With feminism on the rise and recent mass demonstrations for gender equality, I have been hearing a lot about gender pay gap. Something along the lines that a woman is paid 79 cents on the dollar for every dollar a male makes. However, I have not seen viable evidence for this notion, yet it is always talked about by politicians and female business leaders. Any thoughts?
| +96 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 1d | |
| +45 | Interviews Are So Fake | 28 | 56m | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 4h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 1d | |
| +25 | Non-Competes Banned | 24 | 12m | |
| How do I become Sigma | 14 | 42m | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 2d | |
| +17 | ADHD ! | 4 | 52m | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Google is your friend.
The "79 cents on the dollar" bit is pretty much bullshit because it doesn't account for a lot of chosen differences in careers. But there is some gap, it's just hard to control for all the variables to really see how big that gap is. It's definitely nowhere near that 79 cents on the dollar mantra and I'd imagine, these days in the US, it's likely not that profound when properly control for all variables. See here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-12/new-gender-pay-gap-s…
About 50% of the current pay gap is due to career choice and that has more to do with culture rather than sexism. When you adjust for career choice it is likely more like ~.90 cents for every dollar. Still not equitable but less than the advertised figure.
I'm sorry, but is the ".90 cents for every dollar" figure something you just made up? I don't see any evidence anywhere that there is any pay discrepancy between women and men in the same career positions, CETERIS PARIBUS.
There are a myriad of reasons the median salary of a woman is lower than the median salary of a man, but sexism is not a material reason at all.
You can look it up. .90 was actually probably a little low though. Many studies definitely show a gap of at least 6 cents.
Try .98 cents on the dollar, and even that last two cents is generally attributed to things such negotiation and comes from fields that are highly skewed toward entrepreneurship and commission based sales.
I prefer to look at it in a different light, women are payed the going rate for the position but employers pay more to have men work for them to avoid the office turning into an electric hen house with all the bitchiness that accompanies large groups of women working together
that is basic biology
...with a brain the third the size of ours! It's science.
Agree with all but TripleDown; the information is very clearly spelled out in many reports if you want to figure it out for yourself instead of trusting people here. The reasoning can be editorialized very easily, but the fact of the matter is women currently are employed in lower-paid roles than men. Young adults have much more parity but the difference increases as you look at older demographics. Due to this, the #1 way to improve women's pay in the U.S. is mandating maternity leave.
Any discussion of people in the same role being paid differently is blatantly not true at a high-level and is too much brain damage to bother dispelling (especially when you consider the audience that believes it).
The 79 cent figure is a blunt measurement and inaccurate when controlled for other variables. People are just stupid and make the simplistic assumption that any disparity is due to discrimination.
Couple examples: "The BLS reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men's earnings in 2012.....The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males"
"Women are four times less likely to ask for a raise compared to men; when they do ask, women typically request 30 percent less"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10357454/wells-gendergap.pdf
It's basically the leftist elites trying to demonize white men like normal. If they actually had anything of substance they wouldn't compare races of women to white men, they'd compare them to Asian men. As an income bracket they make the most (and rightfully so). But this isn't how the argument is presented. Thus, showing their true intentions which is the continued division of men and women in Western countries and the demonization of white men to justify large inflows of people. (read: new tax payers allowing governments to continue their reckless spending)
Poor white guys, y'all are TRULY the most persecuted demographic. My heart weeps for your mistreatment.
TRULY strong straw man
The fact that you got so much MS days a lot about the makeup of this forum.
Anybody who gave you MS is a white guy.
...Although I am a white guy too, I acknowledge our preferential treatment and advantages.
And we found one of 'em nopes! Hans, bring ze flammenwerfer!
I'll respond to this honestly, which is more than it deserves, because it's such an absurd claim.
1) There isn't a single piece of statistical/academic/etc piece of evidence that supports a claim that there is any discrimination of white men (obviously there are racist people of all races, but we are talking about on a mass scale). Not one. In fact, all data (education, income, hiring practices, etc) show that white men are better off than other groups. Note, this doesn't imply that it's a purposeful discrimination of non-white people, and in most cases isn't. Human psychology accounts for it, in most cases (most of my friends are white dudes, because that's who I have historically get along with, and I want to work with dudes I get along with, etc).
