One frequently hears statements such as “Women are paid 67 cents for evey dollar men are paid in this country.” Is that true?
I know that companies have glass ceilings, that women are underpromoted, and that a largely disproportionate percentage of the higher-paying jobs go to men. In companies where I work, there are plenty of women up to the middle management level, and then at the top suddenly it’s all men. So obviously there’s unfairness.
What I want to know is, are women really getting paid less than men who have the same job titles and perform the same jobs in the same companies? And if so, what can be done about it? Aren’t there laws against sexual discrimination in salary practices in all 50 states, plus the Federal labor laws?
Forgive me if the very question seems naive, but I really want to know the facts.
Well, like most statistics, that “67 cents on the dollar” figure can be misleading. An explanation I have frequently heard for that is that while, yes, accounting for every man and every woman in the United States will lead to that figure, what isn’t accounted for is that many more women than men opt to stay home to raise children, etc. “67 cents on the dollar” figure represents 100% of men and 100% of women, not 100% of working men and 100% of working women. It’s not an accurate reflection of pay in the workforce.
On that note, the pay can also reflect that taking time off for maternity can, unfortunately, impact a woman’s options for moving up the company ladder; or, working mothers may choose not to pursue higher-power jobs because such jobs inevitably detract from the amount of time they are able to spend with their children-- so they are content with lower pay but what they understand to be an overall higher quality of personal life.
I guess my point is that a direct comparison of working men’s salaries to working women’s salaries is tricky, and doesn’t always tell the whole story so much as reflect the agenda of whoever is presenting the stats.
No, paying two people with the same job title who do the same work different wages on the basis of sex is already illegal. Disparity in average male and female earnings is attributable to other factors, some of which you mention in your post.
I had always wondered about this stat as well. If true, I wondered then how any company could remain competitive by hiring men at all since personnel costs are typically the highest costs a company has.
There is some truth to the stat though, as Beadalin pointed out. Other factors include the fact that women typically do not pursue the highest paying careers (medicine, law, business) as frequently as men, and that women do not pursue graduate and professional degrees in as great a number either and income tends to follow degree level to an extent.
There is also substantial truth to Baldwin’s claim that women are often promoted just enough to keep the law away, but are kept out of the really top jobs. I’m sure many women on this board can unfortunately attest.
Thanks for the responses. Maybe things are changing regarding glass ceilings – if not in the corporate world, at least in politics. I heard on the radio that an unprecedentedly large percentage of the candidates for governorship in the coming elections are women.
I don’t know if women are any better as governors or representatives than men (I think the differences among individuals are more meaningful than generalizations based on gender, race, etc.) but it would be nice to have the female half of the population equally involved in government. (Of course, we might get female versions of Bob Barr and Trent Lott, which is a scary thought.)
I can speak with a little knowledge on this, but only for the profession I am in. Up until about 15 years ago, it was male-dominated, now it’s female dominated.
In the statistics I’ve seen (this is for Communications in general and Advertising/Public Rleations in particular) the following statements are simplified, but essentially true
The average man makes more than the average woman
The number of women joining the profession has steadily increased over the past several years, therefore there are more women at entry and intermediate levels, and a disproportionate number of men at higher levels
Men tended to come into the industry from another profession (often journalism) and often joined at an intermediate level. By contrast, women tended to join the industry after college, and started in an entry level position.
In addition, the average woman has fewer years of experience than the average man – again because up until a few years ago it was male-dominated, and also because up to now women have averaged shorter careers in the industry (many of the more successful ones went on to careers in other professions, while others left to start families, etc.)
However, when those factors are adjusted for (e.g., directly comparing women in management with X years of experience vs. their male counterparts) the disparity in salaries is pretty close to nil.
Here, yes, women are routinely paid less than men. So are Indians and Pakistanis in particular - men and women - they can work side by side with a European and earn a third of what the European is earning. People are employed and paid varying salaries on the basis of gender, race, looks, age and family connections. If a job says something like “Wanted: filipino lady, on father or husband’s visa” you know the pay is going to be piss poor.
I have heard of women who are paid meagre salaries because “her father is rich businessman, she does not need to work.” Woman in said case was in her late twenties/early thirties.
I have heard of a woman whose salary was hugely decreased after she got married, because “her husband works, she does not need so much money now.” Woman in said case was a western expat who had worked loyally at the company for a couple of years.
As others have mentioned, large wage discrepancies between men and women who have the same background and education, similar experience, and identical duties are now very rare.
Does that mean all is well, and feminists are blissfully happy? Not quite. But the fights are no longer (for the most part) over identical pay for identical work. The battlefronts are on “the Mommy track” and on “comparable worth.”
A woman who wants to make partner at a prestigious law firm or executive VP at a Fortune 500 corporation can do so, provided she puts in the same insane 80, 90, 100 hour weeks that her male rivals do. On the other hand, if she wants children, she can’t very well put in those same hours- biology gets in the way. Her male rivals may have stay-at-home eives who can take care of the home and raise the kids without much help from Dad. But the female lawyer or executive doesn’t have that luxury. If she wants to “have it all,” currently, something has to give.
