Are women paid less than men for the same work?

[wehateporn]

When all job differences are accounted for, the pay gap almost disappears

MEDIA organisations aspire to cover news, not make it. But the BBC, Britain?s public broadcaster, has found itself in an uncomfortable spotlight since July 19th, when it published the names of its employees who earn at least £150,000 ($195,000) a year. The ensuing furore was less over the absolute level of pay than about the differences between men?s and women?s incomes. Some female presenters discovered that they made much less than male colleagues they regarded as peers. Just over half of the BBC?s staff are men, but among the 96 high earners listed, two-thirds are male.

In a petition, female presenters said this was evidence that women at the BBC are paid less than men ?for the same work?. If that were true for the company as a whole, it would make the BBC an outlier. Although the average woman?s salary in Britain is 29% lower than the average man?s, the bulk of that gap results from differences in rank within companies, firms? overall compensation rates and the nature of the tasks a job requires. According to data for 8.7m employees worldwide gathered by Korn Ferry, a consultancy, women in Britain make just 1% less than men who have the same function and level at the same employer. In most European countries, the discrepancy is similarly small. These numbers do not show that the labour market is free of sex discrimination. However, they do suggest that the main problem today is not unequal pay for equal work, but whatever it is that leads women to be in lower-ranking jobs at lower-paying organisations.

Continued http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...n/fb/te/bl/ed/

[celandina]

Not..

[Paul Markham]

but whatever it is that leads women to be in lower-ranking jobs at lower-paying organisations.

Because women are mothers covers most of that.

For a woman to compete with a man over pay she has to give up having children. Otherwise, it puts men at an unfair disadvantage.

[CoolMikey]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Because women are mothers covers most of that.

For a woman to compete with a man over pay she has to give up having children. Otherwise, it puts men at an unfair disadvantage.

I'm not sure I buy that. Pregnancy puts women out of work for perhaps 6 months top? (She can work through most of it) I doubt that 6 months work experience would make a huge difference in pay.

Another explanation is that "lower ranking" jobs are "easier" or requiring less training/education/etc so they are "easier" to get into. So women naturally gravitate towards those "easier" jobs. Men don't have that choice, because they are expected to provide for the family, so they have to grind 80 hours per week advancing their careers.

If I were a woman I would probably do exactly the same, it seems like it's 100x easier to find a man with a well paying job that will provide for you, than spending years in school then grinding 80 hours per week so you can have a well paying job yourself.

[Phoenix]

who cares....

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

I'm not sure I buy that. Pregnancy puts women out of work for perhaps 6 months top? (She can work through most of it) I doubt that 6 months work experience would make a huge difference in pay.

Another explanation is that "lower ranking" jobs are "easier" or requiring less training/education/etc so they are "easier" to get into. So women naturally gravitate towards those "easier" jobs. Men don't have that choice, because they are expected to provide for the family, so they have to grind 80 hours per week advancing their careers.

If I were a woman I would probably do exactly the same, it seems like it's 100x easier to find a man with a well paying job that will provide for you, than spending years in school then grinding 80 hours per week so you can have a well paying job yourself.

That's part of the same argument.

In Europe, women can get up to 4 years off. Even so, what happens with the child after 6 months or 4 years?

[CoolMikey]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

That's part of the same argument.

In Europe, women can get up to 4 years off. Even so, what happens with the child after 6 months or 4 years?

There are many options, like getting a babysitter or letting the father or other family members look after the kid, etc. I get it that it's easier said than done, but having children is not something one can just "wing it". That endeavour should only be pursued when one has the financial means and a solid plan in mind.

[Look Chang]

I know some escorts, models, pole dancers, porn actresses and hookers who make decent money...

[Bladewire]

In Russia women are paid far less than men, 30 cents on the dollar, practically slave wages #ThanksPutin

[MrMaxwell]

NO! It is a lie promulgated by the feminist leftist terror cells

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

There are many options, like getting a babysitter or letting the father or other family members look after the kid, etc. I get it that it's easier said than done, but having children is not something one can just "wing it". That endeavour should only be pursued when one has the financial means and a solid plan in mind.

There are and many years ago my two brothers and I were looked after by our grandparents while my mother was working with my dad in his clothing factory. Eva also worked while our nanny looked after our daughter. But that was a different time when jobs were plentiful and as bosses, we could afford nannies. Often now with the pressure on jobs what's the options that pay well enough to hire a Nanny?

The real problem today is finding enough well-paid jobs for the men. Are they suggesting men get less for their work or lose their jobs and give them to women?

In the cases where you have two people doing the exact same job to the same abilities, women should be paid the same.

[CoolMikey]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

There are and many years ago my two brothers and I were looked after by our grandparents while my mother was working with my dad in his clothing factory. Eva also worked while our nanny looked after our daughter. But that was a different time when jobs were plentiful and as bosses, we could afford nannies. Often now with the pressure on jobs what's the options that pay well enough to hire a Nanny?

The real problem today is finding enough well-paid jobs for the men. Are they suggesting men get less for their work or lose their jobs and give them to women?

In the cases where you have two people doing the exact same job to the same abilities, women should be paid the same.

If there are fewer jobs, then doesn't it mean there are more people in one's family available to help out with the kid?

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by CoolMikey

If there are fewer jobs, then doesn't it mean there are more people in one's family available to help out with the kid?

I like the way you think

[femdomdestiny]

Only if they are ugly.

[brassmonkey]

barefoot and prego? they are the highest paid.
this asshole is testing the waters only two more to go he will be cooking and cleaning and greeting his husband in no time!

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by femdomdestiny

Only if they are ugly.

There's truth in that statement ...

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Because women are mothers covers most of that.

For a woman to compete with a man over pay she has to give up having children. Otherwise, it puts men at an unfair disadvantage.

I'm not actually sure 'unfair' is a term I would apply to child raising duties my man.