2) In fact, psychological studies actually show that this phenomenon of mostly advantaged group of people (of which i'm part of) feeling like victims is due mostly to a common reaction among all people who tend to blame others when they feel things are not going well for them (manufacturing jobs disappearing which were mostly done by white men, ballooning of personal debt, rise of immigration, decline of people being religious, etc) despite the fact that they are (and others say they are). Read this paper, it talks a lot about "competing victimhood": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229457
And the really interesting thing about that, is it's exactly what happened in this thread. A question was asked, there was a perceived threat against ones own group (white men), and immediately people started with their "competing victimhood" instead of actually thinking about the issue critically.
3) In re: justifying reckless spending. This is a bi-partisan issue. Democrats and republicans just recklessly spend on different things. And if what you said was true, it would be one of the dumbest strategies by... anyone... ever because it would just seek to undermine the leadership positions that are mostly dominated by white men now. Basically, hurting themselves (and their position) for a supposed increase in tax money that is relatively marginal.
In short, this is an absurd claim.
This is just blatantly, demonstrably false, and the truth undermines your entire premise of a society of, by, and for white men.
Asian men are the highest earners and the best educated.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-01/asian-men-win-the-ho…
To your points (1):
Positive discrimination of certain groups is well negative discrimination of other groups. When you want to hire more of A you necessarily hire less of B. When this is done without regard to qualifications you basically have a discrimination against B (see e.g. quotas on female Directors in Nordics and surely similar movements exists..). Consequently, interviewing, as for example a white male today, is potentially very difficult due to positive discrimination of other groups.
Following the above logic i can hardly see how you can argue that there is no discrimination against white male or other historically advantaged group. Further, it could be argued, that it is not necessarily the people who have historically enjoyed the benefits of being 'an advantaged group' (e.g. 40+ white males), that are paying the price of positive discrimination today.
Gender Pay Gap Largest in Financial Sector (Originally Posted: 03/19/2012)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-16/shining-shoes-best-way-wall-st…
What do you guys think? Is there a bias against Women in the financial sector? Or do Women's choices/actions lead to lower pay/jobs that make less?
In contrast here is an article written by a woman that claims to explain why women earn less:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-20/wall_street/29959027_1_w…
And an interesting book that tackles this topic from a male point of view:
http://www.Amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109/ref=sr_…
Not a lot of women on oil rigs. Not a lot of men on maternity leave.
Wonder what's the ratio of men killer in battle vs women. Do both parties register for the draft?
Hmmm
I thought that women now have to register for the draft, but until 1-2 years ago they didn't.
Have you been in combat or worn the uniform? You're saying a gender gap exists but is ok because men have died in combat roles? Men also prohibited women to be in combat roles. What a clever argument. Women have still died in defense of this country.
What EXACTLY are you--someone who has never served anything or anyone but yourself---trying to say?
I am uncertain about selective service. Women are now allowed to join combat arms. I am personally against it. The reasoning is simple, they get pregnant. I am not saying they would do it intentionally. But, it is a fact of life. Numbers are a very crucial part of an effective combat unit and one member disappearing can greatly have an impact - particularly when they are squared away. Obviously, there are tons of women who served honorably, also many have lost life and limb. I am in no way trying to discredit that. I am looking at it purely from a view of combat effectiveness.
Their brains are a third the size of ours. It's science.
If women are making about 60 cents on the dollar for 1/3rd the horse power, they're actually getting a great deal. Clearly, this means that women should be paid less -- the current arrangement is unfair to men.
Bank teller is a 'major job' in the financial sector?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LS37SNYjg8w
There are so many things wrong with that Business Insider article I don't want to even start
I just thought it was interesting because it was actually written by a woman.
That's too funny... when I interned in public finance both my MD and my VP were women.
Could it be that women don't want to work as hard, in general, so end up in areas of finance that require less hours and therefore pay less? My public finance SA wasn't difficult because public finance is really just not that demanding. Nothing against the field but there are only so many ways you can amortize public debt and for whatever reason the only two women I've worked for in Finance just happen to be there. Coincidence?
The resume studies and name replacement studies do not lie. Men are more likely to be chosen over women given the same resume. Women needed to have significantly more experience, better educational record, etc. to be chosen over a man.
Name replacement studies are also convincing in terms of how women are perceived in the workplace. In a story about a male boss, readers perceive the male boss as "tough but fair". Replace name of male boss with a woman's name in the story and the bossy bitch label comes out.
-unless they have a nice rack or are attractive. I've had a boss give a woman colleague more deals because he liked her rack, and she was cute. How do I know, I walked in to a meeting with him explaining that there were two reasons that he came to work, one was....her rack.
