In the news I mostly see or hear about the non-adjusted gender pay gap (women earn 17-21% less than men). The adjusted pay gap, which takes hours worked into account, is only 1-5% [0].
the issue is that if you are 10% less experienced than someone else because you took a year out of your career (imagining two people who started working 10 years ago), it is hard.
Climbing the ladder has inertia, anyone taking a sabbatical will be hugely adversely affected.
We should however destigmatise men taking parental leave in order to readjust this.
I will point out, however, that our society still prefers that men pay more than their share and many women have reported being uncomfortable out earning their partner. Obviously these conditions cannot coexist.
There's one thing you're missing here, and that is as women make up a larger percentage of an occupations' workforce, the wages start to go down with it, which is what happened or is happening with e.g. doctors and teachers.
Do you really expect employers to use their increased bargaining power in favour of workers? Of course doubling the number of workers in an industry is going to lower wages.
How are you relating this to the thread? Maybe you mean it takes time for capital to lower everyone’s income when market competition increases, the actual details of the excess humans matter less and less each year.
Artificial protection and gatekeeping by ordinance are there to protect those who got there first. Then we can blame others: women or immigrants etc, for wage depression. Unions do this less but still favor those who organized first.
If capital gets to hire for less, say that. Maybe the opportunity was an increase in certain pop segments, but they dont make wages go down. The people who pay wages do.
Which is also why a lot of the latest policies are to provide equal maternity and paternity leave. Which is pretty good anyways, why shouldn’t fathers be able to take as much time off?
If your goal is gender equality, though, it needs to be equal, and we should encourage fathers to take the full time off as well. Otherwise, from an employer's perspective, women are ultimately lower-value employees, because they have an additional pool of time off they can utilize, while men do not.
Balancing that out gives one less reason to favor one gender over the other when it comes to hiring and assigning a salary.
One thing is the leave shouldn’t be “all at once or lose it” but a bucket that can be drained over time. The mother can use it very early and the father later which provides the best experience for everyone.
What if women are higher-value stay-at-home parents than men? Then maybe the optimal equilibrium is reached by more maternity leave taken on average by women than paternity leave taken by men… which produces an inverse result in the workplace.
It all hinges on whether or not sex/gender (and everything that comes with it) makes you more likely to enjoy and/or excel in certain roles. My gut feeling is it does.
If it does, then the goal of that kind of equality is a false goal.
While the details differ, the social benefit are mostly similar for both maternity and paternity leave. It create a better bond between parents and child, resulting in children that grow up more healthy and productive for society. Parental bonding take times.
I'd perfer to see many positions within STEM so neither of us can cherrypick.
Do you have a real article with real data? This is just a post by some person on LinkedIn. It doesn't provide any background or support for the claims given. It even misuses the aggregate wage gap number from the BLS to apply at the job level...
"The term “gender pay gap” describes the disparity between what men and women earn in the workforce. Women earn, on average, 82% less than men do in the same job in the United States."
Perhaps you have some data from an authority like the BLS?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap