Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-20-2019, 03:50 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797

Gender Pay Gap


Kamala Harris made a small ripple, not the big splash I believe she intended, with the announcement of a proposed equal pay measure whereby companies would be required to disclose pay data along with a certification that they pay women and men equally or be subject to fines and penalties.

This notion has been debated for decades, and there are numerous studies that consistently show that women in the same jobs as men receive less pay.

I am still flummoxed as too why this still exists. In my company we strive to make sure that all employees are paid a market wage/salary for the role they are in, regardless of gender. Some reasons that people with the same job may have differing pay are as follows:
- location (market pay is also based on the location of your job)
- performance (each persons individual performance should impact their compensation)

Things that shouldn't impact compensation when people are doing the same jobs:
- tenure (the length of time at the company and your overall experience should not impact your compensation relative to someone else doing the same job.
- education (the number of degrees grad or post grad relative to someone else doing the same job)
- gender
- race
- age
- etc.

I'm sure that there many companies/bosses, etc. that will use the performance criteria to hide discrimination, but this should be fairly easy to ferret out.

I'm not too crazy about legislating this type of compliance. It should make market sense to compensate your higher performers regardless of gender.
  #2  
Old 05-20-2019, 04:35 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,542
It is massively illegal to deliberately pay women less than men for the same job, and has been since the early 1960s. Besides, if women really were being paid less than men, why would anyone want to hire men in the first place?

I collect old medical books, and have a book on the history of nursing that was written in the 1940s. It had a section on men in nursing, and stated that at that time, their career options were largely limited to private duty, prisons, and mental institutions because most hospital would not hire them, except for explicitly men-only wards, for this exact reason.
  #3  
Old 05-20-2019, 04:37 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
It is massively illegal to deliberately pay women less than men for the same job, and has been since the early 1960s. Besides, if women really were being paid less than men, why would anyone want to hire men in the first place?
So are you implying that the pay gap isn't real?
  #4  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:03 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,565
I generally agree with the exception of tenure and education. Both do make a difference even in the same job. Two first grade teachers with one year experience one with a BS one with a MS. MS ought to get paid more. Two first grade teachers one first year and one 23 years experience, the experience ought to get paid more. Several first grade teachers, all with a BS and three years experience. A white male, a white female, a black female, a transgender female of mixed race and a 55+ white female after a career change all ought to get paid the same.
  #5  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:08 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsat3acr View Post
I generally agree with the exception of tenure and education. Both do make a difference even in the same job. Two first grade teachers with one year experience one with a BS one with a MS. MS ought to get paid more. Two first grade teachers one first year and one 23 years experience, the experience ought to get paid more. Several first grade teachers, all with a BS and three years experience. A white male, a white female, a black female, a transgender female of mixed race and a 55+ white female after a career change all ought to get paid the same.
If the teacher with more experience and more degrees can be replaced with less experience and less degrees, where is the value that the more experienced teacher is bringing? They are not. Individuals with more experience and more education should be seeking jobs with more responsibilities that can leverage their experience and education if they want to get paid more.
  #6  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:18 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
It is massively illegal to deliberately pay women less than men for the same job, and has been since the early 1960s. Besides, if women really were being paid less than men, why would anyone want to hire men in the first place?
Because there is a perception that men are doing a better job than women regardless of actual performance. Most performance reviews are pretty subjective, and a lot of mediocre managers don't know who their best performers are. If you basically assume that white men are good workers unless shown otherwise, and that minorities and women are less effective unless shown otherwise, you end up overestimating the contributions of your white dudes.
  #7  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:18 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Sometimes you can hire people not necessarily only for the job they are going to do immediately, but also the work they may do in the future - their potential.

