In Italy, Economy and Law Leave Many Single Fathers Broke and Homeless

[volinbham]

But, there are studies that look at tenure in a position and there is no way that the discrepancies in tenure (which are all less than 10%) can account for the larger discrepancies in wages (on average 22%; 32% for marketing).

Let's take sales for example. Typical high paying sales jobs require a substantial travel requirement. Territories expand, level of customer grows requiring considerable face to face time with increasingly major customers.

Women and men start at the same level or with women higher. What we do see is that men stay in those jobs longer and tolerate the lifestyle more than many women do. It's a poor lifestyle for raising a family unless there is a partner in the marriage that stays home (employed or not) while the spouse does the travel grind. Most frequently it is the woman that stays home rather than the man.


In general, I think it's overly simplistic to attribute differences in pay to gender discrimination. I'm sure gender discrimination occurs but there are so many other causes for differences in pay between men and women that focusing only on chromosome pairings as the reason doesn't lead to much other than victimization.

 

[therealUT]

Let's take sales for example. Typical high paying sales jobs require a substantial travel requirement. Territories expand, level of customer grows requiring considerable face to face time with increasingly major customers.

Women and men start at the same level or with women higher. What we do see is that men stay in those jobs longer and tolerate the lifestyle more than many women do. It's a poor lifestyle for raising a family unless there is a partner in the marriage that stays home (employed or not) while the spouse does the travel grind. Most frequently it is the woman that stays home rather than the man.


In general, I think it's overly simplistic to attribute differences in pay to gender discrimination. I'm sure gender discrimination occurs but there are so many other causes for differences in pay between men and women that focusing only on chromosome pairings as the reason doesn't lead to much other than victimization.

How is your second paragraph not an example of discrimination? "In general, women are going to want families" is a gender-based "justification". It is not treating the individual as such; it is treating one and paying one as regards the "general" actions of their group.

 

[therealUT]

how in the world is it indefensible? There is a wage gap and presumably none on the short end of the stick is indentured. To the extent that accepting the inequity is voluntary, it is absolutely defensible. My job in hiring is to minimize the pay I put out to effectively get the job done. If someone is willing to accept what I offer, I'm willing to employ them.

It is absolutely indefensible if you begin negotiations at a lower figure for women than for men (which has been investigated and documented to be the case).

 

[volinbham]

How is your second paragraph not an example of discrimination? "In general, women are going to want families" is a gender-based "justification". It is not treating the individual as such; it is treating one and paying one as regards the "general" actions of their group.

they shouldn't be paid different because they want to have families. if they actually leave the workforce or balk at travel requirements because of a family then it is performance based not gender based.

same would be true for a guy that decided to be Mr. Mom for a few years or didn't work 60+ hours a week because he wants to go to his kid's soccer game.

The data problem is that it includes people that did leave the work force or do have a different work/family balance and more often than not that is the female more than the male so the impact is seen in the aggregate data.

Short answer, it's not always apples to apples comparisons but the aggregated outcome data suggests it is.

Even if it were only pay for performance I bet you would still see a difference at the aggregate because of lifestyle choices that tend to apply differently between the genders. I see nothing wrong with that.

I think there is very little pay difference all else being equal (effort, experience, lifestyle choices, etc.) based purely on companies thinking women should be paid less than men. The problem is that seems to be the theme whenever the topic is brought up.

 

[therealUT]

they shouldn't be paid different because they want to have families. if they actually leave the workforce or balk at travel requirements because of a family then it is performance based not gender based.

same would be true for a guy that decided to be Mr. Mom for a few years or didn't work 60+ hours a week because he wants to go to his kid's soccer game.

The data problem is that it includes people that did leave the work force or do have a different work/family balance and more often than not that is the female more than the male so the impact is seen in the aggregate data.

Short answer, it's not always apples to apples comparisons but the aggregated outcome data suggests it is.

