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."
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.
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!
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.
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
Problem solved.
Interesting fantasy on the life style of a single mother.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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
This isn't a problem to be solved and it won't respond to rational arguments. This is a problem to be used to leverage special rights and concessions for a certain group. They don't want the problem solved, they want the privileges that come with social engineering giving you a boost.
Jesus f'in christ. How many times does this need to be debunked? Please don't turn into Huffington "lack of credibility" Post.
Nope. That's not how racism was ended (on a large society scale). When racism became economically beneficial, slavery happened. When racism became an economic liability, suddenly slavery and racism were bad enough to get rid of. The US had a civil war. The US imported Jews from Germany like Einstein, which demonstrated that the Nazi's racism was shooting themselves in the foot.
encourage men to abandon high paying STEM fields and opt for lower paying fields like primary education and service jobs, [...]
You jest, but this is a serious problem. Men who work in early childhood education face a lot of discrimination.
It's getting better for stay-at-home dads, though.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Those are great jobs for people who don't have degrees, pretty good pay, regular hours, overtime paid at penal rates, but it's demanding physical labour, and as far as I'm aware not one woman has ever applied.
What colour is the sky in your world? Or do you just not look at the news. Slavery is bigger now than it has ever been. It's just that you don't see a whole large boat load of slaves at a time now. If you think that the race problems are over in the US then where have you been the past couple of years especially.
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.
You're thinking 2020. Robots will have killed everyone by 2024.
No it isn't. The phrase isn't that straightjacketed.
a policy that harms all
Could be the real goal here. I know a lot of old people who are miserable (standard old people problems) who want to make sure that everyone around them is equally miserable.
Who EXACTLY is telling any woman what their 'role' in society is?
People like you who only consider two categories: 1. Babymakers and 2. Garbage collectors. Also, if no women had babies there would be no humans, so there is an implicit role that women have that men do not.
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.
Because some people (fascists at heart) think that everybody must be forced to be equal.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This leaves no room for competence and productivity.
This may have last been true in 1960 or so.
You're proceeding from a false assumption. There's no sexism in the difference between what men and women get paid. It's entirely explainable by the choices individuals make.
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.
But you're free to choose your gender.
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.
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.
Is this comment an article on The Onion? What exactly are you suggesting? Great paying jobs are systematically given pay cuts on a real basis once the patriarchy sees a critical mass of women joining the field?
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.
So robosexuals steal my job now?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
It would only take around 50 years of non-procreation globally to wipe out humans. Regardless of your opinion on whether or not there's a population problem, women have a societal burden that men do not.
If food and water determine my role in being alive am I really free to make my own choices as an individual?
So, this article is also wrong: if this trend continues, getting more women engineers will just degrade the pay of engineering...
That would be due to an increase in supply for workers and a lowering of the demand for those workers - not because uteruses.
It would only take around 50 years of non-procreation globally to wipe out humans.
I don't see how this is a problem. If we as a species are so dumb that so many members of our species (including a bunch of people posting right here in this discussion, apparently) do not see the value of supporting the half of our population that perpetuates the species, then I think it'd be better if our species went extinct.
Of course, what's happening now is that the middle classes aren't having kids any more, and they're all being produced by the lowest classes, who also come with the most social problems. So the problem will be self-limiting in a way, with society devolving and unable to create new members who can run it competently, causing a collapse. I believe Jared Diamond wrote a book named "Collapse" talking about the collapse of civilizations, and that's surely what we have to look forward to.
Did you come here from an alternate Earth or have you been living in a bomb shelter for the last 50 or 60 years or so, and just came out now? Racism is not 'ended', not by a long shot, it's alive and well and still quite virulent; go read the news a little more than just headlines. The racists just went underground when they got shouted down too often. Lately they're coming out of the woodwork again (gee I wonder why?). There won't be an end to racism until humans, as an entire species, doesn't think that way anymore. We're not even close to that goal.
You, too, like another commenter, seem to have been living in a bomb shelter or something for the last several decades, or for some other reason just don't see the problem (or don't want to see the problem, or are PART of the problem).
The word is straitjacketed, unless you're in the habit of wearing crooked jackets.
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.
I know many single mothers - one of my hobbies brings me into their world - and few of them work full time, none of them have been in poverty and more than one of them has bitched that the payments are going to stop because the child will be 18 soon.
Forgive my lack of sympathy.
A lot of these countries seem to be first world centric. The article says 'developing countries.'
Dude, quiet!
I'm reporting you as a blabbermouth at the next patriarchy meeting...
I'm glad you were so easily able to have access to a sample that was so clearly unbiased, I mean other than women who are on food stamps/WIC and work two part time jobs aren't likely to interact significantly with someone who has time for hobbies.
FYI - if you leave a woman and with a child, you probably owe her around $250k/child for her to break even on child costs alone. Over 18 years that's only about $15k/yr or $1250/month, which is pretty close to a typical child support payment of $1650/mo for a father making $5000/mo (~$60k/yr). You're a man, you should be able to do the math.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
No, the evidence is pretty clear on this point.
I leave a woman and with a child, I owe her nothing. I refuse to pay for a child that doesn't live with me.
I'll take responsibility for my own actions, not someone else's.
Fine. Show me your 'evidence', ALL of your 'evidence', and don't waste my time with non-credible, non-verifiable sources.
K-12 doesn't prepare a student for STEM college coursework by default. Students have to seek out the coursework, that's been true forever. If less schools offer STEM track coursework, less students will be ready for the material. Everybody learns better when younger, there is no making up for not having programmed computers for fun in your early and mid teens, so there is no 'making up for it later' possible.
You would think the net would be an equalizer, but it appears to not be working.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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
No: women's work has been historically undervalued... but what we think of as "women's work" has changed.
It's not systematic; it's systemic.
You continue to make little sense. You said the jobs were high paying until women took them over, after which they were no longer high paying. My logic functions are working properly, so this means on a real basis the system began paying these positions less once women entered them in force. You further imply that this is cause and effect. What is your evidence for these claims? They appear quite outrageous.
The wage gape is entirely explainable by the choices people make. It's not teh sexism, which is why no matter how hard the government cracks down on employers it will never go away.