-I think women just are not great bosses all around, they don't express themselves the same way and when they do try to act like a boss they are bossy. Maybe it's not perceived, but it is how they act. Guys just communicate better with guys. Even my wife gripes about this in her 90% female world of publishing. Women are bitches.*most women.
That's weird since the current unemployment rate between men and women is identical.
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm
And there are also no woolly mammoths anymore. That's about as relevant to name-replacement studies as your comment above. The fact that you seem to think the two have anything to do with one another makes me think you don't understand how anything in the labor market works.
Can you post links to these studies?
They sorta created that label of incompetence when we men let the reins in their hands over the last 30 years. While bad male bosses would try to fuck you over and let him know you're his bitch, the females just catfight (figuratively), as though you were one of them.
That being said, from my experience, I've found female bosses to be more receptive and understanding, if they were good otherwise also. You really can't expect male bosses to be the same, even if both of you are bros(kis).
Joe Rogan has an interesting take on this, skip to 1:45
I listen to his podcast a lot but I prefer this.
[Thomas Sowell](
)
Yes it's real. It's gut wrenching seeing someone you care about get a job and then watch their salary equal the EXACT gender pay gap, as if someone calculated their compensation based on the country's avg gender pay gap. "Well the role pays X, but you're a woman so here's 62.5% of that figure." Or watching their performance markers outperform all of their peers but seeing her compensation lag relatively. It's very tone deaf to speak about an issue you know nothing about.
Walk in those shoes for awhile and then tell me how motivated you are to give your best. Not to mention all the outright sexual harassment and sexism they face. If you have any doubt about that go ahead and read the string of comments above. "Well I'm only giving you this work because of your rack." Tell me what you would do if any man said that to your wife or daughter.
Get off your partisan soapbox.
Are you telling me that someone went into an office job and was paid 79% of what the guy sitting right next to her doing the exact same work was getting paid all else equal? I'm calling bullshit for a number of reasons.
1) How the fuck do she or you for that matter know the educational and work experience of every single person that has the same job title. 2) Do you know exactly what every single person with the same job title does every min of every day. 3) How do you know the onboarding negotiation was done exactly the same. 4) Was everyone hired on exactly the same day?
Ignoring the fact that work groups have different levels of budget assigned towards personnel at different times the fact that someone who works in finance can say something so based on feelings about something with objectively measured facts is quite frankly a joke.
I'm going to start a business hiring exclusively women if I can get them at a 79% clip.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Sounds like that person needed to stand up for herself long before the pay lag. I'm sorry but the personal anecdotes of a few (on either side of the issue) don't convince me that the data is wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of sexist pigs in the workplace who talk about nice racks and make harrassing comments, but by and large that is not the case for the majority.
The data show that women are more likely to pursue lower paying careers (think teachers vs engineers) and the time off that many take to have children affects their rate of progress as everyone who doesn't take significant time off gains more knowledge and experience.
Freakonomics
The data supports the claims being made and is irrespective of career choice (between two [insert profession here] the woman will in aggregate make less). I'd also contend that sexism translates into performance reviews or assignments given...if your male counterparts get better assignments, for example, it's harder to objectively compete. It's a self fulfilling cycle.
The person you care about should review this wiki page . Seems like a slam dunk win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963
Wow, so I can pay a woman of equal ability and qualifications 37.5% less than men? As an entrepreneur, I think I'll employ only women and with those savings buy a bigger house, drive a nicer car, and take more luxurious vacations.
W/out weighing in on the pay gap in particular, the idea that market forces correct discrimination is just plain wrong. There are numerous examples in very recent American history, mostly with the African American community:
Because businesses refused to be located in black communities, these poorer communities were able to be charged more for the same goods (e.g. groceries). That means LARGE CORPORATIONS gave up margin and profits due to discrimination. This was even worse in financial services, where black people would often be charged outrageously overpriced/ usurious rates for mortgages by the few that were willing to lend to them. Obvious market failure in that reputable banks could have lent to these same people, and even done it at margins that were slightly (but not runiously) higher than normal - but they left money on the table so they could discriminate.
Markets are (obviously) the best way to allocate capital in most cases, but we should stop fetisihizing unregulated markets as some kind of magic society-perfecting God.
To summarize what others have said:
Yes there is a gender pay gap.
No it is not $0.79 to the dollar. Most studies that control for factors such as career choice, education, time in workforce, children, etc find an unexplained residual of 6-8%.
