The Lie of Male/Female Pay Disparity

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

So I saw another study lamenting the disparity in pay between men and women. This one tells us that "Corporations Pay Women CFOs 16 Percent Less Than Men". My answer is so what? Is that supposed to be some sort of injustice? Let's apply some logic:

If women really do the same quality and quantity of work as men, if they bring the same shareholder value to the corporation as men, if they are not costlier to hire than men, but you can pay the 16% (or as much as 25% in some studies) less than you pay men...

Why the hell would anyone hire a man if there were a woman available to do the job? You're getting the same benefits but saving 16%-25% on your labor costs! You'll put your idiotic misogynist competition out of business because they're stupid enough to hire men when women are available.

The fact that not only is this not the case, but the government actually has to pass laws to ensure women get hired at all by businesses tells you that there's more to this story. One (or more) of the above premises is/are false. Period. That's how the real world works. Especially in the modern global age where everyone wants to outsource to get the cheapest labor possible.

Or are we saying that corporate boards and their shareholders hate women so much that they want to overpay for labor by such a tremendous amount?

Comments

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

The words I have for you are not appropriate for this forum. Please allow me to take a moment to compose something involving less invectives.

Sexism is a very real thing, and it effects hiring practices in more ways than mere money. You see, the sexist societal norms which dictate that women should be paid less than men for the same work also dictate that women cannot work at the same level as men (even though they obviously can), and that women should be subordinate to men. Because of these sexist societal norms, women find it difficult to gain promotions (ever heard of the "glass ceiling"?) and there are very, very few women in positions of power, especially as high up on the food chain as, say, CEOs. So sexism not only means that women who attain positions of power are paid less, but also that there are less women available to take those positions of power -- and it is less likely that those who are qualified would be selected over a male applicant.

Many corporations will come up with excuses for why they do not hire women for top-paying positions -- up to and including blatantly sexist ones such as "she might decide to have a baby." They will say that there are no women with sufficient qualifications, despite the fact that they themselves are the ones who choose (time and time again, in study after study) to promote men over equally or more skilled women, robbing the women of the background and qualifications to attain higher positions.

Anyone who does not realize the role that sexism plays in this is a fool, and I find your insinuation that the "false premise" must be that women can perform in positions of power just as well as men frankly disgusting.

And yes, it is a damned injustice.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

So wait, if this is true, why doesn't a progressive corporation, hire women and put the misogynist corporations out of business? The misogynist corporations are OVERPAYING FOR LABOR.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If women really do the same quality and quantity of work as men, if they bring the same shareholder value to the corporation as men,

The problem is that corporations don't have this view.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

They don't have that view because they're wrong or because that view is wrong?

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

Then they must be non-competitive and other corporation or small firms will beat them.

Or they are competitive, and therefore it is true.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The main issue with pay disparity is that female dominated industries (nursing, teaching, aged care, etc) are less well remunerated for similar skills, risks and effort than male dominated industries.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

ding ding ding*** i think you pinned it!

[its-anya.livejournal.com]

Yep. On top of the fact that women are far more likely to work in part time jobs because of other commitments such as childcare and housework. Part-time work, chunks of time taken out for childcare, the potential to get pregnant... all of those things make a woman look like a less desirable candidate for career progression, thus limiting the number of women that can reach higher paid jobs.

It's a misconception that women get paid less for doing exactly the same job, because that's illegal in ~most~ countries, but the fact that a woman is less likely to get the higher paid ones for those reasons above is what contributes to the pay disparity figures. OP is fighting a straw (wo)man.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Women (and men) are fully aware of the remuneration for various industries and career paths.
Your point would suggest that women are paid less because of their own career choices.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Maybe or maybe not. Disparities to the disadvantage of men don't usually have the same priority. An example of this is the gender gap in college enrollment and graduation. Men are usually expected to just suck it up.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

While I generally agree with you that the gender gap in salaries is largely a factor of comparing apples to oranges (for example Females CFO's in aggregate would get paid less because 25 years ago there were so few of them meaning that far more male CFO's have decades of experience comparable to males) however there is a flaw in your argument.


The link between what salary you pay an executive and corporate profitability and the actual incentives of the person making the hiring decision is tenuous at best,hi it can easily be that executives charged with hiring a CFO are more swayed by their own personal biases than they are by the pay differiential than women offer.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Oh dhip markets are inefficient and you don't get sexism!