Even if it were only pay for performance I bet you would still see a difference at the aggregate because of lifestyle choices that tend to apply differently between the genders. I see nothing wrong with that.

I think there is very little pay difference all else being equal (effort, experience, lifestyle choices, etc.) based purely on companies thinking women should be paid less than men. The problem is that seems to be the theme whenever the topic is brought up.

How have I not addressed this point you are trying to make by referring to gender gap and tenure in position data? I can easily provide the link once I am back at my apartment; however, the difference in tenure in position for males and females is less than 10% across the board; yet, the wage gap is over 22% and over 32% in your industry.

Moreover, you have made the argument that the wage gap is due more to it both being grandfathered in and to circumstances that occur post hiring (leaving the workforce, working less hours, etc.) However, the data on starting salaries and gender gaps does not support your point. In fact, the gap in starting salaries is actually growing (not receding as many claim). Maybe marketing is different; however, I am not inclined to trust your anecdotal evidence as evidence that such is happening across the board and across the country.

Of course, this chart does not explain different industries and different positions, but the following provides starting salary discrepancies for the same industry and positions (physicians):

Newly trained physicians who are women are being paid significantly lower salaries than their male counterparts, according to a new study published in the February issue of Health Affairs, released today. The authors identify an unexplained gender gap in starting salaries for physicians that has been growing steadily since 1999, increasing from a difference of $3,600 in 1999 to $16,819 in 2008. This gap exists even after accounting for gender differences in determinants of salary including medical specialty, hours worked, and practice type, say the authors.
The authors based their conclusions on survey data from physicians exiting training programs in New York State, which is home to more residency programs and resident physicians than any other state in the country (1,073 programs, according to data assembled by the Association of American Medical Colleges). The number of physicians in the survey sample included 4,918 men and 3,315 women.
The study findings are especially significant since women represent nearly half of all US medical students and are projected to make up about one-third of all practicing physicians at the beginning of this coming decade. Women had lower starting salaries than men in nearly all specialties, according to Anthony Lo Sasso, a professor and senior research scientist at the School of Public Health of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and his coauthors. The gap grew steadily from 1999 to 2008. In 1999, new women physicians earned $151,600 on average compared to $173,400 for men—a 12.5 percent salary difference. That difference grew to nearly 17 percent by 2008, with women starting out at $174,000 compared to $209,300 for men.

Gender Gap In Starting Physician Salaries Is Growing – Health Affairs Blog

Again, I would like to see data to support your argument because I have never encountered any such data.

 

[YorkVol]

It is absolutely indefensible if you begin negotiations at a lower figure for women than for men (which has been investigated and documented to be the case).

It would be interesting to see a comparison of starting salaries for single vs married at different age levels. I would bet you would see more equality among singles than among married applicants. There is a natural assumption that a married man is the primary earner and the married woman is simply bringing in supplemental income. Shouldn't matter, but it is there.

I also think there is a certain amount of self selection at play.

 

[volinbham]

If there is a wage gap (to which every compilation of wage statistics points), then women do not have the same opportunities as men; i.e., women do not have the same opportunity to earn the same pay for the same positions.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

The Gender Pay Gap by Industry - NYTimes.com

The census data is highly aggregated. It compares the median wage of women vs the median wage of men. Clearly there are industry and occupational differences that account for much of this. Labor markets are quite sensitive to supply and demand. It also does not account for career length which we know is lower for women than men.

The NYTimes data is at least industry specific but it is not occupation specific.

Remember, though, that these figures are grouped by industry and not by occupation. Some of the gap within any given industry could be explained by the different types of jobs that men and women may go into, either by choice or opportunity (e.g., if they’re secretaries versus managers).

Interesting too from that article

since part-time female workers actually earn more than their male counterparts;

Neither of these sources establish that gender is the cause of pay differential.

 

[volinbham]

Again, I would like to see data to support your argument because I have never encountered any such data.

Here's an article with several references. Points to some conclusions that the true gender gap may be 5-7% (unexplained).