Having children is the biggest driver of the gap between the quoted 79 cents and the "actual" 94 cents. Children have a long-term depressive effect on female earnings whereas they actually tend to boost male earnings.
There is still plenty of sexism in hiring decisions (see resume name replacement study quoted above). There is also plenty of sexism in the workplace. If you don't believe this you've been willfully ignoring it because you can't handle the cognitive dissonance associated with the idea that you had some advantage as a man. Go talk to 3-4 professional women past the age of 25. Every single one of them will have at least one if not more stories of overt sexual harassment or discrimination.
No one said sexism doesn't exist in the work place, however I would argue it isn't nearly as high as you believe. Making crude comments to women by an individual is far the same thing as an institutional practice to pay women less than men while giving further sex based bias to men in the hiring process. If that can be actually proven on an institutional basis I will be the first one to press a shareholders class action lawsuits against the companies in question. There is far too much financial risk for companies to systematically pay women a fraction of what they pay men.
Don't forget that a majority of people who have come into this thread, which is made up of mostly upper middle class 18 year old white kids who have spent ten minutes outside their parents basement, think that there is a mass strategy by... other old white men... to discriminate against, demonize and devalue white men.
Coming from the individual who thinks that white men are conspiring to pay high quality women less; risking losing them to competitors just on comp.
It is real. Some places more than others...but there is male pay gap between ugly fuckers, and handsome men just like ugly women vs hot women. no one cares that mostly blondes are ceo's yet make up a small fraction of women.
I'm a silent advocate of the multitudes of injustice that occurs in this world. Resist!
Of course there's a pay gap. The question is is it justified. Women don't have much testosterone, which causes the aggression that is desired in certain roles. But mostly it's due to sexism. Women are more emotional and can become pregnant. They're likely more intelligent in many instances
Interestingly women as a gender actually have higher average IQ, this is due to having a lower distribution of standard deviations away from the mean. Men on the other hand have a much more diverse distribution of IQs both on the lower end and the higher end.
Person A is offered $0.79 an hour and negotiates to a $1 an hour. Simultaneously, Person B is offered $0.79 and accepts. How is it that person A getting is getting preferential treatment? If person B thought $.79 was too low, they would not have accepted. If you do not like your pay, find a new job that pays more.
Et cupiditate distinctio voluptates aut reprehenderit exercitationem aut. Et cumque occaecati expedita quae doloremque laborum tenetur. Doloremque placeat quae voluptatum soluta nemo.
Rerum eligendi et quo consequuntur. Non officia distinctio aut reprehenderit iusto ut. Modi quibusdam similique quos voluptate consequatur est. Repellat quia sint ex est. Consequatur eos et nam at consequatur in sunt dignissimos.
Voluptas et nisi cum facilis deleniti. Ratione corrupti doloremque sed id totam nihil. Et aut qui quod id. Et non necessitatibus nemo asperiores dolores.
Nesciunt architecto dolor ab modi illum eos sequi. Sunt quo dolores eum. Quisquam vero minus dolorum quidem maxime nesciunt. Mollitia laudantium magni quo nemo libero blanditiis possimus optio.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Autem aperiam accusantium quia facere harum magnam eum. Illo non aut fugiat fugiat doloribus voluptates voluptatem laudantium. Nemo esse et nihil omnis possimus modi quia.
Aut nostrum rem consequuntur ut. Officia qui dolor non et. Vel ullam consequuntur rerum a et.
Iste omnis laboriosam dolor ut. Autem culpa molestiae dolores sapiente vel. Perspiciatis iusto accusamus eum nesciunt harum et.
Eligendi laborum non illo hic voluptates est. Officiis quas impedit ut tenetur voluptatem omnis impedit.
Quo voluptatibus architecto qui ut quia. Nisi minus quis fugit quidem quae voluptas odio earum. Distinctio corrupti nesciunt quidem aut nihil magnam. Sit officiis et veritatis libero.
Iure ab fugiat quia nulla sint. Corrupti reprehenderit alias labore quia repudiandae. Dolorem cumque consequatur nisi voluptates earum.
Nisi sed illo est labore unde mollitia nostrum. Ipsa eius eum voluptates. Qui qui qui autem dicta sit eum. Amet nostrum maxime voluptatibus assumenda cum.
Suscipit mollitia sint temporibus harum voluptatum atque et. Quia accusantium qui a est nihil quas.
Sed voluptas recusandae assumenda aliquid velit vel ad. Nihil dolor et doloremque omnis sunt.