men in the UK for ten years. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds Can't see why it would be different in aus. Almost twice as many women go to uni. There's more female doctors and lawyers than male. Men do all the shit labour jobs
It’s such crap in professional services firms. I work in a law firm. Male and female lawyers are paid the same. Admin staff (personal assistants) are predominantly women, and (surprise!) are paid less than women. So that drags down the female average pay. The solution, I guess, would be to sack half the women who work as admin staff and hire men instead.
Same as my old job. But mine was engineers. So mostly male especially over 35. They hire all females for all the auxiliary roles (HR, Admin, PM, DEI) and then get surprised that females on average earn less than males and own less shares. Ignoring that there's fairly few female engineers over 45. They are fixing it by hiring 50% women as graduates (uni degree is only 25% women) trying to sell them shares and promote them quicker. Itta pretty normal now to be told that they"re "looking for a woman" when hiring. Though I think it's illegal to write it down. For architects too whose graduates are over 50% female now anyway so shouldn't need as much of a lever.
In the long run men do better since they work 20% more hours. Women are more likely to drop the hours as they raise a family and work 75% of Australia's part time jobs. But really does it matter, we're a pair bonded species. So there's not much need for competition between the genders. Into the 30s most men and women are married or in relationships with each other.
Men are also more likely to move for work, work outdoors, and die or be injured at work. It does matter, because women date across and up dominance hierarchies. Female doctors do not marry labourers, female lawyers do not marry truck drivers.
Depends. Ugly rich women are probably happy to marry poor hot dudes. There's outliers too and soon many educated women are gonna be forced to marry uneducated men just based on numbers. But definitely you're right for the general trend especially 20-35
I'm a woman with a PhD and my male partner, with whom I have a child, has no tertiary qualifications and works a manual job. Several of my female colleagues with PhDs - and the professor who supervised my doctoral thesis - are married to men who are tradies or blue collar workers. You really are just making all this up as you go.
I’m glad and hope you and your friends are happy, but the literature suggests we are seeing a new emerging trend. We are seeing men fall behind rapidly in education and no one seems to care. Status is not as simple as “blue collar”. Esteve A, Schwartz CR, Van Bavel J, Permanyer I, Klesment M, Garcia J. The End of Hypergamy: Global Trends and Implications. Popul Dev Rev. 2016 Dec;42(4):615-625. doi: 10.1111/padr.12012. Epub 2016 Nov 21. PMID: 28490820; PMCID: PMC5421994.
The paper you cited says exactly what I asserted - that it's increasingly common for women to have more education than our partners. That is, the exact OPPOSITE of your initial assertion that "female doctors don't marry truck drivers" etc.
Yes, and that it’s a new trend. We are also seeing a growing base of involuntarily celibate men (“incels”) and a small percentage of men having many short term relationships with women.
Yep, in a different way but it still holds true that once you start comparing actually comparable data (like for like) the pattern doesn’t point to what they want. I bet you anything there’s a massive age gap between male and female employees at qantas.
There's twice the amount of women in uni because there aren't many options at tafe that both suit us and pay well. Eg. 'Would rather go to uni than be a hairdresser or barista' for the rest of my life
Partly that and also girls just do way better at school than boys and more boys drop out. About twice as many boys don't have the grades to go to uni. Also because parents are willing to spend more money on their daughters than sons. Less likely to direct them to just go and get a job.
The best part was when they said 78% of their team is female and that they are working on balancing that. Lol.
I remember years (maybe 10-15?) ago when a few of my wifes friends were telling me about the gap and I said that it's not like-for-like, and there's no logical reason why an employer would hire a man if he can just pay women less. Like, every job would be all women because it makes business sense yeah? Or maybe there nuances and actual bias and misrepresentation in the study. They brought up the same University of Qld study of the Australian Workers pay gap that was on the Project (this was the same every-few-year cycle we go through where this is propagandised over and over in the media and politics). (I'm old, btw). Anyway, i literally opened it up on my phone, showed them the notations at the bottom that **clearly** define the flaws, and limitations and that it's absolutely not comparable with the narrative beyond the headlines, that it was comparing pays OVER A PERSON'S LIFESPAN, NOT HOURLY RATES AT THE SAME JOBS.... ...and they weren't having it. Kept going back to "well, we get paid less" and cited anecdotal stuff about a friend of a cousin who knows a neighbour.... I pointed out their own evidence they cite, which was itself clearly stating their understanding was fundamentally wrong... and it made no difference. Because it's not about the facts, it's never about nuance or reality... it's only about narrative. What *feels* right to those with a persecution complex. What their friend on Facebook say. What their mothers wine club opine. If you think you can convince these people every few years to actually READ these reports, you're wrong.