And, of more immediate relevance to many women in less lofty fields is “comparable worth.” In the real world, after all, men and women DON’T tend to go into identical fields. Certain careers are “ghettoized” by gender. Suppose that virtually all the accountants at a big firm are male, and virtually all the HR staff are female. Are they doing the SAME job? No, of course not. But if the head of accounting and the head of HR both have MBA degrees, and both are putting in long hours in important departments, couldn’t one argue that each has “comparable worth” to a company? If so, can the company justify paying the Accounting director more than the HR director?
Maybe yes, maybe no… therein lies the argument. And the argument HAS been carried to fields that AREN’T as obviously comparable. If a company’s truck drivers are almost all male and its secretaries are almost all female, is there a good reason the truck drivers get paid more? Is there a formula by which we can rationally determine what each job is worth? And if there is, would this new formula mean more money for women?
Another factor that may affect this is that there are many great paying blue collor jobs that require intense physical labor. Most women would not be able to or want to do these jobs.
I just read astorians post, I am a truck driver and make a lot more than the secretaries at my company. I am sure I could handle the secratary job, but I can also unload over 40,000 lbs of freight and most secretaries would not be able to do that. I think they formula that determines what a job is worth has to be supply and demand, just like anything else in a free economy.
What started me on this was that this morning I heard one of the female gubernatorial candidates – sorry, I don’t remember which state – giving a speech in which she said, “We’ll no longer put up with doing the same job as the man in the next cubicle and getting paid half as much!” She got a tremendous cheer from her audience, but I was thinking, “Wait a minute – if other factors are equal, how long could a U.S. company get away with discrimination that blatant? What’s really going on?”
Which I guess just demonstrates that female candidates, like their male counterparts, are given to a certain amount of bombast.
In the above example about truck driving men… One point that hasn’t been mentioned is that most of the very dangerous jobs in the US are performed by men, and they generally pay more because of it. A couple of years ago I looked up stastics on work related deaths. The winners were farming, logging, mining, and truck driving. Many people think truck driving is a safe easy job. ‘all you do is sit in a big chair all day.’ But DRIVING is the most dangerous thing people do on a daily basis.
I was in that situation. I was doing exactly the same job that a male colleague had done and when he was moved to that position, his pay increased to £X. A year later, his pay was now £X plus 5% for inflation & I was moved to the same position. My pay was incresed to what I was on before plus 5% inflation - which was exactly equal to X/2. So yes it happens. I was in computing and we were both doing the same job. I fought for a pay rise and got a tiny pay rise of about 10 percent, or slightly under. I left the company. I didn’t sue - for one thing I can’t afford a lawyer, and for another, it tends to be hard to get another job if when they ask for references the previous company says no reference as she’s suing us for sexual discrimation…
Illegal, perhaps, I am not a lawyer. Common, expected, and wrong, most definitely. Network World Fusion has an annual salary survey which they translate into a salary finder where you put things in like your experience, background, certifications, etc. One of the questions you answer is male or female. The salary finder reported that being female, I should expect $5000 per year less than if I were male. I don’t see how having a uterus affect my job performance.
No. Numerous studies have been done to show that there is pretty much no difference in wages (the number usually quoted is 98%) between men and women who have the same qualifications and have the same length of experience.
A wage gap exists for those who have children and are the main child-carer. Since this is usually the woman, her income usually suffers. Forcitesgalore, type in ‘wage gap childless’ into google. Childless men and women have comparable wages.
I heard that too and thought “what a crock.” In my industry (software), the pay appears to be equal for equal jobs. I’ve certainly seen many women choose not to follow a management career path as they have said it to be too stressful. Maybe men find it just as stressful but think it weak to admit it. This would lower the average pay of all women in software development if there were more men willing to take on the higher paying positions.
Another factor is that it may well be easier to get away with paying much less for jobs that are dominated by women (teaching, nursing, secretarial).
There is at least one category when men doing the same job typically earn LESS than women - and that’s the “administrative assistant/secretarial” category.
Partly, there’s a perception that it’s a “woman’s job” so a man in that position is viewed with some suspicion (is he gay? Is there something wrong with him?). But also, as someone else pointed about another job category, it has to do with recent history. Right now, a top level “executive assistant” can easily find a job for $50,000, with salaries ranging into the $70,000 range - BUT, you need 10-15 years experience AND you have to be very good at what you do - utterly reliable, diplomatic at all times, able to solve problems on your own… Men just didn’t become secretaries 10-15 years ago in the numbers they are now. So… most of the men are at lower levels of experience and job skills, which means they’re in the lower-paying secretarial jobs. 10 years from now there might be more at the upper levels, I don’t know.
But it’s not just that – I used to work side-by-side with a male “administrative assistant”. We were both doing the same job, but he was earning $5k less a year than I was.
But people get paid and promoted based on the quality (and quantity) of their work. Those who are willing to make sacrifices and work the 80 - 100 hour weeks are going to be the ones that get the promotions and make partners. Those who aren’t won’t. It’s simply a matter of priority for the individuals involved, it has nothing to do with gender.
I am a truck driver and make a lot more than the secretaries at my company. I am sure I could handle the secratary job, but I can also unload over 40,000 lbs of freight and most secretaries would not be able to do that. I think they formula that determines what a job is worth has to be supply and demand, just like anything else in a free economy.