The same pay gap can exist among peers of the same gender as well. If A and B who are both men and do the same job get paid a different amount, why is that less objectionable that C and D who are a male and female, do the same job, and get paid a different amount?
  #8  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:21 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
If the teacher with more experience and more degrees can be replaced with less experience and less degrees, where is the value that the more experienced teacher is bringing? They are not. Individuals with more experience and more education should be seeking jobs with more responsibilities that can leverage their experience and education if they want to get paid more.
In education, specifically, the way a new young teacher becomes an effective teacher is by working closely with the more experienced teacher next door for several years. Collaboration is huge in teaching, and collaboration is much less effective if there isn't much experience on the team. However, education has not traditionally codified this role--instead, you just pay based on length of employment. I am aware that there are huge problems with that, but if you are coming up with a system to replace it, you need to preserve an incentive for teachers to stay in the profession long enough to become mentors--and recognize that those mentors are contributing more than what they do in their own classroom.
  #9  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:27 PM
boffking is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: New England
Posts: 2,524
How much of the pay gap is attributable to different career choices? If laborers in oil fields tend to be men, and make more money than daycare workers that tend to be women, does that mean there is a gender pay gap?
  #10  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,530
At least a few of the computer programmers that work alongside me have exactly the same job title and nominally the same duties as I do. I don't know what they make (we're told not to discuss it), but I'm quite confident that none of us make the same wage as each other, just due to the fact that our position doesn't have a set wage and we all negotiated our wage separately.

Also, it's damn near impossible to qualitatively compare our performance, because we're all working on different things and it's impossible to objectively rank these things by difficulty. Especially since we're all somewhat specialized and some things become easier or harder depending on who's working on them.

Oh, and we're all male.

How would we be impacted by the proposed change?
  #11  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:33 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by boffking View Post
How much of the pay gap is attributable to different career choices? If laborers in oil fields tend to be men, and make more money than daycare workers that tend to be women, does that mean there is a gender pay gap?
If the daycare workers are providing as much value to society as the oil laborers, and are working just as hard, then yes there certainly is a pay gap. Less simple to fix, but definitely there. Society tends to underestimate not only the work of individual women, but the kinds of work that women tend to do. Because it's on a broad community level, doesn't make it any less objectionable.
__________________
It is easier to fall than to climb ... letting go for the fall brings a wonderful feeling of ease and power
- Katherine Kerr Daggerspell
  #12  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:33 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 487
The pay gap is not simply caused by discrimination.

A few years ago, I was working for my current employer, though at a different job. In front of me sat a female employee, one year older than me and (funnily enough) had one year of seniority. This year gave her more training, and she was definitely worth the extra pay. This entitled her to a "salary"* increase of $1,500 more than me. Furthermore she is bilingual, and she was entitled to an additional $800 per year (not a lot). So in total, she was paid more than me and would have been expected to make $2,300 more than me (gross) that year.

Nope.

My team had thirteen members (below the management, that is). There were seven males, including me, and six females, so a roughly equal split. Four of the six female employees did lots of overtime. The other two did none. All seven male employees, including me, worked lots of overtime. The overtime was assigned by our (female) manager, who was required to split overtime requests evenly, and yes, that was audited, so a sexist manager denying female employees overtime hours would be quickly discovered and fired. I did not get all the overtime hours I wanted I wanted as I had to compete with ten other employees. I was paid around $5,000 of overtime (gross pay) that year. The employee sitting in front of me worked no overtime at all.

Obviously I never saw her paycheck, but you can easily figure out someone's base salary if you know their rank and seniority, since that basic information is publicly available. (It's never this, as you may have to work part time some of the time, or get temporarily laid off, or work overtime.) I am positive I was paid more than her, by around $2,800 that year, although I was paid less per hour.

An equal pay law that orders the same pay per hour is what I would want to see.

