Slashdot Mirror
How To Close the Gender Pay Gap By 2044 (fastcompany.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article on FastCompany: The wage gap in developing countries could be reduced by 35% by 2030 and eliminated by 2044, according to a new report from consultancy Accenture. But in order achieve pay parity, women need to be more involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, the report notes. But, workplaces will have to change too. One of the biggest barriers to women attaining equal pay is that many women don't work full-time. They take part-time jobs in order to balance responsibilities at home or within a family -- work that is generally unpaid. If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time.
By all realistic studies it doesn't exist.
Studies showing the pay gap don't account for reduced hours, child birth, different professions, different career path, etc.
Time to get the popcorn, methinks.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Just pay all the male employee to become Gender:Curious.
Share toilets with women.
Piss sitting down.
Make America Great Again!
According to Slashdot, I thought robots will be doing 110% of jobs by 2024.
If every individual is free to make their own choices, why is it such a problem for the genders to have different roles in society?
Men should be more involved in nursing, hospitals and schools. Women should to be more involved as "garbage technician" and mechanic...
If you want to be part of it, then choose to be part of it like the rest of us business world men and women do. You aren't so special that the whole world is gonna rearrange itself for your schedule.
if the main reason is women not working full time 40 hours but that's what employers want, the discussion is over and nothing need be done. Cue the twitter SJW and their neckbeard manlette supporters, I've written something offensive.
Then anyone can use a urinal and the world will live in harmony.
I thought slashdot was news for nerds, stuff that matters!
But anyway, aside from taking extraordinary efforts to encourage women to go into high paying STEM fields as way to solve the "wage gap", there is also another way: encourage men to abandon high paying STEM fields and opt for lower paying fields like primary education and service jobs, and then pay them less than women for those jobs. See, I just fixed the wage gap! What could go wrong?
Boys still behind girls AT EVERY STAGE OF EDUCATION.
But for some reason the feminists talk about EQUALITY while only whining about women choosing the wrong courses, working fewer hours for fewer years and for some reason sometimes getting paid less.
[quote]One of the biggest barriers to women attaining equal pay is that many women don't work full-time. They take part-time jobs in order to balance responsibilities at home or within a family -- work that is generally unpaid. If workplaces provide more flexible schedules, allowing women to work 40 hours outside of a typical 9-5 schema, more women would be able to work full-time.[/quote]
Review the logic of that statement again... we take part time jobs to gain more time at home / with family... and then we should spend more of that time to work more to get 40 hours per week...
How about understanding that there's nothing wrong with not working full-time.
How about we start by getting countries to stop forcing women to get "circumcised", forcing them to cover their faces, denied the right to an education, and while we are at it, destroy the caste systems of countries. Seriously.
Women are still brutalized in a lot of places and lack the most basic of rights, and we first worlders focus on paychecks.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
If you compare men and women of equal skill, education, and experience, there is no gap. Fuck off with this bullshit.
The gender pay gap is a myth. If it really existed, nobody would hire men. Men work longer, and in much more dangerous jobs, and therefore make more money.
Do nothing, it doesn't exist.
Ahead of schedule and under budget.
If a woman can't work the standard 9-5 because of duties at home (raising kids is a more than fulltime job!) flextime just means she'll have two jobs: one paid and one unpaid. She'll be working +80 hours per week and so we'll still see a pay gap. If you want pay parity the only solution is to not have kids!
Speaking of insensitive, you forgot 2S. Be an ally to the gay Indians.
At SlaSJWdot?
Get divorced, get child support, alimony, eat bon bons, etc etc
Having part-time employees could be more expensive to companies. Let's not force them to have more part-time employees without studying the cost. Otherwise, full-time countries will clean our clocks in the market-place if part-timing hurts their bottom line.
Table-ized A.I.
If women are really being paid less than men for the same work, wouldn't it make sense financially to hire women only? Even a small company of 50 employees can save a million dollars a year just by hiring women instead of men. As the owner it would go directly into my pocket. Who doesn't like to make an extra million dollars a year?
Employers will go to great lengths to hire the cheapest labor for any given task. They will even violate labor laws and risk prison by hiring illegal aliens, that's how much business owners love to save money (admittedly the risk of prison for hiring illegals was very small in the past, prior to Trump). Therefore if the gender gap is as real as the feminists claim, every CEO should be scouring the earth for all the women they could hire.
Pay male employees 30% less.