You'll see several studies referenced here that do show work/family balance choices, particular competency choices (eg. finance vs marketing), hours worked differences, etc.

You'll also see the problem with the aggregation and failure to compare apples to apples in many of the studies finding glaring gender pay gaps.

Why the Gender Gap Won't Go Away. Ever. by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Summer 2011

 

[therealUT]

Here's an article with several references.

Why the Gender Gap Won't Go Away. Ever. by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Summer 2011

It is interesting that she speaks of misleading statistics and then states the following, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever:

The Labor Department’s occupational categories can be so large that a woman could drive a truck through them. Among “physicians and surgeons,” for example, women make only 64.2 percent of what men make. Outrageous, right? Not if you consider that there are dozens of specialties in medicine: some, like cardiac surgery, require years of extra training, grueling hours, and life-and-death procedures; others, like pediatrics, are less demanding and consequently less highly rewarded. Only 16 percent of surgeons, but a full 50 percent of pediatricians, are women. So the statement that female doctors make only 64.2 percent of what men make is really on the order of a tautology, much like saying that a surgeon working 50 hours a week makes significantly more than a pediatrician working 37.

Yet, if you look at the study by Sasso, Richards, Chou, and Gerber, you will see the following:

Physician Starting Salaries Over Time, Mean And Controlling For Observable Characteristics, By Gender, Selected Years 1999–2008

SOURCE Authors’ calculations from New York State Survey of Residents Completing Training, 1999–2003, 2005, 2007–08. NOTES Sample included 4,918 men and 3,315 women. Salary included base plus anticipated incentive compensation, adjusted for inflation using the 2008 Consumer Price Index. Dotted rules in each color portray adjusted findings, controlled as follows. Ordinary least squares regression controlled for specialty (45 categories), race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, foreign medical graduate status, whether medical degree or doctor of osteopathy degree, educational debt, Health Professional Shortage Area work obligation, practice type, location type, patient care hours, year, and salary top-coding.

So, at least for this study (in which there is still a 17% starting salary gender wage gap), everything that Hymowitz attempts to use in order to state that their is little to no gender gap is controlled for.

 

[BigPapaVol]

It is absolutely indefensible if you begin negotiations at a lower figure for women than for men (which has been investigated and documented to be the case).

makes no sense whatsoever. Those hiring get paid to make decisions. If they make decisions that generate more expense than necessary, they get replaced.

 

[therealUT]

makes no sense whatsoever. Those hiring get paid to make decisions. If they make decisions that generate more expense than necessary, they get replaced.

Nice dodge. Do you think that offering a woman less money to do a job than you would offer a man is defensible?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

What in the heck does a gender wage gap have to do with men being driven to poverty thru divorce, alimony and child support, trUT? You haven't made anywhere close to a reasonable connection between the two.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Nice dodge. Do you think that offering a woman less money to do a job than you would offer a man is defensible?

How is it a dodge?

When it's my decision, I'm going to offer what I can to hire someone qualified to do the job - male, female or otherwise.

If I offer less, it's based upon many factors, none of which is based in gender.

To vbh's point, these comparisons do a horrendous job of comparing apples to apples and suspect that almost nobody in a hiring capacity, especially in hiring professionals even debates gender in the process.

 

[therealUT]

How is it a dodge?

When it's my decision, I'm going to offer what I can to hire someone qualified to do the job - male, female or otherwise.

If I offer less, it's based upon many factors, none of which is based in gender.

To vbh's point, these comparisons do a horrendous job of comparing apples to apples and suspect that almost nobody in a hiring capacity, especially in hiring professionals even debates gender in the process.

Once again, you have dodged. Do you think that offering a woman less money to do a job than you would offer a man is defensible?

 

[volved]

But, there are studies that look at tenure in a position and there is no way that the discrepancies in tenure (which are all less than 10%) can account for the larger discrepancies in wages (on average 22%; 32% for marketing).

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau.
Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women. Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety, according to Nemko.