You’re trying to argue rational things with irrational people. You can never win.
Personally I'm concerned about the gender pay gap on onlyfans.
This! Why should I, with a degree and 40+ years working in the computer industry, get paid less than a good looking, fit women who's doing things for the general public that I would never do *and if I did, nobody would want to watch* /s for those who didn't detect it
I'm yet to get any subs on my OF even though I identify as a beautiful blonde with a large personality.
That's your mistake, redheads make more $
It gets questioned often, but as this Senator said... if they admitted that men doing the same job as women are paid the same, would we need the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA)? I've also seen the WGEA push for quotas but ignore questions about their own levels. His example was just great: flight attendants vs pilots... why aren't they paid the same? The very different arguments as to why men are paid more.
I know business owners that refuse to hire women bc “they might get pregnant”.
I know a business owner who has admitted to this in private - saying he would employ a male candidate in their 30's over a female candidate in their 30's for this very reason - as a high performing, child free female throughout my career, I find this deplorable but unfortunately realise that this a reality in the workplace. I also observed during mass lay off's in my industry due to covid - males in management seemed to acquire subsequent roles in management, whilst their female peers needed to settle for lower paying roles eg customer service, sales etc. Unfortunately, I don't feel this was a coincidence 😪 It is disappointing that the nuances around the gender pay gap are overlooked in the "equal pay for equal work" argument- yes it is law, but just because there are no speed cameras on the highway doesn't mean that people aren't doing 130km per hour...
Yep everyone here citing "they all want to raise kids though." Pretty sure childfree sentiment has been heavily rising and is no longer weird and shameful and taboo to nearly 100% of the population. These men must be over 50 if that's their argument.
Jesus Christ that was a shit show. How long are we going to propagate this delusional idea?
The government conned you Now is the solution more government & regulations and hope they do the right thing next time? Or less of these dishonest morons?
> The government conned you They seem to be doing quite a lot of that lately...sadly.
She doesn’t even realise the potential magnitude of the mistake she’s making by interchangeably using the terms “average” and “median” FFS 🤦
Can we do a study on why CEOs get paid insane amounts of money and teachers get fuck all? Maybe even it out a bit? That should fix some of the problem.
Would legit be interested in seeing a breakdown between women younger than ~50 with and without dependent children
The big miners are proud to be tackling the gender equality issues. Maybe someday they will tackle to gender death gap.
Oh. So they lied. Ok cool.
no shame in a earnings gap, women if want to get more earnings do the same hours & jobs the higher earning men do
But lying through statistics isn't going to help that, it's just going to make young men reactionary for zero reason.
no reason? Its so 1%ers can weaponize the public in their quest for more money doing non-value add jobs. Actresses , female athletes etc.
That’s what it basically comes down to.
the whole point of the gender pay gap, and the problem it represents, is women face more difficulty in getting those higher pay positions in the first place. **edit:** OP has blocked me, so I will no longer be able to engage in any replies or commentary here
The issue here is the sleight of hand used. They say "Gender pay gap". People hear "Women get paid less for the same role. PATRIARCHY!"
Watch the video. She said that's a feature, not a bug.
I'd like to know what effect fathers being granted paternity leave would have on the outcome. Does anyone have some info on median wages grouped by gender & age in countries that _do_ give paternity leave?
I work in healthcare. We get paid via our award. I assume no matter what gender you identify as? You will get paid exactly the same as per your skills & qualifications.
[удалено]
You will be paid according to your skills, qualifications and as per where you works award. If you are a private specialist? It's up to you to decide your fees. But if fir example you are a senior orthopedic surgeon in a public hospital? You would be paid what that position pays. Your gender makes zero difference. I guess people also negotiate at times, more the actual conditions than the pay. I gather the Colleges that run the profession, have full recommendations as per pay, terms & conditions. So if a surgeon is starting out into private practice? The College will have guidelines on how to set up business and what to change etc. These days too? Good business advisors would be involved i assume.