Why 30% you say when the gap is closer to 20%. That's just because most executives are male and they don't want their pay to be affected of course.
I've worked at several places where payscales for job functions were publicly (well, internal to the company) available. No gender pay gaps. Everyone knew what everyone was getting paid just by looking up their job title (well, they'd get the range). Worked great, no drama. You might bitch about a job classification, but that's about it.
Yeah, and I want to be a singer like Madonna or an attention whore like J-Lo.
Where's my pay equity?
Imagine what one could accomplish if there was a gender wage gap.
If there really was a gender wage gap, anyone would be free to open a business, hire only female employees, pay them less due to the gender wage gap, use this competitive advantage to grow the business, capture market share, profit.
Same thing applies to the premise that diversity makes us better. If this was true, one could just have a super diverse group of employees, and one would then out compete other less diverse groups/businesses etc.
None of this happens in the real world.
prsdntl
For the daily liberal propaganda.
Like the article says, women need to go in high paying jobs for the gap to close, because for the same job, they DO get the same salary. It's just that statistics don't care about classifying them by jobs, they just take ALL the jobs and then run the average number and that's that. Which isn't the right way to go at it.
admit it, some get more than they deserve, most get less
Problem solved.
What if most women don't want "to be more involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics", or work more than they already do? Life has more purpose than working and making money. The article is written from the point of view that most women today are prevented from doing what they want to do, but gives no evidence that they're not already at their ideal work-life balance.
While the average intelligence of men & women are about equal. The variance in intelligence is far greater in men than in women. Thus you have a larger number of really smart men as opposed to really smart women. (You also have a larger number of really dumb men as well).
IQ is the single biggest consistent indicator of economic success (higher wages). And a lot more men have a very high IQ then women. Thus, all things being equal, men will always dominate in business & science because of this. There will never be parity.
OK. hot button topic.
Just went to an event where we were told that women in engineering studies has dropped percentage wise since 2002. And, that overall US engineering studies is down. That means that despite a generation of effort to boost women entering the profession, their numbers are dropping. Even more so than the numbers for men.
An engineer should look at this and say the hyper focus is clearly not working. Instead we see a doubling down on a policy that harms all.
we will need many more sandwich factories.
Randomly swap the salaries of every employee in the company. It's the only way to be fair.
What's at the core of the gender pay gap is sexism, and the way to remove that problem is the same way you remove racism: change hearts and minds so discrimination is no longer part of human nature. Of course easier said than done, I don't believe this is the sort of change that can be educated into people, negotiated, legislated, or forced, I believe it's something that the human race will have to evolve out of -- if they ever do at all.
FORBID them taking time off for their children.
FORBID maternity leave.
FORBID any 'special rules' that benefit women. ....then you'll have companies go "OK, now this staff person is worth investing in, because I can be reasonably certain she won't vanish because her gestational clock is ticking, or her womb-fruit need caring for."
Women have the ability to CREATE LIFE. I love how that's pretty much 'set aside' when we're talking about which gender has inherent advantages.
-Styopa
Educate yourself:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488932891&sr=8-1&keywords=why+men+earn+more
One of the biggest barriers to women attaining equal pay is that many women don't work full-time.
This barrier could be mitigated by counting pay by actual time spent at work. I suspect men who work part-time neither end up with the equal amount of money as men who do the same job full time.
Jesus f'in christ. How many times does this need to be debunked? Please don't turn into Huffington "lack of credibility" Post.
Thanks
wait you didn't say it had to be a good \ fair solution,
tl;dr of the pay gap issue: Women, who are free to choose their career paths, are making decisions feminists don't like, so we should push women to make the career decisions feminists want them to make instead. Seriously, the "pay gap" is a terrible metric for equality. Women are free to choose their careers and their work-life balance and they are making different career choices than men, so of course there is a pay gap. It would odd if there wasn't. There are only 2 ways to eliminate the pay gap: Remove autonomy from women and/or men by controlling their career decisions, and/or have the state control salary by either inflating women's salaries, deflating men's salaries, or paying everyone the same. And the irony of all this is that the people who seem to push the "gender gap" narrative the most often seem to have chosen degrees that have terrible and/or low-paying career prospects.
the jobs men are best at (e.g. blue collar & engineering) are going away. Jobs women are good at (medical, knowledge, arts, etc) aren't. Barring massive societal changes the pay gap will go the other way in 20 years.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
2044. Simply make (private sector) corporations publish ALL of their employee salaries publicly.
Public sector places already largely do this. It works pretty well.