*While it's called a "salary", it's actually paid by the hour. They just give the figure annually, and it only applies if you worked exactly the expected number of hours, full-time. It's really an amount per hour.
  #13  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:38 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
In education, specifically, the way a new young teacher becomes an effective teacher is by working closely with the more experienced teacher next door for several years. Collaboration is huge in teaching, and collaboration is much less effective if there isn't much experience on the team. However, education has not traditionally codified this role--instead, you just pay based on length of employment. I am aware that there are huge problems with that, but if you are coming up with a system to replace it, you need to preserve an incentive for teachers to stay in the profession long enough to become mentors--and recognize that those mentors are contributing more than what they do in their own classroom.
How much value a worker is providing to their colleagues is, IME, something that's woefully under-consideredeverywhere. Instead, workplaces rely on manager evaluations (from managers who often aren't specialists in the work the worker is actually doing) or "self-evaluations" - the person with the biggest ego wins.

In my current university course, every class I take that has group-work as part of the assessment (that's "all of the IT-related ones" so far) has some sort of anonymous peer assessment built into the process - who was it that actually did most of the work? I have never seen such a thing, formally in the workplace, but I think it would be a great thing.
__________________
It is easier to fall than to climb ... letting go for the fall brings a wonderful feeling of ease and power
- Katherine Kerr Daggerspell
  #14  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:41 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by boffking View Post
How much of the pay gap is attributable to different career choices? If laborers in oil fields tend to be men, and make more money than daycare workers that tend to be women, does that mean there is a gender pay gap?


We're talking about same pay for the same roles.
  #15  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:42 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
If the daycare workers are providing as much value to society as the oil laborers, and are working just as hard, then yes there certainly is a pay gap. Less simple to fix, but definitely there. Society tends to underestimate not only the work of individual women, but the kinds of work that women tend to do. Because it's on a broad community level, doesn't make it any less objectionable.
That's not what is typically meant by a gender pay gap. Gender pay gap is same job and different pay for men vis a vis women.

What you are describing is a disagreement on the overall value of labor. We have currency to translate the actual value of that labor into measurable amounts, and if daycare workers are getting paid less than oil laborers, then they are by definition providing less value to society.
  #16  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:45 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
In education, specifically, the way a new young teacher becomes an effective teacher is by working closely with the more experienced teacher next door for several years. Collaboration is huge in teaching, and collaboration is much less effective if there isn't much experience on the team. However, education has not traditionally codified this role--instead, you just pay based on length of employment. I am aware that there are huge problems with that, but if you are coming up with a system to replace it, you need to preserve an incentive for teachers to stay in the profession long enough to become mentors--and recognize that those mentors are contributing more than what they do in their own classroom.
Is being a mentor, in the more senior teachers' job descriptions? Are they expected to put in so many hours mentoring their newer counterparts? If so, then they should be compensated more. But if it's not expected and not articulated as being part of their responsibilities, then no.
  #17  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:48 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Sometimes you can hire people not necessarily only for the job they are going to do immediately, but also the work they may do in the future - their potential.

The same pay gap can exist among peers of the same gender as well. If A and B who are both men and do the same job get paid a different amount, why is that less objectionable that C and D who are a male and female, do the same job, and get paid a different amount?
Generally, if a person is deemed to have more potential, it generally should be showing up in their performance. If it isn't then I'd call bullshit and say it's just favoritism by their boss, for some unknown reason.
  #18  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:58 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
and if daycare workers are getting paid less than oil laborers, then they are by definition providing less value to society.
..."value to society" is measured only by how much money people get paid? Mothers objectively have less value than politicians? This is by definition? Can you share that definition with us?
  #19  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:02 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Is being a mentor, in the more senior teachers' job descriptions? Are they expected to put in so many hours mentoring their newer counterparts? If so, then they should be compensated more. But if it's not expected and not articulated as being part of their responsibilities, then no.
This is a huge hijack. If you want to talk about teacher pay, I am happy to do that, but this thread is not the place for it.
  #20  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:05 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Sometimes you can hire people not necessarily only for the job they are going to do immediately, but also the work they may do in the future - their potential.

The same pay gap can exist among peers of the same gender as well. If A and B who are both men and do the same job get paid a different amount, why is that less objectionable that C and D who are a male and female, do the same job, and get paid a different amount?
So do men have more potential because they are less likely, statistically, to need to take maternity leave or leave to stay home with kids?
  #21  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:07 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
This is a huge hijack. If you want to talk about teacher pay, I am happy to do that, but this thread is not the place for it.
You introduced teacher pay and the justification of paying teachers with more degrees and tenure higher pay. I didn't.

