Equal Pay Day

[Tacenda]

April 12th is Equal Pay Day.  Women make 67 cents for every 1.00 a man makes in Utah, the national average is 79 cents on the dollar.  Utah is the 2nd worst state in the nation.  Why is that?  Maybe this belongs in another forum, Mods feel free to move it if so.  

Edited April 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Women make 67 cents for every 1.00 a man makes, the national average is 79 cents on the dollar.  Utah is the 2nd worst state in the nation.  Why is that?  Maybe this belongs in another forum, Mods feel free to move it if so.  

These sorts of statistics look bad, until we ask the hard questions.

Do women make 67 cents in the dollar compared to men in the same jobs, with the same qualifications and the same seniority?

There might still be a pay gap even when you control for the variables, but it's unlikely to be that high. But you can't get any relevant comparisons if you're comparing male CEO's with waitresses.

And especially if you are including non-earning people when doing the calculations. (Eg. the total amount earned by 1 million men was $X, the total amount earned by 1 million women was $Y, and they didn't exclude stay-at-home mothers from the sample.)

Everyone I know of is in favour of equal pay, as long as it's for equal work.

 

[Rain]

Some of the lowest paid teachers in the nation are in Utah. Many women choose that profession to be with their children during vacations.  There is one reason for you. 

There are women paid less for the same jobs.  Years ago my husband was really angry because everyone on his team would get a raise or are paid a certain amount except the lone woman who had as much experience and was one of better workers.  So that does go on. It's just good to find out if that is a problem first. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Rain

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

Some of the lowest paid teachers in the nation are in Utah. Many women choose that profession to be with their children during vacations.  There is one reason for you. 

There are women paid less for the same jobs.  Years ago my husband was really angry because everyone on his team would get a raise or are paid a certain amount except the loan woman who had as much experience and was one of better workers.  So that does go on. It's just good to find out if that is a problem first. 

There is some good news...I heard on the radio today that women in the technical field are earning more than men.  The reason...they asked for more.  I wish I had more details than that, but the radio didn't give much.  

Thanks for you input!  Very sad that these women are doing the same work and not getting the raise or equal pay, especially teachers, they're already underpaid.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There is some good news...I heard on the radio today that women in the technical field are earning more than men.

So when men earn more than women, that's bad, and when women earn more than men, that's good?

What does the expression "double standards" suggest to you?

ETA: Which "technical field?" There are hundreds.

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Tacenda]

Just now, Russell C McGregor said:

So when men earn more than women, that's bad, and when women earn more than men, that's good?

What does the expression "double standards" suggest to you?

 

I guess...ya got me there.  It's like when the underdog wins.  

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess...ya got me there.  It's like when the underdog wins.  

Or maybe it's like when your team wins, whether they're "the underdog" or not.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Or maybe it's like when your team wins, whether they're "the underdog" or not.

I guess.  But the facts are there that men earn more for the same job.  These facts are all over the place Russell.  ETA:  Even in the technical field.  I dont know where the guy on the radio was getting his info from.  

Edited April 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[PeterPear]

Luke 3:14

[sjdawg]

I can tell you that my organization (Houston based Global Company) men dominate the leadership positions and the salary increases.   I took over managing a group and there was a woman who had been employed for 24 years with the company and had not received a salary increment in 10 years (not even cost of living).  yes, she was a not a super high potential employee but she was loyal, hard working, and reliable.   She cried when I told her we were increasing her salary by 10% (the most I could get approved for her.   Over 2-3 years I did my best to level out the salary structure in the department but it was a big job.

[PeterPear]

 

11 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I can tell you that my organization (Houston based Global Company) men dominate the leadership positions and the salary increases.   I took over managing a group and there was a woman who had been employed for 24 years with the company and had not received a salary increment in 10 years (not even cost of living).  yes, she was a not a super high potential employee but she was loyal, hard working, and reliable.   She cried when I told her we were increasing her salary by 10% (the most I could get approved for her.   Over 2-3 years I did my best to level out the salary structure in the department but it was a big job.

10 years? What a clown of a company. 

Good for you.

Edited April 13, 2016 by PeterPear

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

I can tell you that my organization (Houston based Global Company) men dominate the leadership positions and the salary increases.   I took over managing a group and there was a woman who had been employed for 24 years with the company and had not received a salary increment in 10 years (not even cost of living).  yes, she was a not a super high potential employee but she was loyal, hard working, and reliable.   She cried when I told her we were increasing her salary by 10% (the most I could get approved for her.   Over 2-3 years I did my best to level out the salary structure in the department but it was a big job.

Well done.

