Gender Pay Gap

[Banquet_Bear]

@begbert2

The analysis is predicated upon the argument that the free market is a flawless (flawless!) value-finding device, and thus wages by definition are the value of the labor. And the free market actually is flawless - but only regarding the buying and selling of spherical cows.

…I just googled spherical cow: I had no idea that they were an actual thing

[begbert2]

@Bone

It seems paternalistic to suggest that Williams is somehow unable to find employment that reflects the actual value of her work.

This sentence is nonsensical - either one is defining “actual value” as “whatever their wage is” and thus it’s impossible to find a job that incorrectly values the work, or “actual value” is based on the value of the output and it’s pretty much guaranteed that no employer will pay the person the full monies generated by their labor.

There is no definition of “actual value” where this position makes sense. Unless you have a third definition of “actual value” that you think works here?

[TriPolar]

@Banquet_Bear

…Williams was top-billed.

Billing is a form of payment. You don’t know anything about this subject.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Bone

It seems like you’re denying, or at least minimizing Williams’s individual agency (not her agent, but her sense of agency). It seems paternalistic to suggest that Williams is somehow unable to find employment that reflects the actual value of her work. You express incredulity that Williams chose, of her own free will, to accept work for an amount you think was not sufficient.

…it seems you are denying the actual facts of what actually happened here. You accused me before of being off topic: but making this about “agency” is an attempted distraction not only from the topic of “the gender pay gap” but to distract from the obvious contradictions in your posts.

William Morris Endeavours had agency to negotiate a better deal for their client: they didn’t do so. The producers had agency to offer a better deal to Williams: they didn’t do so. The decision not to tell Williams what was offered to Walhberg was a decision made by all with agency. A million dollar disparity is not something that happens without a great many people signing off on that decision. All people with agency. They all chose of their own free will to do this. By making this all about Williams agency you deny that anyone else was involved in what happened here.

They all chose to pay Williams substantially less than what Walhberg got paid. The negotiations were done in secret and she never would have found out if the information didn’t make its way into the public domain. How are people supposed to “know their value” when there is zero basis for comparison?

I take a different view. One that recognizes Williams as a person that has her own agency, and can make her own choices for what work she is willing to do and at what price. If she were to think that was unfair, then she has an obvious and easy solution - don’t agree to do the work.

You are free to take a “different view.” But your “different view” contradicts what you said at the start of the thread.

[begbert2]

@TriPolar

Billing is a form of payment. You don’t know anything about this subject.

Pretty sure they meant “listed at the top of the poster/playbill/cast list”. The term means to be considered by those creating the show to be the most important role in the production.

[Banquet_Bear]

@TriPolar

Billing is a form of payment. You don’t know anything about this subject.

…LOL. Williams was top-billed. Walhberg got last billing. I could imagine a scenario where the person who got last billed got paid more than the top billed. But not at the rate that we saw here.

[puddleglum]

The reason Wahlberg got paid more than Williams is that he had more power in the negotiations than she did. In any negotiation the only real power is the power to walk away. If Walhberg had walked away from the movie he could have made another movie for huge money because he is a big star who gets paid tens of millions of dollars per movie. If Williams had walked away she could have made another movie for a similar amount of money that she got paid for this one. Thus because Walhberg had better alternatives than Williams did, he had more power and his agent was able to negotiate a clause that paid him 1.5 million to do reshoots and her agent was not able to negotiate a similar clause for her contract. Part of market power is the existence of alternatives.

[TriPolar]

@Banquet_Bear

…LOL. Williams was top-billed. Walhberg got last billing. I could imagine a scenario where the person who got last billed got paid more than the top billed. But not at the rate that we saw here.

I’m not going to engage in this distraction anymore. This is not pay disparity at all. There people are contractors. It is clear that one actor has been paid more than the other because they are better at the job of contracting. The gender pay gap is an important issue for people trying to make enough money to live. If Michelle Williams is not getting paid enough then she shouldn’t take the part, she doesn’t have to, she never has to work again if she doesn’t want to.

It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap.

[begbert2]

@TriPolar

I’m not going to engage in this distraction anymore. This is not pay disparity at all. There people are contractors. It is clear that one actor has been paid more than the other because they are better at the job of contracting. The gender pay gap is an important issue for people trying to make enough money to live. If Michelle Williams is not getting paid enough then she shouldn’t take the part, she doesn’t have to, she never has to work again if she doesn’t want to.

It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap.

No True Scotsman is a fallacy.

[Banquet_Bear]

@puddleglum

The reason Wahlberg got paid more than Williams is that he had more power in the negotiations than she did. In any negotiation the only real power is the power to walk away. If Walhberg had walked away from the movie he could have made another movie for huge money because he is a big star who gets paid tens of millions of dollars per movie. If Williams had walked away she could have made another movie for a similar amount of money that she got paid for this one. Thus because Walhberg had better alternatives than Williams did, he had more power and his agent was able to negotiate a clause that paid him 1.5 million to do reshoots and her agent was not able to negotiate a similar clause for her contract. Part of market power is the existence of alternatives.

…in simpler words: you agree the gender pay gap exists and you heartily endorse the traditional power structures that ensure the gender pay gap endures. Gotcha.

[nearwildheaven]

@TriPolar

It’s a lot better than when I was working in the 70s and got a raise for getting engaged and then another raise when I got married. It worked the opposite way for women.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that your company cut pay for women who got married? (Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me. While this didn’t happen to her, people of my mother’s generation have told stories about women having their paychecks issued in their husbands’ names.)

[nearwildheaven]

@puddleglum

Men are more motivated by money and so would make choices to do dangerous or unpleasant work in the same job and thus make more money.