But considering that gender pay difference in teaching is probably miniscule compared to the broader economy. I agree we shouldn't let the education system detract from this discussion.
  #22  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:10 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
So do men have more potential because they are less likely, statistically, to need to take maternity leave or leave to stay home with kids?
I would say no. Again, potential should be seen through the employees current performance.
  #23  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:13 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
You introduced teacher pay and the justification of paying teachers with more degrees and tenure higher pay. I didn't.

But considering that gender pay difference in teaching is probably miniscule compared to the broader economy. I agree we shouldn't let the education system detract from this discussion.
I didn't. rsat3acr did.
  #24  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:14 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."value to society" is measured only by how much money people get paid? Mothers objectively have less value than politicians? This is by definition? Can you share that definition with us?
Mothers are volunteers.

In actual fact the notion that wages accurately reflect value is a complete and total lie, as can be evinced by pretty much everything. No CEO produces that much value; no unpaid intern produces that little.

Wages are really just price stickers on labor, and labor is priced based on free market forces modified by price fixing and organizational bureaucracy. When people (or an entire career) are underpaid relative to the value they provide their employer it's because market forces allow their employer to get away with it: somebody else is willing to do the job for less. Higher paid positions are higher-paid merely because the people working in that field expect a higher pay, and the employers can't reliably find competent people to work in (and stay in) those jobs for a lower wage - or feel it's not worth their bother to fire all their current people and hire (and train) potentially-incompetent scabs.

If women are getting paid less than men for comparable work in a comparable field, the cause is (in my guesstimation) probably a combination of men preferring to hire men and thus having a lower interest in hiring (or promoting) female workers - and of women realizing that the hiring market is skewed against them and thus lowering their expectations - which employers are happy to take advantage of.
  #25  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:14 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
nm

Last edited by Omar Little; 05-20-2019 at 06:14 PM.
  #26  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:19 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Mothers are volunteers.
...when measuring "value to society" why would that matter?
  #27  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:20 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
If women are getting paid less than men for comparable work in a comparable field, the cause is (in my guesstimation) probably a combination of men preferring to hire men and thus having a lower interest in hiring (or promoting) female workers - and of women realizing that the hiring market is skewed against them and thus lowering their expectations - which employers are happy to take advantage of.
I agree with this, as for why it continues to happen. It is in the best interest of companies to pay for performance, and it is statistically non-plausible to believe that men are higher performers across the board than women. Managers that continue to inappropriately pay and not promote women that are higher performers should be fired.

Last edited by Omar Little; 05-20-2019 at 06:21 PM.
  #28  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:22 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."value to society" is measured only by how much money people get paid? Mothers objectively have less value than politicians? This is by definition? Can you share that definition with us?
Yes, if a given profession gets paid more, society, more accurately the economy, values that work more. The delta is calculated by subtracting one from the other. Pricing is one of the greatest ways to signal value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
So do men have more potential because they are less likely, statistically, to need to take maternity leave or leave to stay home with kids?
Maybe?

Quote:
When men and women finish school and start working, theyíre paid pretty much equally. But a gender pay gap soon appears, and it grows significantly over the next two decades.

So what changes? The answer can be found by looking at when the pay gap widens most sharply. Itís the late 20s to mid-30s, according to two new studies ó in other words, when many women have children. Unmarried women without children continue to earn closer to what men do.