[saemo]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

April 12th is Equal Pay Day.  Women make 67 cents for every 1.00 a man makes in Utah, the national average is 79 cents on the dollar.  Utah is the 2nd worst state in the nation.  Why is that?  Maybe this belongs in another forum, Mods feel free to move it if so.  

There's a lot of studies quoted in the news today, and over the past several weeks. What I found most fascinating is that, as women enter in large groups into traditionally male dominated jobs, the pay decreases for men in those jobs. Conversely, when men in large groups enter into traditional female jobs, the pay increases for those jobs. For example, computer programming was once viewed as a menial task, when it was dominated by women. Now it's dominated by men and has a good amount of prestige associated to it. For researchers, this suggests that there is still work viewed as "women's work" and women's work is viewed as having less value. 

Teaching is traditionally a field dominated by women, and has associated lower pay because it is dominated by women. 

In Utah, the Utah legislature funds public education as though it is a secondary concern to anything and everything else. More teachers are needed in Utah, as Utah has a young demographic, compared to many other states who require fewer teachers and are funded better by their legislatures.

 

[saemo]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

These sorts of statistics look bad, until we ask the hard questions.

Do women make 67 cents in the dollar compared to men in the same jobs, with the same qualifications and the same seniority?

There might still be a pay gap even when you control for the variables, but it's unlikely to be that high. But you can't get any relevant comparisons if you're comparing male CEO's with waitresses.

And especially if you are including non-earning people when doing the calculations. (Eg. the total amount earned by 1 million men was $X, the total amount earned by 1 million women was $Y, and they didn't exclude stay-at-home mothers from the sample.)

Everyone I know of is in favour of equal pay, as long as it's for equal work.

 

Research by Claudia Goldin, a Harvard economist, has found that a pay gap persists within occupations. Female physicians, for instance, earn 71 percent of what male physicians earn, and lawyers earn 82 percent.
It happens across professions: This month, the union that represents Dow Jones journalists announced that its female members working full time at Dow Jones publications made 87 cents for every dollar earned by their full-time male colleagues.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-the-real-reason-women-still-get-paid-less-20160412-story.html

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

These sorts of statistics look bad, until we ask the hard questions.

Do women make 67 cents in the dollar compared to men in the same jobs, with the same qualifications and the same seniority?

There might still be a pay gap even when you control for the variables, but it's unlikely to be that high. But you can't get any relevant comparisons if you're comparing male CEO's with waitresses.

And especially if you are including non-earning people when doing the calculations. (Eg. the total amount earned by 1 million men was $X, the total amount earned by 1 million women was $Y, and they didn't exclude stay-at-home mothers from the sample.)

Everyone I know of is in favour of equal pay, as long as it's for equal work.

The gap lessens a little when you account for differences in job type but not much. The pay gap is much higher for minority women.

Equal pay for equal work? Never understood the concept. I work 40-45 hours a week and make a nice upper end of the middle class income. My job can be stressful but I like my coworkers and take satisfaction in my job. A single mother working two low-paying jobs and working 60-70 hours a week is probably making about half or less of what I do and in much less comfortable and satisfying work. Is that equal pay for equal work?

I agree with a comment made by Nibley. If we could invent a machine that measures the effort put into work the whole idea that capitalism is a meritocracy the whole philosophy would collapse overnight.

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, PeterPear said:

 

10 years? What a clown of a company. 

Good for you.

I think part of the issue was a company culture that said if your employees aren't demanding increases then don't give any out.   she wasn't the type to complain and so her compensation was easily ignored.

[sjdawg]

I wonder if part of it is the different expectations at times put on Wife's and Husbands at home.  What I mean is that although my wife is highly educated and could earn an very nice wage (likely more than me) if she goes to make her career her primary focus we have chosen to sacrifice a higher salary for increased flexibility.   She has a slightly reduced salary but huge flexibility (she works her own hours and from our home). That flexibility allows me the freedom to work longer hours as required and enhance my ability to secure promotions and increase my earning potential.

If we reversed roles and I took on the enhanced flexibility in my schedule (picking up kids, looking after sick kids) and she focused primarily on her career there is no doubt in my mind that she would be extremely well paid

[Stargazer]

It is illegal in most places (such as the USA) to pay women less than men for the same job at the same experience level.  Not saying that no employer never violates the law.

But there are certain facts that cannot be disputed.  The most important is the fact that women stay home and raise children far more than men do.  I'm a computer programmer, and a programmer of either gender who leaves the profession for just five years and who then comes back has lost five years of experience and will not (generally) come back at the same pay level he or she had when he or she left -- simply because the profession undergoes radical changes in five years.  I have fifteen years experience programming COBOL in an IBM mainframe environment.  But that experience is now fifteen years out of date -- and although not that much has changed in COBOL mainframe technology in that time, it would take me months and perhaps an entire year to get back into my previous level of expertise.  Only an idiot employer would pay me the same amount that the others with fifteen years experience are getting.  Because I wouldn't be worth it.  It doesn't matter what my sex is.  I would be surprised if this weren't true in other professions as well.

