[joycey]

The gender wage gap does exist. It's simply a fact that women earn less than men. The real question then, is why. Is it because sexist managers pay women less money than men? Are women less likely to negotiate their offers as aggressively as men? Do women on average have to work longer to get promoted (and consequently earn salary raises) and why does this happen? Is it because women are more likely to pursue careers that pay less? Is it because men are seen as more attractive when their income goes up but this doesn't hold true for women? Are women and men just biologically inclined to pursue different career paths? Does the wage gap exist because women are more likely to work part-time? Is it because women are more likely to choose to prioritize child-rearing over their career? Is it because society expects women to prioritize motherhood? Is it because managers pay women less because they assume women will be less committed to their career?

Some of these possible reasons are obviously more concerning than others. If the gender wage gap is 100% due to less concerning reasons, such as women simply making the choice to prioritize motherhood over their career, then you could argue that while the gender gap exists it's not a societal problem that we need to address since it's not caused by institutional discrimination of any sort. The reality is a lot more complicated and nuanced, and it's probable that there are several reasons that can explain the gender gap, that don't necessarily compete with each other.

[fsaneq2]

The problem is that the way the issue is (intentionally, I'm sure) presented is with charged phrases like "for every dollar a man makes, a woman only makes X cents". To a reasonable person, that sounds like it implies "for the same work" -- otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges, so they must not mean that, the reasonable person thinks. And so the reasonable person gets (rightfully) angry and it becomes a very emotional issue, even though it was based on deception. In that sense, what most people imagine when someone says "wage gap" doesn't exist.

[syshum]

>>The gender wage gap does exist. It's simply a fact that women earn less than men.

Not for the same work it does not.

When you actually look at the data the vast majority of the so called gap is directly attributable to field of work. Right or wrong Teaching, Social Work,Child Care and Nursing pay less than Executives, Programming, STEM Fields, etc.

There is now more than ever more opportunities for women to enter these higher paying fields, many many many still choose not to. Do you advocate for forcing Women into STEM vocation against their will?

[DanBC]

> Right or wrong Teaching, Social Work,Child Care and Nursing pay less than Executives, Programming, STEM Fields, etc

But when we only look at nursing we still see a gender pay gap.

When you look at nursing, specifically midwifery (surely the most feminised sector of nursing) we see that at lower pay bands the ratio of men:women is almost no men to almost all women. As we go up the pay bands we see that ratio changing.

We see this for many different types of health care staff. Ambulance workers start with a 60:40 male:female ratio at the lower bands, and end up at band 8d with a 95:5 male female ratio.

So, for the English NHS when we only look at eg midwifery (we see it when we look at other HSCS staff too) we still see a gender pay gap.

Have a look at the English statistics here: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/article/2021/Website-Search?pr...

NHS Workforce Statistics - September 2016, Provisional statistics

Publication date: December 20, 2016

We want this file: HCHS staff in NHS Trusts and CCGs in England, Equality and Diversity, September 2016 [.xlsx]

Hospital and Community Health Services Staff statistics.

  	Midwives
  	Payband	Men	Women	Total	Ratio men:women
  	Band 5	11	2301	2312	0.00:1.00
  	Band 6	57	18294	18351	0.00:1.00
  	Band 7	36	4663	4699	0.01:0.99
  	Band 8a	2	183	185	0.01:0.99
  	Band 8b	1	31	32	0.03:0.97
  	Band 8c	2	15	17	0.12:0.88

Here's the table for Ambulance staff.

  Ambulance staff						
  	payband	men	women	total	ratio men:women	
  	Band 4	2222	1479	3701	0.60:0.40
  	Band 5	5986	4072	10058	0.60:0.40
  	Band 6	3553	1889	5442	0.65:0.35
  	Band 7	610	202	812	0.75:0.25
  	Band 8a	85	25	110	0.77:0.23
  	Band 8b	49	10	59	0.83:0.17
  	Band 8c	14	1	15	0.93:0.07
  	Band 8d	14	1	15	0.93:0.07

[chippy]

> we still see a gender pay gap.

Could you explain the gender pay gap in these midwifery statistics please? I am struggling to find that information.

I see that as people get higher bands (probably get older) they get paid more. I see one or two men in the higher bands which to me raises some statistical significance queries. I see that the Ratio of men to women increase from incredibly small to very small, but that doesn't (to me) indicate a gender pay gap. Unless the "gender pay gap" here is that men are paid less compared to women as there are less men in the profession? Perhaps it's about the definition of "pay gap" - does it just refer to unequal outcome? Does it mean that we should expect the same ratio to occur in all pay bands, equally (e.g. not allow men to have pay grade 8), and if we do not see the same ratio that there is a pay gap by virtue of unequal representation?

[DanBC]

For midwifery we see that even though hardly any men enter the profession (just 11 men at band 5) we still see men in the senior positions (2 at band 8a, 1 at 8b, 2 at 8c).

So, if hardly any men enter the profession and very many women enter the profession I'd expect to see no men at band 8x (because the tiny number of men have to compete against a huge number of women at each promotion). Instead we see a higher percentage of men at band 8x than at band 5 or 6. This shows one of the mechanisms of the gender pay gap: men get promoted faster and further than women. This debunks one of the points some people are making in this thread that the gender pay gap disappears if you only look at one profession.

I've added the numbers for ambulance staff.

At the entry level positions we see a split of 60% men to 40% women.

As you go up the paybands you see the percentages changing - you see men being promoted more readily than women, until you get to the band 8ds where we see 95% men to 5% women.

Why are the ratios changing? Why do we see a higher percentage of men in senior roles in health care professions?

[chippy]

Thanks, I see what the point is now. To show how one there is a similar effect or mechanism in play even when looking at another (and you could say non obvious) field. I was confused as I assumed it indicated The Gender Pay Gap in it's own right but I think it has more accuracy in saying that it shows to be evidence of one of the indicators.

[syshum]

I am failing to see how any of this data proves a gender discrimination based pay gap

[DanBC]

Men are promoted faster and further than women, even when we only look at a narrow specific profession.

[syshum]

That is at best a correlation, it in no way says that men are promoted faster simply because they are men which is what your are asserting

Correlation does not equal causation

[urahara]

How about a problem of women paid less than men in STEM as well?

[lwansbrough]

All of those are important questions, but I think it's also important to prefix "gender wage gap" with the words "adjusted" or "unadjusted" in order to identify which problem you're talking about. All of those questions will fit into one of those two categories, and the arguments for each vary wildly. Unadjusted (~78% [1]) wage gap deals more with society's impact on a woman's wage, or a woman's intrinsic desire to pursue a career in a particular field, whereas adjusted wage gap (5-8% [1]) deals more with factors like sexism and the economic impact of hiring a woman.

In my opinion, it would be worth while to tackle the adjusted wage gap in the short term, and the unadjusted wage gap in the long term, as the latter requires more dramatic changes in society, I think.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

[jecjec]

I totally reject your frame of "women earn less than men." Mainly because 'earnings' are not the only thing people should be measured by. They should probably be the LAST.

Women do productive things that are harder to account for in standard GDP metrics. Does GDP count the implied value of rearing a child? The years of care that go into motherhood? Does GDP go up $40 when a mom teaches a young child some words for an hour? It would if it was a tutor but it doesn't when it's just a parent.

The frame of "women earn less than men" is used to implicitly degrade the life choices of women. I personally just learned that a friend's mom is a foster mother. That is an incredible level of generosity that is outside of my comprehension. Is her being a foster mother worthless because it isn't in wage statistics? She earns a modest income by accounting standards, but the actual value she creates is much higher. Should we tell her to learn to code instead?