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

Corporations Pay Women CFOs 16 Percent Less Than Men...

I would want to ask what is/are the markets where these Women are found? And how do those markets differ/vary from those where the men are found? It's like, are we comparing the CFO of AT&T to that of PetCo to that of Build-A-Bear-Workshop?? u know

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

You... really don't know what you're talking about there.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

it's not that women are underpaid.

Men are overpaid.

[stephenp.livejournal.com]

Rick If you're having troubles with all those dollars, I know some orphans who could use some new Nikes, and a certain Canadian who could use a plane ticket to bring them to the poor lil ones.

[di-glossia.livejournal.com]

This study doesn't really work with your point. It's comparing comparable jobs within separate companies, using the market value of the companies. Only 150 of the 1900 CFOs were women. A company does not necessarily pay what it's market value would predict it to pay. The women could be skewed by one lady's bad pay. This disparity could be due to several things other than sexism, among them that these women just work for companies that pay poorly.

You do have an interesting point: if women work for less, why aren't there more of them in the workplace? Possibly because this study doesn't show the real facts and that the pay issue has as much to do with sexism as it does with where women choose to work. One of the reasons women are typically paid less is, as another article (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/19/447514/gender-pay-gap-is-largest-on-wall-street/) from that website puts it, "they tend to wind up in lower-paying positions". Unless you're comparing pay in the exact same job in the exact same company, you're eliminating factors that affect anyone. If two chemical engineers are being paid different amounts because one is male and one is female, that's wrong. If a chemical engineer and a receptionist are being paid different amounts, it's because they're working different jobs.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Except that the reason women "tend to end up in lower-paying positions" is because women are devalued in the workforce and positions typically or stereotypically held by women pay less simply because most of the individuals holding those jobs are and historically have been women. It isn't as though women go, "Oh, hey, I'm going to apply only for jobs that pay less than $30k annually!" or that women do not perform as well as men in higher-paying jobs -- they're pushed into these jobs socially (how many women are told they should be teachers and nurses, while men are told to be doctors and lawyers?), economically and otherwise.

Jobs traditionally held by women which are of vital importance and as such, one would think, would get higher pay (as, after all, we pay doctors astronomical sums because their jobs are so vital) -- teachers, nurses, social workers, etc. -- earn very, very little money not because those jobs are not needed and valuable at least as much as comparable male-dominated professions, but because of the (sexist) degradation of women's professions as "trivial" and of less importance than male-dominated professions, as well as the "traditional" sexist notion that women will have a man's salary to supplement hers and thus does not need to be as well-paid for their work.

Stating simply that there is no wage gap because "women 'wind up' in lower-paying positions" is not only false, but it misses the point entirely. Women don't just "wind up" in lower-paying positions -- stating it that way makes it seem benign, as if women intentionally choose positions that pay less money rather than being historically, socially, and economically pressured to seek out lower-paying professions, or as if they just ~happen to end up there with no surrounding social issues or patriarchal influence. And that is, frankly, bullshit.

Both in that paragraph and the prior one you are seeking excuses for sexism. You are looking for a reason -- any reason! -- to let corporations off the hook for their rampant sexism. You may want to see to that; it's pretty damn gross (and, shockingly, sexist).

[my-wits-end.livejournal.com]

Next time you apply some logic be sure to rub it in with a circular motion. Otherwise it won’t absorb properly.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

All while giving false reassurances one isn't rubbing one's face in bull shit?

[eatmyphotons.livejournal.com]

o thanks for my new job hunting strategy

tell them i only cost 75% of whatever man they are considering hiring

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Good point, by this "logic" employers have no reason to ask "What would you expect your starting salary to be?"

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

I thought all CFOs and executives were overpaid anyway. Don't worry, they'll drop all the salaries instead of raising up the women.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

Well they need to.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The social barriers you mention also prevent most men, even the hated white male privilege men, from becoming CEOs. The CEO club is small, exclusive and highly inbred.

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

If some candidate in fact looks like a less desirable candidate, WHY should this candidate get same salary?

Take into account legal punishment for employer for hiring woman -

*pregnancy and paid/unpaid leave related to it, and so on.
*statistically more significant amounts of "days off" for child care and so on.
*more often harassment claims ;)

I am always for equal rights - recall all those women privileges, you will get more equal payroll distribution.
You can't be BOTH: equal and have privileges, select one.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

^^