The debate "Men and women should be paid equally and based on how well they do the job" was started by
September 26, 2019, 5:30 am.
140 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 36 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
JDAWG9693 posted 3 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, Aryaman999 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
emzy101, JDAWG9693, TheExistentialist, Alina, Hailey, sn0wman02, Priyan_shiii00, Shrivali_16, haphil1992, marky, Lind, K1VK2DF, Lynn, sajjath, Mice, Agrumentman, Thinkinghead, Unaluhabe, TRUELOVE, prince, tyler0300 and 119 visitors agree.
Aryaman999 and 35 visitors disagree.
salary or wages should be Strictly according to the post and performance.
when the word employ comes you don't see Woman or Man
you see an employee
what doesn't matter is how much a man and woman make annually (unless it's salary). What matters for the wage question is how much can and woman make hourly in the same position, and are they allowed to work the same number of hours. The answer to both is yes. Men often work more hours, after more likely to take dangerous jobs, and are more likely to be on call and are more aggressive in negotiations; all of which lead to more money.
If you did a little more digging you'd see that the pay rate is different for men and women in the same profession including female dominated professions like Nursing, Teaching, etc... the talking point your using is simply false and real life data proves it. Scroll down a few comments and you'll see I provided the data already.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's not happening. Currently there is no wage transparency law, so you wouldn't know if a woman is making more or less than a man in any given job even if they have the same experience and education. Under the current law, you have to prove that the pay discrepancy is due to the fact that the employee is a woman. It's a pretty hard thing to prove if the company simply doesn't openly acknowledge that they are paying someone less because of their sex.
Uh oh, controversial opinion alert. But it is literally illegal to pay a man more than a woman. How the statistics were made is that they averaged out men and womens' saleries without taking into account the person's lifestyle, how women prefer to do more creative jobs or 'safer' jobs or how they take more vaction time etc.
It's not a conflation of the issue as there are multiple effects of promotions in terms of the data we get when it comes to pay gaps.
In nursing for example; a charge RN gets bonus pay for being a charge, however it's not a true "promotion" as the title doesn't change. The same goes for CNC's; additional responsibilities, no change in title, but slight pay increase. The same is the case for many healthcare jobs such as Respiratory Therapist, Cardiac Tech, etc... where "lead tech" positions are a thing, which are reflected in the pay via bonuses but not in the job title itself.
Furthermore, being more represented in higher paying positions allows for more data points for males in management positions. This means there is a higher likelihood of more data points coming from fortune 500 companies for males as opposed to women who will have less data points from big firms.
in terms of education; school administration is usually lumped into a single category, however, there is a large pay difference from principal to superintendent, etc... If more men are employed in administration, then again this affects the averages as they'll have more data points from higher paying admin positions.
refusal to hire or promote are seperate issues from the pay gap and are completely criminal. if fewer women are hired to a certain position, that doesnt change the average wages of the few women that do get the position. and if women arent being promoted, that doesnt change their pay in their current position. you are conflating issues.
as i said before, whether or not the problem is as described, i like their solutions. they arent imposing massive changes but just the release of information.
I agree that there are likely social aspects to the gender pay gap. However, biology is a factor. There is no way that the disproportionate child rearing roles impact pay for women, both in terms of being less desirable (a start-up probably would prefer to hire a male rather than a female in their mid to late 20's due to the risk of pregnancy impacting their performance) and being less likely to get a promotion. While it's illegal to openly do this, it's hard to imagine that it's not an unspoken consideration in at least some corporations.
I'd also argue that the same problems that are faced by women in the pay issue, affect men as well (just not on as large a scale). I'd argue that things like transparent wage models, transparent raise structures, etc... will be beneficial for everyone. I don't think we need to worry too much about increasing discrimination laws etc.... I think the ones we have on the books are fine. However, what we do need is a method of getting employees the information they need to make good employment decisions.
it isn't just OT, it could be psychological or cultural not on the part of the employers, but in the way men and women act in our society. it is pretty established that women dont negotiate well for themselves. they do much better when negotiating for others, but that isn't currently how negotiations work.
similarly the same drive that limits their negotiation aggressiveness can limit their willingness to holdout for better employment offers, or actively seek better offers during employment. I wouldn't agree with such speculation, but it seems reasonable in light of the negotiation revelation. appears to be the exact same type of behavior.
obviously the pay gap exists, I'm questioning whether it is due to bias or personal choices. and whether the solution is regulatory, social (the way we raise the genders), or if its just natural.
The issue is that most companies keep the wages their paying employees secret, they don't openly disclose pay scales for experience, time with company, education, performance evals, etc...
This is an issue as it perpetuates the gender pay gap. I know @Nemiroff is a little doubtful that it exists. However, the data says it does. These numbers are from female dominated industries. These are averages from the US as a whole with thousands of data points. This means there is no experience gap, education gap etc... for women vs men in terms of salary.
Elementary/middle school teachers weekly earnings: Women: $982 Men: $1148 That means women (on average) earn 14.5% less than males.
Nursing (weekly earnings): Women: $1156 Men: $1271 Meaning women earn 9% less than males
Education administrators (weekly earnings): Women: $1245 Men: $1563 Meaning they earn 20.3% less
Here are more examples:
Now; the argument that I've seen come up before is that of OT and the fact that women pick up less OT than men in general. However, teaching is a salaried position and thus isn't affected by OT. If we look at salaried RN's we can still see a large wage gap.
Male RNs make an average of about $84,000 annually vs. $80,000 for women.
When paid by salary, men made $89,000 vs. $81,000 for their female counterparts.
Of those paid on an hourly rate, male RNs made $82,000 a year vs. $78,000 for women.
Having published pay scales and published merit-based-raise options would eliminate a lot of this discrimination. If a company said that job x with 3 years of experience pays 50k, 5 years experience 55K etc.... would go a long way to decrease this gap. Furthermore, using a numerical rubric for job performance and then tying that number to a fixed dollar amount or fixed percentage raise would also help eliminate the gender pay gap. The issue is that companies don't like transparency in their wages as it costs them money. Forcing employers to breakdown their payscale and fully disclosing it would be beneficial not just to women, but anyone seeking new employment. It would actually allow for accurate market research when deciding where you want to work and it would give you a negotiating position when requesting a pay raise from a company you've been with for a while. You can present actual market data for your industry and argue that you are worth more now than you were when you started.
what exactly is the problem you are suggesting? that different careers pay differently? should all professions be paid the same despite vastly different requirments and availability?
im not sure i understand the problem or any potential solution.
How does one compare an engineer to a nurse? The point is to compare a nurse to a nurse and an engineer to an engineer
Because different jobs monetize merit differently. Paying a nurse and an engineer on merit creates unequal pay.
im unsure about the validity of the gender pay gap, but i find the solutions put forth by feminists are very reasonable and good regardless of validity.
having open salary knowledge will help promote equity and motivation.
How could a pay based on merit possibly be unequal if it's actually based on job performance?
What happens if basing pay on merit turns out to be unequal though?