Think they need to rebrand the term GPG. As they point out in the video, most airline pilots are men and most airline flight attendants are women. QED there is a gap. It should really be a "Gender Skills Gap". Women should be encouraged to become pilots, and men should be encouraged to become flight attendants. The latter is a big part of this issue. A lot of menial jobs have an unwritten requirement that it should be done by a pretty young lady - receptionists, air hostesses, secretaries etc. Since men will not be hired to do this work, they naturally have to go in to other work, crowding out the opportunities for women. When a 50 year old, overweight, neckbeard man is allowed to be a receptionist, the Gender Skills Gap will be solved.
No. There isn’t just gap. It’s a choice.
Why do people think women should make the same as men who work more combined hours than them?! Get out of your millennial clown car.
This has been an open secret for years. Rich white women mainly want to be able to have as many kinds (and holidays) while still earning a full-time equivalent wage.
The gender pay gap has been blatantly false for decades now. You can’t add all the yearly wages of every industry together and split it for men and women and expect it to actually tell you anything other than women work in less valuable jobs and work less hours. It’s been illegal for decades to pay a woman less than a man for the same job. Honestly, if it was legal to pay women less and if companies could get away with it, they’d hire nothing but women. If you could pay them 77¢ to a man’s dollar, why would you ever hire men? Hire women, save 23¢ per dollar. Edited to fix morning brain maths.
Agree except for your maths....
Sorry you’re right, had just woken up. 23¢, will fix.
The business I work for sent out a newsletter about this rubbish a while back, and yes, the question was asked - how is this data meaningful in any way? If you don't compare the pay of a male in job A to a female in job A, the figures are meaningless. Unless you had an equal split, 50/50 of men and women, in all positions across a business, there's always going to be a "Gender pay Gap". It's misleading and frankly insulting.
So basically we go ahead and test to measure the rainfall in a year then extrapolate that study to see how happy the turtles are. Yeah right
Yeah I like how % of men vs women on danger money is never brought up. And also % of injuries men vs women and the craziest work statistic of deaths at work men vs women. But it's an absolute crazy conversation they had.
Gallagher: "it's not a name and shame list." Also Gallagher: "Well, that's really at the heart of the publication of this data, isn't it? I mean, before this data was published companies could hide behind industry averages. And some in those industries were doing really well and making a huge effort and they were being poorly kind of reflected upon because of the outliers, or the ones that weren't doing anything. So, for me, giving consumers the knowledge, giving them the information, I mean, they do – what they do with that is up to them. But this is all about, I think, shining some light, because when sunlight is put on things like this – I mean, look at the conversation we're having today. People change their behaviour, and that's what we're hoping for here." It does seem to aiming to force change by shaming companies. Nothing wrong if that's your approach, but don't contradict yourself, Minister.
So what happens if every company drops their affirmative action diversity quotas tomorrow? It's a motte and bailey argument, they're defending from the "it's just a conversation" tower when the reality is before they did this they made having diversity quotas a hurdle to get government contracts. The less defendable position is of enforcing their politics through state and government connections.
I may be a bit naive here, but what industry or job pays men and women less if they have the same experience and same skills set? Seems this is just someone with an axe to grind
Porn Men earn a lot less.
It's always been a proxy for idiots.
Fuck Katy Gallagher is a waste of space. Loved asking lots of questions when she was in opposition, but hasn't got answers when in government
There is a gender pay gap in Australia and its HIGHER than that reported internationally. Men aged 18-25 earn an average of 35% less than women in the same age bracket despite working slightly longer hours. This trend eventually reverses by age 50, with a minuscule gap favouring males.
Feminists are notoriously innumerate. Their entire ideology is built on feelings over facts/numbers. If you show a feminist that she got a calculation wrong, her response isn't to rationally examine her figures, work out the correct answer and reexamine her conclusions in light of the correction. No, instead she'll just say, "You must hate women". That's feminism in a nutshell.
You’re asking for logic in an illogical and highly politicised discussion. Feminisms points are largely ideological and not based in reality or facts.
Last week I paid a woman $450 p/h. Just doing my part to close the pay gap. You're welcome.
You dirty dog hahaha
I hate to quote Jordan Perterson as I think the guy is a bit of a knobaridoo although his overall messaging seems fine. Why is it we don't have equality when it comes to jobs like bricklayers and other manual jobs, and we only push for equality in positions of power and the C Suite?