Payscale.com says: "Do Men Really Earn More Than Women? Yes, men do earn more than women on average, but not that much more when they work the same job and they have similar experience and abilities."

Have a look at what they found: http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

Oh, and guess what, I haven't been promoted at the same rate as many women in my organization (women who have similar and less experience than I have), and there are a number of them who make much more than I.  The main reason for this is because I have not been asking for raises -- and because I didn't want the supervisory role that the higher payscales generally required!  I am content to write computer code and don't really want to be a lead developer.  So I get paid less than the ladies who have moved on to supervisory positions.  Even though I can program rings around them!

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

These sorts of statistics look bad, until we ask the hard questions.

Do women make 67 cents in the dollar compared to men in the same jobs, with the same qualifications and the same seniority?

There might still be a pay gap even when you control for the variables, but it's unlikely to be that high. But you can't get any relevant comparisons if you're comparing male CEO's with waitresses.

And especially if you are including non-earning people when doing the calculations. (Eg. the total amount earned by 1 million men was $X, the total amount earned by 1 million women was $Y, and they didn't exclude stay-at-home mothers from the sample.)

Everyone I know of is in favour of equal pay, as long as it's for equal work.

Let's hope the social scientists were at least smart enough to exclude non-working people from the sample. Otherwise, yes, it would be a farce. 

The problem with data like this is it implies something that probably isn't there. It implies, if one chooses the use it one way, that Utah employers (and therefore Mormon employers... and therefore Mormons) are a bunch of misogynists who choose to degrade women by paying them less... which is almost certainly nonsense.

There is likely a scientific reason that is not based on prejudice behind these differences in Utah vs rest of USA that has not been weighted out of the data. 

I've not checked the other data, but the types of things that could influence this would include:

- fewer women than average completing college education (graduates are paid less)

- fewer women than average staying in the same company or industry from a sustained period of time due to child care choices (loyalty to to company or industry can result in higher pay)

- fewer women than average taking jobs that require long hours or more than average taking part time roles, again for family reasons (jobs with higher salaries tend to have an "always on" requirement)

- More women than average choosing to take a less pressured job in order to support the husband as "chief earner," for cultural reasons

All of the above would or could lead to women earning less in Utah vs men than other states. The culture/doctrine of the church might lead women (or couples) to make decisions like the above which would result in a bigger wage gap. 

So while there might be a cultural cause to a bigger gap, it's not necessarily flagging something more sinister. 

On the other hand, the gender pay gap (for the same role, experience etc) tends to continue to be a reality in most countries that I believe, like you Russell, should be eliminated if proven. 

What I'm not clear on is whether you accept evidence that there is a gender pay gap at all (setting aside the likely red herring of the Utah gap).

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, canard78 said:

- fewer women than average completing college education (graduates are paid less)

- fewer women than average staying in the same company or industry from a sustained period of time due to child care choices (loyalty to to company or industry can result in higher pay)

- fewer women than average taking jobs that require long hours or more than average taking part time roles, again for family reasons (jobs with higher salaries tend to have an "always on" requirement)

- More women than average choosing to take a less pressured job in order to support the husband as "chief earner," for cultural reasons

All of the above would or could lead to women earning less in Utah vs men than other states. The culture/doctrine of the church might lead women (or couples) to make decisions like the above which would result in a bigger wage gap. 

So while there might be a cultural cause to a bigger gap, it's not necessarily flagging something more sinister. 

On the other hand, the gender pay gap (for the same role, experience etc) tends to continue to be a reality in most countries that I believe, like you Russell, should be eliminated if proven. 

What I'm not clear on is whether you accept evidence that there is a gender pay gap at all (setting aside the likely red herring of the Utah gap).

It is not true that fewer women are completing college.  It is a fact that women are the majority in the undergrad population.

And among other stats, black women earn far more than their male counterparts.

[strappinglad]

If you REALLY want to open a can of worms , there was a push from activists where I live to not just demand equal pay for equal work but for " equal pay for work of equal value " . Imagine the size of the bureaucracy needed to build the regulations enforcing THAT !

[canard78]

44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It is not true that fewer women are completing college.  It is a fact that women are the majority in the undergrad population.

And among other stats, black women earn far more than their male counterparts.

I was talking about the potential reasons why Utah's gender pay gap is wider than in other states. 