For instance men Uber drivers make more than women Uber drivers. This despite that the rate is not negotiated and they are paid according to an set algorithm that does not take into account gender. It is because they work more hours, seek out more lucrative routes, and drive faster.

Men are also more likely to drive at times and into places, and take passengers, that a female driver would refuse or be hesitant to do.

[TriPolar]

@nearwildheaven

Wait a minute. Are you saying that your company cut pay for women who got married? (Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me. While this didn’t happen to her, people of my mother’s generation have told stories about women having their paychecks issued in their husbands’ names.)

Unlikely they cut pay, but might just fire her so they didn’t have to wait around for her to get pregnant and leave anyway. Certainly her chance of any advancement was hurt.

Remember the logic, I needed the extra money when I got married because I had a family to take care of and I automatically was more reliable as a result. A woman became a liability because she would just get pregnant and leave anyway.

That kind of crap was real, almost everyone at the top was a man, and the few women up there put their careers at risk if they rocked the boat.

[UltraVires]

@Banquet_Bear

…in simpler words: you agree the gender pay gap exists and you heartily endorse the traditional power structures that ensure the gender pay gap endures. Gotcha.

How is this even close to be an example of a gender pay gap? Wahlberg is one of the top stars in Hollywood and will have stronger negotiating power than a lesser star, man or woman.

[Banquet_Bear]

@TriPolar

I’m not going to engage in this distraction anymore.

…LOL.

This is not pay disparity at all.

1.5 million dollars is a pretty fucking big disparity to pretend doesn’t exist.

There people are contractors. It is clear that one actor has been paid more than the other because they are better at the job of contracting.

“The job of contracting.” LOL.

The gender pay gap is an important issue for people trying to make enough money to live.

The gender pay gap is an important issue for anyone on the wrong side of it.

If Michelle Williams is not getting paid enough then she shouldn’t take the part, she doesn’t have to, she never has to work again if she doesn’t want to.

And this here really says it all. Your solution to the pay gap is to tell woman to simply “stop playing the game.” Get out of the industry.

You could advocate for more transparency. Because transparency is important. Its why on Williams next film project she got paid exactly the same as her male co-star. Its a very simple thing to do and it fucking works.

But nope. Better she never works again. Because that would be the best outcome. :rolleyes:

It is obvious you do not know of a single true case of gender pay gap.

LOL.

@AAUW

Kerri Sleeman didn’t expect to collect her final paycheck through bankruptcy court when she took a job as a design supervisor at a Michigan firm. And she certainly didn’t expect that her efforts to collect that paycheck would reveal that for years she had made less than men she supervised.

…

Soon after, Sleeman talked to her former supervisor and asked him about the pay disparity. He said that she probably wasn’t misled — salaries likely weren’t negotiable when she was hired. But he said that the people she supervised — lots of young men — were the sole breadwinners for their wives and children, and that was probably taken into account when their salaries were figured. Sleeman was married at the time but had no children — and, of course, was a woman. The supervisor was not apologetic, Sleeman said.

https://www.aauw.org/2013/05/09/heartbreaking-pay-inequity/

@BBC

Former BBC Scotland health correspondent Eleanor Bradford
“I was BBC Scotland’s health correspondent from 2001 to 2016. I discovered I was one of the lowest paid correspondents at BBC Scotland, despite regularly appearing on UK-wide news and delivering exclusive stories. I regularly asked for a pay rise, and eventually cited equal pay legislation. This led to an immediate increase of £5,000 but it was not backdated. I remained around £10,000 below some male colleagues who were doing identical correspondent jobs. In one of my annual appraisals I was told I was a ‘model correspondent’. I left the BBC.”

BBC Women: Their pay gap stories

That’s **two **cases.

[Slash1972]

@UltraVires

How is this even close to be an example of a gender pay gap? Wahlberg is one of the top stars in Hollywood and will have stronger negotiating power than a lesser star, man or woman.

This. I’m pretty sure the star power of the actors involved determined what they got paid.

[UltraVires]

@Omar_Little

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?

I’m confused. Surely manson1972 has five years more experience than the new hire and can presumably solve problems that the new hire cannot solve and/or do things more efficiently, even if they both have the same job title.

It seems that manson1972, all other things being equal, would be a more desirable employee and should receive higher pay.

[Voyager]

@Omar_Little

What country do you live in?

Where is the 50th percentile considered mediocre?

If you haven’t looked lately the job market in the US is tight.

Not crappy, not great. The very definition of mediocre. I did work for a big company with this policy. Candidates turned us down left and right.

Tight job markets mean that starting salaries can get higher than salaries for people with tenure. That’s a different situation, and why in my example I assumed starting salaries only rose with inflation.
What happens then - and I’ve had this situation a lot - is that those with high starting salaries get low or no raises to let those with more years catch up.
Tight job markets may or may not cause companies to give big raises. I’ve seen a lot of expectation of inertia, along with an expectation of turnover. Stupid on the part of management, but hardly surprising.

[Voyager]

@Banquet_Bear

The “objective” means exist. You’ve already pointed to it. Actors aren’t measured on “productivity.” One could potentially sit on their arse most of the day and still end up getting paid scale.

Most actors do sit on their ass all day and collect scale. The principals might work more, but they don’t get scale.

[Banquet_Bear]

@UltraVires

How is this even close to be an example of a gender pay gap? Wahlberg is one of the top stars in Hollywood and will have stronger negotiating power than a lesser star, man or woman.

…it fits exactly the same pattern as the other two cases I cited. Williams wasn’t just paid less than Wahlberg: she was paid the scale rate. That shows this isn’t about negotiating power: Williams agents didn’t actually negotiate even after they secured 1.5 million for their other client. Its why transparency is important. Its why the problem is structural and baked into the system.