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Once again, you have dodged. Do you think that offering a woman less money to do a job than you would offer a man is defensible?

what was the dodge? To the extent that the two are equally qualified, what I offer comes down to what it takes to get them on board and how that relates to my budget. If it's purely about gender, but I can get it done cheaper, then so be it. FYI, even then, it isn't about gender.

 

[therealUT]

what was the dodge? To the extent that the two are equally qualified, what I offer comes down to what it takes to get them on board and how that relates to my budget. If it's purely about gender, but I can get it done cheaper, then so be it. FYI, even then, it isn't about gender.

Still dodging. Do you think that offering a woman less money to do a job than you would offer a man is defensible?

It is a 'yes' or 'no' question. Do you want me to specifically unload it by stating, "all else being equal"? Fine. Just answer the question.

 

[therealUT]

What in the heck does a gender wage gap have to do with men being driven to poverty thru divorce, alimony and child support, trUT? You haven't made anywhere close to a reasonable connection between the two.

I have already made the connection, by stating that gender-based wage gaps mean that there are less earning opportunities for women. That said, courts are going to rule, especially in Italy where less than 50% of the women are even in the job market and those that are earn considerably less (the wage gap in Italy is much larger than it is in America), that the man should financially provide for the children.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Still dodging. Do you think that offering a woman less money to do a job than you would offer a man is defensible?

It is a 'yes' or 'no' question. Do you want me to specifically unload it by stating, "all else being equal"? Fine. Just answer the question.

It's absolutely defensible if it works, period. In hiring, my job is to minimize outlay. If I get the job done right for less money, I won. There is no debate about it. You can make it about gender all you like, but it's a financial question.

 

[therealUT]

It's absolutely defensible if it works, period. In hiring, my job is to minimize outlay. If I get the job done right for less money, I won. There is no debate about it. You can make it about gender all you like, but it's a financial question.

Offering a woman less money than a man, all else being equal, is nothing more than discriminating based on gender. The justification is absolutely indefensible. If it were purely a "financial question" than you would low-ball both the man and the woman, again all else being equal, with the exact same offer.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Offering a woman less money than a man, all else being equal, is nothing more than discriminating based on gender. The justification is absolutely indefensible. If it were purely a "financial question" than you would low-ball both the man and the woman, again all else being equal, with the exact same offer.

If qualifications are similar and one will take less money, the idea of equal is stupid. Keep pushing that rope, but your hypothetical is meaningless.

Frankly, I would lowball both and take the cheaper of the two options. I would also likely negotiate both to the point of an agreement and take the cheaper, regardless of gender.

For the record, there is absolutely no such thing as "all else being equal," which is vbh's point about apples to apples.

 

[therealUT]

If qualifications are similar and one will take less money, the idea of equal is stupid. Keep pushing that rope, but your hypothetical is meaningless.

Frankly, I would lowball both and take the cheaper of the two options. I would also likely negotiate both to the point of an agreement and take the cheaper, regardless of gender.

Thank you for finally responding to the question. Your approach then, based upon the highlighted portion of your answer, is not gender-biased. This is not the norm though as reported and documented after numerous investigations.

For the record, there is absolutely no such thing as "all else being equal," which is vbh's point about apples to apples.

In that case, we should just completely abandon the entire notion of comparison. Of course, there are studies and investigations that have found that when "all else is equal" (i.e., transcripts, work experience, letters of reference, etc.) but simply the individual is replaced by a female, the initial wage and salary offers decrease.

Of course, that is not completely equal. The name is different, the pitch of their vocals is different, their hairstyle is different, their clothes are different, etc., ad nauseum.

 

[KentheOrange]

TRUT, you are like one of my children, or grandchildren. BPV answered your question 15 times and you only heard it once.

 

[therealUT]

TRUT, you are like one of my children, or grandchildren. BPV answered your question 15 times and you only heard it once.

He responded multiple times; he answered once.

 

[KentheOrange]

Like I said.