People get pissed off when they see someone with the same job title and experience making more money than them.
The glut of foreign workers, whether illegal or visa workers, is driving down wages. Employers need to be punished for abusing the system.
And because there are employers who conspire to replace American workers with foreigners, it's perfectly logical that an employer would conspire to pay women less. People who oppose visa abuse should be willing to accept that an employer may shortchange their workers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs
Of the about 4500 annual workplace fatalities, 92% are men.
http://www.aei.org/publication...
Because women tend to work in safer occupations than men on average, they have the advantage of being able to work for more than a decade longer than men before they experience the same number of male occupational fatalities in a single year.
Economic theory tells us that the “gender occupational fatality gap” explains part of the “gender pay gap” because a disproportionate number of men work in higher-risk, but higher-paid occupations like coal mining (almost 100% male), fire fighters (95% male), police officers (87% male), correctional officers (72% male), farming, fishing, and forestry (77% male), and construction (97.5% male); BLS data here. On the other hand, a disproportionate number of women work in relatively low-risk industries, often with lower pay to partially compensate for the safer, more comfortable indoor office environments in occupations like office and administrative support (73% female), education, training, and library occupations (74% female), and health care (75% female). The higher concentrations of men in riskier occupations with greater occurrences of workplace injuries and fatalities suggest that more men than women are willing to expose themselves to those work-related injuries or death in exchange for higher wages. In contrast, women more than men prefer lower risk occupations with greater workplace safety, and are frequently willing to accept lower wages for the reduced probability of work-related injury or death.
How about we require the fathers to pay the mothers a salary for working at home. If we want to double the family's income, we could have the mother pay the same amount back to the father when he's watching the kids at night. Think of all that taxable income!
The fathers, (proper fathers, who take care of their wife/mate/significant other/whatever and children,) already DO pay the woman a "salary." It's just in tangible goods instead of cash.
Or did you think the roof over her head, the car she drives, the food in her belly, all of which she "didn't pay for," if she's a "full time," (another absolute fallacy,) stay at home mother, are free?
Yes, if you adjust for the fact some jobs pay less, the pay gap disappears.
Except: there's strong evidence to suggest that it's not that women take poorly-paying jobs, but rather that jobs taken by women get paid less.
Consider school teachers: in the first part of the century, it was a better-paying job, relatively, to what it is now. The change in status and pay happened right around the same time that women started to become a large fraction of the workforce. Ditto computer programming: when it had a lot of women, it wasn't well-paying; it become a well-paying field when men started in it.
So, this article is also wrong: if this trend continues, getting more women engineers will just degrade the pay of engineering...
This leaves no room for competence and productivity.
pass a law that all women have to be paid more than men. I'm sick of hearing about it.
:T:R:A:N:S:
We need to genetically modify males so they would be able to give birth to kids, so our woman would have more time for their careers and be able to close that notorious gender income gap. The other solution is to stop making kids and just import them from China as adults on H1-B visa.
People get pissed off when they see someone with the same job title and experience making more money than them.
Except that's not why there's a wage gap. Read the fucking summary, at least, which, shockingly, manages to move past the stupid lie that women are paid less than men for doing the same job.
Publishing everyone's pay doesn't mean dictating a single pay for every job. It means you can see the distribution of pay for each job. If you're being paid less than average, you can then take those statistics to your boss and say "hey, why am I being paid less than average", and he can say "because you perform below average". I guess the obvious next step in negotiations there is to find some kind of performance metrics to compare to.
FWIW you can actually find average pay statistics for all kinds of jobs at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (bls.gov), and I've used that extensively in pay negotiations in recent years to great effect. When the boss is always saying "you're the best person in this position we've ever had" and then you can show him government stats saying average people in this position get paid more than you, that really does something for negotiations.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Glad to hear something is going to be done about childless women outearning childless men. I mean, it's been going on for almost a decade now, and considering that is actually measuring comparable jobs, it's an actual wage gap, unlike the "wage gap" of woman working 30 hours a week as librarians earning less than a man working 60 hours as a neuroscientist.
SanFran creates a mandatory tech course enlisting program for women, and calls the help of the army to enforce it.
And you're a shit-faced, cum-guzzling anal lesion with delusions of grandeur.
So shut your pie hole bitch!