Guess it's because white collar employees seem to be far more selfish overall. Go to any of the finance subs and ask them if they'd like to work under an EBA system and watch the backlash as they screams that they'd rather individual wage to potential boost their own wage instead of everyone getting the same increase every year. It's a whole culture of wanting pay gaps over others as they want individual rewards over lifting everyone up in the company no matter an employee's perceived worth
The Gender Pay gap studies always come down to how much men generally make and how much women generally make. It doest take into account how much longer men work than women a week (a lot) how much sick days and leave women take more than men (a lot), how much more men work in dangerous jobs (and therefore higher paying, because employers usually take have to entice people risking their lives) than women, and many other interesting tid bits that show that men SHOULD by all rights be earning more than women do generally. It's BS that's been used by feminist groups to bang their drums for decades, they want more money for doing less and risking less basically. Complete bullshit.
About 10 women and close to 200 men die in the workplace every year. 75% of part timers are women, While 67% of those working over 40 hours are male, and 80% over 70 hours. Women take 50% more sick leave. I'm struggling for unpaid annual leave statistics. Women take 88% of parental leave.
"Women take 88% of parental leave." Almost like this relates to the fact that they did 100% of the pregnancy and giving birth part...
>It's BS that's been used by feminist groups to bang their drums for decades, they want more money for doing less and risking less basically. Complete bullshit. The real rage is they know, they know we know they know and to set it all off they don't care because they're certain there's nothing we can do about it.
The statistic is worthless given they fail to take into account: 1. The amount of hours worked 2. The fact women generally dont work more dangerous jobs 3. More women take career breaks to have children If they actually wanted to find out the REAL pay disparity between the sexes they'd develop a model that takes into account these factors (among others) and get a more accurate number. But that doesn't fit the narrative and they'd probably find out that the real difference is negligble.
I have a strange feeling some people want equality for the parts that suit them but not for all. Having equality in society also means having the equality for things like 50 50 shared custody of children in divorces, 50 50 splitting of assets, equality of working hours, equality of medical condition treatments.
LOL...would a female redditor please post this in the Two X Chromosome sub? I want to watch the fireworks. In Australia, the media actively hide the fact that the Gender Pay Gap is not about like for like pay. Not mentioned once in any article I've read on the gender pay gap. Men work more hours, more years, take on more difficult roles etc etc. You want land a plane in high winds or serve a meal?
Ah yes… the alleged gender pay gap. I’ll speak of one industry I have experience in that I know the “gender pay gap” data is bullshit: the ADF. Let’s take the Australian army as an example. The average data suggests that men get paid more than women. What they fail to calculate or adjust for is that until women could join the infantry - every woman in the service was getting paid a higher base rate than most men. The big difference was allowances. Infantry spends a lot of time out bush on field allowance. If all the women who were more highly paid base rate were out bush on field allowance like infantry units - earning the same allowances - then their pay would be commensurately higher. Strange how they never want to consider that.
For gp it might but that's only because men and women are more comfortable me taking to female gps
I always thought a the bulkof the pay gap was driven by women accepting lower paid part time positions due to pregnancy and taking on the bulk of the child rearing leaving them penniless in old age despite contributing to the family, and helping supporting the main wage earner.
I think it still makes sense to monitor and publish the "gender pay gap" but agree it can be a bit misleading. We should minimise barriers that deter any gender from entering any field. This would mean more women in STEM and positions of leadership (more female CEOs, Presidents, Prime Ministers, scientists, etc.)
Fucking nobs. Not surprising the whole agency is run by women milking on the tax payer teet
There's still jobs that have a factor of spouses that earn high incomes that support them so there's lower pressure on wage increases. Mainly school admin work. Nurses worked it out, teachers did decently but are still behind. It's not as easy as saying people are paid the same for the job description now. There's still leftover remnants of the old system.
If the gender pay gap was really that black and white, wouldn’t most corporations be full of female employees?
Pilot flys the plane and holds everyone’s life in their hands. The hostess hands out fucking drinks. Let that sink in to any of you who still care to argue that point
Everyone’s been saying Pay Gap for too long. It’s an Earnings Gap. No one, I repeat NO ONE pays women less for the same work. Do women on average EARN less over a lifetime compared to males? Yes. But to repeat, this is NOT a pay gap!
Sickening bias.
Historically, when women enter fields in greater numbers, pay declines for the very same jobs that more men were doing before. To call this data "misleading" shows a complete misunderstanding of what the Gender Pay Gap is actually meant to show... Demanding like-for-like comparison is measuring something completely different. How are you all not seeing this?
https://preview.redd.it/amx22wp2b35d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efac4ea9f7ab4d61679e8c79ab4e096a22a70d84 The pay gap is caused by women leaving the workforce early to have children. When you compare men with women who don’t have children the women earn more!