The big reason that having children, and even marrying in the first place, hurts womenís pay relative to menís is that the division of labor at home is still unequal, even when both spouses work full time. Thatís especially true for college-educated women in high-earning occupations: Children are particularly damaging to their careers.
If there was no concern whatsoever about equality, morality, or you know, following the law, it wouldn't make sense to hire anyone who gets extra legal protection for things like maternity, protected classes, reasonable accommodations, etc. All of those things make those employees more expensive to hire. I had a boss once tell me that when he hires, people with the 3 Ms are the best employees - Married, Mormon, with a Mortgage. I was kind of shocked he'd say that out loud.
  #29  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:24 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...when measuring "value to society" why would that matter?
Because "value to society" has precisely nothing to do with how much people get paid.

Plus, who exactly would the mother's employer be? I'm thinking, herself. She's self-employed. The average mother presumably sets her 'wages' (frivolous spending money) and 'benefits' (bonbons in the bathtub time) the same way any other self-employed person of her level of responsibilty and organizational acumen would.
  #30  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:31 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Maybe?


If there was no concern whatsoever about equality, morality, or you know, following the law, it wouldn't make sense to hire anyone who gets extra legal protection for things like maternity, protected classes, reasonable accommodations, etc. All of those things make those employees more expensive to hire. I had a boss once tell me that when he hires, people with the 3 Ms are the best employees - Married, Mormon, with a Mortgage. I was kind of shocked he'd say that out loud.
How do you feel about equality, morality, and following the law? You say you were surprised he'd "say that out loud", which implies the sentiment didn't surprise you, just the public expression of it. When you hire people, do you avoid hiring women you judge likely to need maternity leave in the future? Would you approve of an employer who did?
  #31  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:43 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
How do you feel about equality, morality, and following the law? You say you were surprised he'd "say that out loud", which implies the sentiment didn't surprise you, just the public expression of it. When you hire people, do you avoid hiring women you judge likely to need maternity leave in the future? Would you approve of an employer who did?
Of course not. I think it's wrong, not to mention illegal. I've worked in a lot of big companies and seen quite a bit of activity that is questionable. Even where this even happened the workforce was pretty evenly distributed by gender, and ethnicity so I can't say if that individual expression translated into hiring decisions. It was my first job after college so I wasn't in a position to do anything about it.

Now that I'm further in my career, I have hired many dozens of people and I can't say it's ever been a consideration for me.
  #32  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:45 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,742
Let's talk tenure and education.
For tenure, assume that the starting pay rate is static after accounting for inflation, and that decent performers get a 1% raise per year,
You're doing pay review with two people, one with 1 year tenure and another with five years. The five year person makes 4% more (more after compounding) than the one year person. How do you propose to level this? Give the 1 year person a whopper? Take money away from the five year person?

As for education, typically those with more education get hired into higher level jobs. But if that does not happen, and you don't give a premium for a Masters, for instance, all the people with Masters are going to go to your competitors.
I've never done salary review at a place where degrees count after hiring, but they sure as hell count at hiring, and the increment in pay stays around for a long, long time.
As for accurately measuring performance, I can only think you've never been too involved in performance reviews. I've done some that made me feel good - but I've also done some that made me feel dirty afterwards. In fact one was bad enough that I started looking for a new job. This was not my review - this was being involved, as a manager, in reviewing the employees in our department.
  #33  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:51 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Because "value to society" has precisely nothing to do with how much people get paid.
...you should be telling Bone that, not me, as he is arguing precisely this.
  #34  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:58 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you should be telling Bone that, not me, as he is arguing precisely this.
Yeah, I noticed that, but you're the one who actually asked me, so you got the love.

The notion that wages are representative of value to society is absurd, and I'd be happy to baselessly assert that to anybody who asks.
  #35  
Old 05-20-2019, 06:58 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Let's talk tenure and education.
For tenure, assume that the starting pay rate is static after accounting for inflation, and that decent performers get a 1% raise per year,
You're doing pay review with two people, one with 1 year tenure and another with five years. The five year person makes 4% more (more after compounding) than the one year person. How do you propose to level this? Give the 1 year person a whopper? Take money away from the five year person?

