|
|
|
|
|
by feral
5234 days ago
|
|
I apologise if I missed something here, but the GP said:
"I haven't really seen/noticed women not getting promoted/paid less just because they are women" You have provided statistics that show women get paid less than men in technology. But this does not show that women are not getting promoted, or are getting paid less, just because they are women. Is it not also another plausible hypothesis that they are getting paid less, because, (for example) they make work/life balance choices that focus less on career advancement? This of course, might indicate that there are other issues to be addressed, with how society structures work/life balance, gender roles etc and this is well trodden ground; but statistics that show women get a lower average (or median) pay do not necessarily show they are getting paid less, "just because they are women". |
|
If "work/life balance choices" is code for "making babies", then yes, but you made have noticed that it's mainly women who have babies. :)
Pay rates until primigravidity are lower for women than men in most industries and (less) low for men than women in a few. After that the "male bonus" increases more than the fertility rates would suggest they ought to. There are lots of conclusions that can be drawn from that, but I think the most obvious one is that employers haggle down women returning to work from childcare, and that from that age women pay a penalty "because they might go and make babies". There's some evidence (comparison with other countries with different patterns of childcare) that this is the case.