The Gender Gap On Salaries
 

http://content.southuniversity.edu/a...s-new--jpg.jpg

I found this rather intriguing article written by CBS MoneyWatch columnist Steve Toback. It essentially says that the Gender Pay Gap is reportedly a myth and needs further inquiry. This was a reaction to a study made by a new White House report that says women earn 75 cents for every dollar men make. An expert says it's misleading.

A respected career expert and author Marty Nemko tried to debunk the myth that women earn less than men. Even the White House report: Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being explains why. In a nutshell, men choose higher-paying jobs.

Do you agree or disagree? Is this applicable to the adult industry?

I start work early every day and work late every night. The concept of quiting work at 5pm and watching TV for three hours doesn't appeal to me. I also do email support at all crazy hours. Weekends I work as much as I can too.

Wife... Not so much.

I work in web development, women don't make less than men in this field. The pay is what it is regardless of who's doing the job.

The studies I've seen reported on compared people in the same line of work, so, if a woman did decide to go into a high risk - high reward field like the ones you mentioned, she may be compensated less for the same work.

The numbers aren't about a female school teacher vs. a male lawyer in a firm... They're about a female lawyer vs. a male lawyer...

Women get paid less because they do not perform as well as men...
(I don't mean that they are dumber, or that their work is actually of lower quality, but perhaps they lack qualities like "risk-taking" which in many companies is a valuable asset..)

think about it, if women really did perform equally well as men, why wouldn't companies just hire 100% women and save 25%?

Most claims of continuous agrievement are baseless. They benefit the claimer, and so they persist

What about Ginger people? We need to see how much they earn, and if necessary make a correction. What about if short fat men are earning less than tall beautiful women, do we need pay rises for short fat men?

:upsidedow

I would use this same argument, but I would not go as far as saying that men work harder than women or something stupid like that. The fact of the matter is that is if this statistic was true, then employers would save money by hiring mostly women.

I know plenty of women that make more money than me ;)

You are an idiot. Nothing else to even say to someone like you.

I didn't mean offend you or any one else, I'm just stating facts, it's been claimed that women earn 25% less, and if that's the case...
why do you think companies are not hiring 100% women and saving 25%?

Only a fool would pay a man $80k/year, when a woman would perform the work 100% equally well for $60k...

so either the claim that women earn 25% less is not true OR there are some difference in the traits/qualities/etc that justify the pay difference...

My Part time job for Insurance is very hard manual labor. We have women there that get paid exactly what we do. BUT they want to do less work. They always say I am a girl I can't lift that or work that hard or that fast... HUMMMM

Wouldn't the same female employees later demand an 80k salary when they have successfully proven they can perform as well, or better than, men?

They probably would, but then they would be making same $$ as men, and so that would show that there is no wage difference...

That's probably why you're successful.:winkwink:

I think the geographical location also comes into play. State, city, etc.

This is not a test for Occam's Razor... it's just not that simple. Your statement would be true if there was a fair value standard on a salary for work done, but there isn't. Salaries are negotiable and private, and the point here is that women negotiate lower salaries and generally don't know it. In contrast, men generally negotiate higher salaries, and also don't know it.

The employer is getting away with paying women less for the same quality work because they can, because there is an out-dated inherent "perceived" inequality in the system. When slavery was legal, the owners didn't pay their slaves, but the slaves worked just as hard or harder than any regular employee. In this modern day, a woman isn't an inferior worker because she is paid less, but she *is* paid less because of a perceived inequality that is unfounded, like a slave worker was perceived as unequal in the past. By your logic above, slaves would have never been freed or paid, because they obviously deserve nothing, since they worked for it for so long.

To answer your question "If women were as good, why wouldn't companies hire all women and save 25%" (paraphrase) I'd say its because they'd no longer get away with paying the lower salary if they did... part of how this has continued is the secrecy of salaries and downplaying of the issue. A company, or all companies, who started hiring women because they are "cheaper" would get noticed the way the companies that are hiring 3rd world labor are noticed. Women would demand better salaries once the reason for their hiring exclusivity was discovered. How would such an employer explain their hiring strategy away in the modern socio-political climate? They'd get sued or their entire staff would quit or they'd just end up having to raise salaries AND be known for the controversy forever after.

The theory companies could hire all women and pay less reinforces the same sexism that is the problem.