As for education, typically those with more education get hired into higher level jobs. But if that does not happen, and you don't give a premium for a Masters, for instance, all the people with Masters are going to go to your competitors.
I've never done salary review at a place where degrees count after hiring, but they sure as hell count at hiring, and the increment in pay stays around for a long, long time.
As for accurately measuring performance, I can only think you've never been too involved in performance reviews. I've done some that made me feel good - but I've also done some that made me feel dirty afterwards. In fact one was bad enough that I started looking for a new job. This was not my review - this was being involved, as a manager, in reviewing the employees in our department.
Tenure: If the two individuals have the exact same job, then employee #2 would be hired in at the same salary in year 4 that employee #1 has, since that's the current market for that role and job. So when the time came in year 5 to consider raises, then performance of both would be considered.

Education: If the person with the Masters degree doesn't merit a more differentiating role with a higher comp, then I don't care if my competitor hires them. Degrees alone shouldn't get you higher pay. A person with a higher degree should be capable of more responsibility, the ability to create more value. If they can't, they shouldn't get higher pay.

I am responsible for leading over 200 people around the world at my company. I am very capable of conducting and evaluating performance reviews. I am more critical of supervisors and other leaders of people in my expectations of them.
  #36  
Old 05-20-2019, 07:07 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Yes, if a given profession gets paid more, society, more accurately the economy, values that work more.
..."society" and "the economy" are two very different things. You are making a different argument now. Are you talking about "value to society" or "value to the economy?" Can you concede that "value to society" is poorly measured by how much people are paid?

Quote:
The delta is calculated by subtracting one from the other. Pricing is one of the greatest ways to signal value.
Except that it isn't. It signals what the people who have the money and have the power to employ people value, not society and not the economy.
  #37  
Old 05-20-2019, 07:13 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Yeah, I noticed that, but you're the one who actually asked me, so you got the love.
...I asked you because you challenged me. It seems clear now thought that your entire point had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Quote:
The notion that wages are representative of value to society is absurd, and I'd be happy to baselessly assert that to anybody who asks.
I didn't ask you anything but you felt the need to challenge me anyway. So please, feel free to challenge people that "don't ask you anything", because you've demonstrated you are perfectly capable of doing that.
  #38  
Old 05-20-2019, 07:18 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,357
There are few cases where women are paid less than men for performing equal work, and most of it is clustered at the lower end of the economic scale. It accounts for very little of the overall difference in pay for men and women.
  #39  
Old 05-20-2019, 07:40 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
There are few cases where women are paid less than men for performing equal work, and most of it is clustered at the lower end of the economic scale. It accounts for very little of the overall difference in pay for men and women.
...Hollywood movies stars are not clustered at the "lower end of the economic scale" and women are paid less than men not because they don't perform "equal work" (they often do) : but because of their perceived "value" to a production. When the actors came into reshoot scenes for "All the Money in the world" Michelle Williams (who was top billed) got paid a $1000: her co-star Marc Wahlberg got paid 1.5 millions dollars. And they both had the same agent. So I don't think your premise holds water. But if you'd like to make a case for it feel free to present some evidence.
  #40  
Old 05-20-2019, 08:18 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."society" and "the economy" are two very different things. You are making a different argument now. Are you talking about "value to society" or "value to the economy?" Can you concede that "value to society" is poorly measured by how much people are paid?



Except that it isn't. It signals what the people who have the money and have the power to employ people value, not society and not the economy.
I'm using the terms synonymously, but I more mean the economy. Society was the word choice I was responding to so I mirrored it. Feel free to substitute the economy.

I guess we'll have to disagree on what money represents then.
  #41  
Old 05-20-2019, 08:30 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm using the terms synonymously, but I more mean the economy. Society was the word choice I was responding to so I mirrored it. Feel free to substitute the economy.

I guess we'll have to disagree on what money represents then.
..."agreeing to disagree" in a great debate is a bit of a cop-out: especially when you've presented a premise that can be objectively tested. I will decline your offer to "substitute economy for society." Lets stick with "value to society" and lets test your metric. Is pewdiepie more "valuable to society" than a high-school-teacher because he earns substantially more money?
  #42  
Old 05-20-2019, 08:44 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."agreeing to disagree" in a great debate is a bit of a cop-out

Is hijacking a thread in Great Debates considered good manners?