This is the worst example of changing the definition I can think of. The gender pay gap refers to illegal discrimination by employers of employees based on the sex/gender if the employee.
Slowly, thinking people began to understand this largely does not exist any more, and other factors ("other" as in NOT DISCRIMINATION) explain much of the variance.
So where did the conversation go? Everyone pretends that the definition of the gender pay gap is just any reason pay might differ when sliced by sex/gender.
Stop. Just stop.
I have paid a ton of school taxes to invest in the next generation of financial support. I have paid a ton of extra taxes to cover reduced in-state tuition to invest in the next generation of financial support. I have paid a bunch of extra taxes to pay you dependent tax credits as investment in the next generation of financial support.
It's a fucking lie to claim that people without kids have not invested in the next generation of financial support. Now if you want to close all public schools, withdraw all public funding for Headstart, withdraw all public funding for AFDC, kill all dependent/child-specific tax credits etc. THEN we can open discussion to changing SS.
If you are going to be fair, any options offered to females must be available to males.
This is a point of contention for me because at multiple jobs, weekend support was assigned to the males because the office was empty. I got stuck with it once and what really pissed me off is after working 18 hours over the weekend, I was still required to attend the 9am monday morning meeting.
Fair is fair.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If it really would cost measurably less for women to do the equal work of men, men would be out of jobs by now.
That's pure economics.
The gender pay-gap is either fiction or there are reasons for it (risk of pregnancy factored into salary perhaps) that aren't accounted for.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It does take a little bit of work though. And ... let's say not only by the men.
1. Women, get into jobs where hazard pay is a reality. You get paid more if you put your life in danger. High voltage engineering, working in hazardous environments or with hazardous materials, front line military service, it's all good, and it's available to (mostly) anyone without insane requirements concerning your education.
2. Study something marketable. Gender studies may sound fun, but guess what: Nobody is going to pay you for it. Unless you somehow manage to make hiring someone who is essentially a useless sponge mandatory by law, the jobs that are available with such a degree include you saying the phrase "do you want fries with that?".
3. It's illegal in my country to pay women less than men for the same work. How I know that it actually does work? Men still have jobs. Market laws would require companies to hire women exclusively if it was permissible to pay them less. Unless of course you want to believe in the patriarchy conspiracy of men hiring only men even though they cost more. You might want to explain, though, how such a company stays in business, because it defies the laws of capitalism.
If it's not that way in your country, get the laws changed.
In a nutshell, if women get paid less than men, then due to their career choices. The solution is to choose careers that pay better.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's been shown over and over again, that women actually get paid more for each hour worked than their equivalent male counter-part. The issue is that women don't work as long, nor do they work the jobs that put them at risk. Showing again, that the Liberals just lie...
What about the man who makes $100,000, but whose wife stays home with their 3 children and their family disposable is equivalent to a young couple who both work and make $50,000 each? That man works for 10-15 years, then his wife re-enters the workforce at a $45,000 salary. Clearly there is a pay gap, but it's a pay gap based on individual decisions and priorities. Gender discrimination is illegal but there is no guarantee everyone will put their careers first.
Stop posting bullshit that says females/minorities get paid less than white males.
I work for a large corporation that has picked up every equality fad out there so they are never accused of inequality. The result - massive pay scale and job security discrepancies between those who work hard and benefit the company, and those who waste time - in reverse order.
To highlight this, there is one coworker who happens to be a "female minority". She is disruptively loud, constantly takes time off, does a shit job and in case you might think brown-noser - she's not, she pisses off management by constantly undermining their authority. She also makes 15% more than her average peer, and more qualified, more productive, and lower paid/higher tenure people have been laid off instead of her. She is not an isolated case either, she is part of a growing trend in HR.
White male privilege? That may have been the case in the 60's, but I can let you know there is nothing privileged about being a white male these days, work twice as hard for 20% less.
Stop living in a fantasy world.
All the government needs to do to close the gender pay gap is allow companies to hire by gender, then advertise that Female labour is 35% off for the same amount of work.
Companies that don't compete go bankrupt. All is well again.
What amazes me is that companies, somehow, haven't realized this discount opportunity and capitalized on it already. I guess companies really are lavish with their salaries after all.
Why would I risk the possible consequences to me of promoting something like that?
Maybe family is more important to some than your made up "gender wage gap", and thus, this imaginary problem will be shoved in our faces eternally.