The gender gap is narrowing, but remains in Utah:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865570749/Utahs-college-gender-gap-shrinking-but-state-lags-behind-nation-in-earning-degrees.html?pg=all

Besides, graduations "today" have little impact on a pay gap. Most people in the job market earned their degrees years (or even decades) ago... especially the highest earners. What was the Utah graduation gender gap in the 90s and 00s? If it was greater than the U.S. average then that will, in part, be having an effect on the gender wage gap today. 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

There is some good news...I heard on the radio today that women in the technical field are earning more than men.  The reason...they asked for more.  I wish I had more details than that, but the radio didn't give much.  

Thanks for you input!  Very sad that these women are doing the same work and not getting the raise or equal pay, especially teachers, they're already underpaid.

I may not have been clear.  I don't know of female teachers being paid less. I was talking about a job in manufacturing where a woman was getting paid less. I was trying to say I know it does happen at times, but that there are other factors that could go into women being paid less in those stats other than equal pay for equal work ideas.  One of those factors may be that Utah needs more teachers because of the young population, but the teacher career appeals to women more. It is important to pull out the reasons because of what canard was talking about.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, saemo said:

There's a lot of studies quoted in the news today, and over the past several weeks. What I found most fascinating is that, as women enter in large groups into traditionally male dominated jobs, the pay decreases for men in those jobs. Conversely, when men in large groups enter into traditional female jobs, the pay increases for those jobs. For example, computer programming was once viewed as a menial task, when it was dominated by women. Now it's dominated by men and has a good amount of prestige associated to it.

When was computer programming dominated by women? I never saw such a time.

What I've seen is that when I started in IT, women programmers were as scarce as hen's teeth, but there's a lot more of them now.

The earliest programming was all done in machine code, and women were hardly seen.

What was seen was that there was a lot of "electronic data processing" back in the day, and there were lots of women involved in that. They would sit at a terminal and simply punch in numbers from paper forms. It was mind-numbingly horrible work, and it has thankfully disappeared. No doubt those women weren't paid very well; in fact, they were often paid by the number of keystrokes per hour (just to give you an idea of the kind of work it was.)

I'm inclined to take with a grain of salt "studies" that seem to show an ideological bias.

4 hours ago, saemo said:

 For researchers, this suggests that there is still work viewed as "women's work" and women's work is viewed as having less value. 

Teaching is traditionally a field dominated by women, and has associated lower pay because it is dominated by women. 

In Utah, the Utah legislature funds public education as though it is a secondary concern to anything and everything else. More teachers are needed in Utah, as Utah has a young demographic, compared to many other states who require fewer teachers and are funded better by their legislatures.

I've heard similar stories from others.

But again, back in the day, there were a lot more men in the teaching profession. Were teachers paid more then?

 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

Let's hope the social scientists were at least smart enough to exclude non-working people from the sample. Otherwise, yes, it would be a farce. 

The problem with data like this is it implies something that probably isn't there. It implies, if one chooses the use it one way, that Utah employers (and therefore Mormon employers... and therefore Mormons) are a bunch of misogynists who choose to degrade women by paying them less... which is almost certainly nonsense.

There is likely a scientific reason that is not based on prejudice behind these differences in Utah vs rest of USA that has not been weighted out of the data. 

I've not checked the other data, but the types of things that could influence this would include:

- fewer women than average completing college education (graduates are paid less)

- fewer women than average staying in the same company or industry from a sustained period of time due to child care choices (loyalty to to company or industry can result in higher pay)

- fewer women than average taking jobs that require long hours or more than average taking part time roles, again for family reasons (jobs with higher salaries tend to have an "always on" requirement)

- More women than average choosing to take a less pressured job in order to support the husband as "chief earner," for cultural reasons

All of the above would or could lead to women earning less in Utah vs men than other states. The culture/doctrine of the church might lead women (or couples) to make decisions like the above which would result in a bigger wage gap. 

So while there might be a cultural cause to a bigger gap, it's not necessarily flagging something more sinister. 

On the other hand, the gender pay gap (for the same role, experience etc) tends to continue to be a reality in most countries that I believe, like you Russell, should be eliminated if proven. 

What I'm not clear on is whether you accept evidence that there is a gender pay gap at all (setting aside the likely red herring of the Utah gap).

I think there probably is one. However, I also think that people with an agenda to push may tend to inflate the statistics to make their case seem more compelling.

I'd be interested to know if, for example, the set of all fifty-year-old lifelong career CPA's shows a statistically significant gender divide in salaries.

IOW, control for the variables, and see what happens then.

I suspect that there might still be one; but I'd be mightily surprised if it was as many percentage points as are talked about in the OP.

I suspect that the OP is talking about an overall earning ratio, which is influenced by many factors, as you pointed out.

So, IOW, the numbers are skewed by the fact that they are comparing the salaries of airline pilots with those of flight attendants. Or forty-year career employees with returning-to-the-workforce mothers.