Your continued focus on societal value of daycare really has nothing to do with the topic at hand on gender pay.
  #43  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:01 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Things that shouldn't impact compensation when people are doing the same jobs:
- tenure (the length of time at the company and your overall experience should not impact your compensation relative to someone else doing the same job.
I don't understand this one. Every year, I get a raise. If someone just started working at my company doing my job, they wouldn't be at the same salary, since they don't have 5 years of raises. They would be starting at the same salary that I started with.
  #44  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:04 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Is hijacking a thread in Great Debates considered good manners?
...you may be dismayed to discover that 1) I don't have fucking good manners, and 2) I don't consider my posts to be a hijack.

Quote:
Your continued focus on societal value of daycare really has nothing to do with the topic at hand on gender pay.
You aren't the thread police and you don't own the thread. I'm not just talking about fucking childcare. This is a related tangent whether you can see it or not. Understanding how the pay gap came about is important to the discussion. The notion that "wages are representative of value to society" is absolutely related to why men tend to hire men and why men tend to pay men more than women for doing the same job. Deconstructing that premise is absolutely on topic.
  #45  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:05 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I had a boss once tell me that when he hires, people with the 3 Ms are the best employees - Married, Mormon, with a Mortgage. I was kind of shocked he'd say that out loud.
Do you live in Utah?
  #46  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:26 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I don't understand this one. Every year, I get a raise. If someone just started working at my company doing my job, they wouldn't be at the same salary, since they don't have 5 years of raises. They would be starting at the same salary that I started with.
Many jobs don't offer these kinds of raises. I have a union and they have to fight for cost of living wage increases. Fortunately where I work we do get seniority raises, but for a limited number of years (the exact amount varies by "rank"). I guess they want people to get promoted. To my way of thinking these increases are valid, but I can see how someone would think otherwise.

I once worked at a place that gave a 25 cent per hour raise every three months, with another raise of the same amount if you met certain performance indicators. Then the government raised minimum wage again and they stopped that. (They started a hair above the previous minimum wage. Some of the newer workers were getting paid below the new minimum wage, until that law was passed.)
  #47  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:37 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I don't understand this one. Every year, I get a raise. If someone just started working at my company doing my job, they wouldn't be at the same salary, since they don't have 5 years of raises. They would be starting at the same salary that I started with.

Why should someone starting 5 years after you only get the salary you started with 5 years ago? They are doing the same job you are doing. They should get the same pay.

Do you believe that you are getting paid above market for your role? Could you go somewhere else and get a job with similar pay?
  #48  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:41 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Why should someone starting 5 years after you only get the salary you started with 5 years ago? They are doing the same job you are doing. They should get the same pay.

Do you believe that you are getting paid above market for your role? Could you go somewhere else and get a job with similar pay?
Because I am getting raises based on my performance. A new person doesn't have that performance to rate a salary that is comparable to mine.

Yes, I could go somewhere else and get a job with similar pay.
  #49  
Old 05-20-2019, 10:23 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
If the teacher with more experience and more degrees can be replaced with less experience and less degrees, where is the value that the more experienced teacher is bringing? They are not. Individuals with more experience and more education should be seeking jobs with more responsibilities that can leverage their experience and education if they want to get paid more.
I was just making up a situation but it may very well be the experienced teacher can handle many situations better. Maybe not the day to day stuff but when things don't go as planned. I've been a dentist for 29 years and can assure you I am a much better dentist now then when I graduated although my qualification, a DDS degree is exactly the same. Experience does make a difference in many jobs and is worth more money in many but of course not every situation.
  #50  
Old 05-20-2019, 10:28 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I didn't. rsat3acr did.
I was just making up a situation to support my opinion that often differences tenure and education should be rewarded differently. The OP stated they shouldn't
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017