Is what it should read.
Step 1: Pay women the same as their male counterparts. Give them a raise right now if they're underpaid.
Step 2: There is no step 2. Stop being a douche and pay them what they're worth.
If you can't afford kids, don't have them.
That is the bottom line. Want kids - arrange a lifestyle where one partner can have that as their primary role. It is equivalent to and more important than a job, if done properly.
I am betting, based on memory of your posts, that you are liberal and a big global-warming concern promoter.
The absolutely worst thing someone can do in regards to global warming is to create a new source of carbon pollution. IE - have kids. We should reverse the tax subsidy to having kids and impose a carbon tax. AMIRITE?
If you can't afford kids, don't have them.
Since gender is flexible for the sake of PR companies can give high earners a bonus to change genders to achieve pay equity across employees
So we need to offer women more flexible hours than men(not 9-5), allow them part time jobs, and full time pay? I'll sign up for that too!! Who seriously wants to work standard 9-5 M->F hours and wouldn't choose a more flexible schedule instead?
The article is about "DEVELOPING" countries, what we used to call poor countries.
As for the US, meburke is correct: the best studies show that even women who return to the workforce but are finished with kids everntually do at least as well as men. Before that, the disparity is actually nonlinear in hours worked, either because more hours means more competence gained, or because more hours means more appreciation from your boss.
To those who think that having to deal with kids is unfair in how it affects income, I say, ok, from now on, we just determine your pay based on sex. After all, it's unfair that women who contribute less should be paid less. Everyone gets a trophy.
When it comes to problems like this you need to actually understand the problem. For example why does it exist, is it a real problem?
Who dictated the rule that the average salary for all men and all women must be the same overall? Why must women have equal pay? Biology makes it very clear that while men and women greatly overlap men do have a leading edge and that's just how it is. Earning equal rank and salary is not the natural state of affairs for a species that exhibits a significant and meaningful amount of sexual dimorphism.
Equal pay laws are meant to work not for an entire population but for subsets. For example whatever salaries a company awards it can't be based on sex. It can be based on things such as performance, loyalty, contribution and so on. If men do better in these areas that's just how it is.
I appreciate there are genuine problems in the developing world but this approach looks atrocious when it comes to actually addressing that. It repeats all of the same mistakes being made in developing countries. This notion of more women have to be this or that has to stop. It's starting to become dangerous as particularly vulnerable but over represented in high positions or rank and salary minority groups such as Orientals and Jews have started to notice. One of the main reasons it came about here is because groups are trying to sneak around anti affirmative action regulations which normally tend to focus on race where as sex is overlooked. It's not only white men and over performing minority groups that suffer from this but women can as well when people take it upon themselves to dictate how women should live and work.
Missing elements in developing nations for women are things such as birth control, appropriate family planning and education. Laws may also be absent that ensure fair practices in the workplace. In fact developing countries generally have problems with making and enforcing laws to the extent you would expect in a developed country. You have other problems such as sometimes with a massive labour surplus why wouldn't it naturally become that the men work more and the women focus on family life more? The situation in the west came out of a shortage in the labour force. As much as one might want to see developing countries adhere to the same ideals we do there's a reality to things as well where it's just not that simple.
A lot of these countries seem to be first world centric. The article says 'developing countries.'
We don't want women to be given more opportunities to overwork themselves at different times. Jobs in general need to be more flexible for everyone - there should be more 30 hour a week jobs in general and more options to take jobs like that. I'm a man and I'd gladly do it (for the same hourly pay, obviously), but jobs like that are very rare. The reduction in my pay would still help balance the gap and we all typically work way more than is necessary or healthy anyway.
Simply make (private sector) corporations publish ALL of their employee salaries publicly.
This is getting off-topic but this used to be standard practice at HP when I worked there. My manager was required to share the "rate range" for my job classification. That had a matrix showing the range of pay for my level versus my expected raise based on performance ranking (on a 1-5 scale). You could look up your salary and see how you were doing relative to your peers and know based on your ranking, what range of raises you could expect.
I didn't know exactly what anyone else made but I knew were I stood relative to all the other level 60 engineers. Since it was a required process, I think that kept everyone honest: most people would be clustered around the middle of the rate range.
I pay my property taxes too, and I homeschool, and rasing a child costs about $1,000,000 over 18 years. Call me when you have paid that in the small fraction of your property taxes that goes to schooling (hint: you never will).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like