That’s not true at all. Sometimes the cost is more for men. But almost universally the costs of the same item are more for women than for men. The running joke is that if you take the same volume of shaving cream, stick it in a taller narrower bottle, and add a label with purple and butterflies; you can slap a higher price on it.
Look at pockets. Women rarely find clothes with pockets. When they do the pockets are usually very inadequate. Their pants use less material but cost more.
Alternatively, their clothes often take more materials to clean, so drycleaners cost more for women’s clothing. Haircuts cost more for women but they usually take more time and materials as well. So there are often hidden considerations that complicate how we judge and view this matter. At the end of the day it costs more if manufacturers can get away with charging more without losing sales.
As I recall there have been a number of studies done on this… and they fall into the “technically true” if you looked specifically at gender within a given work pool and discounted all other factors then this is the answer you arrive at.
Unfortunately, every single one of these that I have personally read … all suffered from the fact that other factors play a part in that somewhat disingenuous number. If roles are factored in - these numbers begin to fall apart. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread: women have maternity leave… and following that can look to exit the workforce or move to part time. Compensation can be different between these categories. Continuing down this path: in a household that is dual income - it has been traditional to see the woman leave the workforce for child rearing opposed to the man. So looking at a given workforce, specifically at a given role in that group may still have a disparity in experience and time in the position (and thus compensation.) Lastly there is the bane of all - starting compensation negotiations. It is my understanding that generally men are more aggressive / assertive during this phase in the hiring process.
In short: this is stupidly difficult to generate fair and correct numbers for this type of metric and RARELY does it behoove the party running that inquiry to get the details right. The more accurate the results: the less sensational the number. Now to be clear: I do believe that there are cases where there are unfair practices taking place - but they are the exception… not the rule.
At the end of the day - if we made it commonplace to be acceptable to discuss compensation… And put some more workers rights laws into place… We’d have a system where everyone could have a fair shake in a job, equally.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong with some numbers that have actually factored in these variables. With regard to OPs statement: that number looks strikingly familiar to one horrifyingly old and incorrectly run survey.
I’ve had this discussion quite a bit, and it’s tough to break the 77 cents on the dollar and whatnot rhetoric, because those people are convinced that a man and a woman doing the same job with equal experience, the woman just automatically makes on average 23% less than a man. And it’s easy to prove that wrong, and entirely misses the point.
Two of the biggest factors in fixing the “gender pay gap” is longer maternity leave, similar lengths of paternity leave, and low-cost or free daycare. And then obviously, a cultural change for stay-at-home dads (though not exactly something you can legislate). I also read a study (I believe from Farleigh Dickinson University, in 2002, though I have had trouble finding it since) that the vast majority of men, after having a child, wanted to go back to full time work, and the majority (though not as large) if women wanted to either work part-time or stay at home. Now, I imagine a lot has changed in 23 years, so maybe that mentality has changed, but if all else is fixed and there is a “pay gap” based on choice like that… that’s not a problem that needs to be solved.
So to recap, we need to stop talking about cents on the dollar and start talking about making rejoining the workforce more available and appealing after having babies, and giving dads more time with their kids to let their wives work.
ETA: To be clear, there is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed regarding women in the workforce, it’s just not the “gender pay gap” as people try to describe it.
I’ve had this discussion quite a bit, and it’s tough to break the 77 cents on the dollar and whatnot rhetoric, because those people are convinced that a man and a woman doing the same job with equal experience, the woman just automatically makes on average 23% less than a man. And it’s easy to prove that wrong, and entirely misses the point.
With the pervasiveness of social media, outrage culture, and, frankly, the steadily increasing difficulty to finding credible sources of information… it’s just far too easy to just revert to our baser “tribalistic” tendencies and blame someone and get mad. Toss into the mix the fact that a lot of these topics are sensitive issues and boy howdy EVERYTHING is a powderkeg and ONLY black and white despite evidence to the contrary.
[…] Now, I imagine a lot has changed in 23 years, so maybe that mentality has changed, but if all else is fixed and there is a “pay gap” based on choice like that… that’s not a problem that needs to be solved.
Agreed on this point. Different strokes for different folks.
So to recap, we need to stop talking about cents on the dollar and start talking about making rejoining the workforce more available and appealing after having babies, and giving dads more time with their kids to let their wives work.
I’d really like to see a world where it’d be possible for both parents to get leave, be able to work part time while not being put in a financially dire situation, and still have access to crucial things like affordable healthcare and insurance. A pipedream - without question… but one can hope.
“Women aren’t discriminated against with pay, because they’re discriminated against all these other ways instead!”
Sorry, were you quoting someone? I can’t see that anywhere else… but perhaps I missed it.
“Pink tax” is a thing, though. Not just in North America.
Evidence? Or just “trust me bro”?
Trust me bro
“at average” is waaaaay to vauge and can mean so many different things…
Something that large I’m assuming you’re using something like comparing 50 year old men to 50 year old women. Where some women that have spent a decade or two out of the workforce raising children. Or even something that ignores industry/position.
If corporations could pay 15% less to a woman than a man with the same experience and qualifications…
They’d only hire women.
Part of the gender pay gap is because women have to leave their careers to raise children. Either because of societal expectations or the father is not present. Same pay for same work is all well and good when you have only one to think about.
Add the loss of income at that time, to the loss of experience and chance to advance. Then add discrimination and sexism.
I’ve seen many men in my current career take paternity leave though. I’ve also worked with a single dad. I’m not saying these aren’t a struggle but they aren’t wholey unique to women. If anything, women are legally protected while pregnant, a guy is not of he starts to struggle with a child birth.
I’m open to the idea what women make less or whatever, I’d just wanna see the numbers because this line of reasoning doesn’t really seem that persuasive.
I’ve also seen women with no children with both low and high salaries. The point is not what is possible to happen, but what tends to happen. Women get childcare imposed on them at the cost of their careers and income.
Then there is also the problem that jobs traditionally taken by women are paid less than men. So, again, a man working as a nurse or in childcare is paid less also, but the level of education and work required for these roles is not commensurate with the pay for similar roles for men, like in trades.
Women get childcare imposed on them at the cost of their careers and income.
OK, I can acknowledge that. That’s a struggle. I feel that man are often shouldered with financially providing for the child. But different struggles, all that should be sorted out before becoming pregnant if possible.
Nurses take schooling, and men get paid less. Trades take schooling, and men get paid more. It seems like there is just general inequality that needs do be addressed. Not saying has it harder or not, just seems like it’s a spead and should be addressed in general.
Men are shouldered with the financial struggle? Do you mean in a couple with a relationship? So, from your hypothesis, both parents have pressure placed in them by having children. In men’s case it’s to their financial benefit and for women it’s to their financial detriment. Does that not make society sexist in your view? This kind of sexism is what is called structural inequality. It leads to lower wages for women. However, as much as that is an issue, there is also an issue of women getting paid less for the same work. That also happens but can be harder to measure
Yes, everyone on the system can choose to partake differently but they are swimming against the tide tondo so.
It’s to men’s financial benefit to have to provide? Having to work jobs that pay what you need doing things you hate because the career you really want doesn’t pay enough to raise a kid?
I feel like you have a very one sided view of this situation. I could say the woman at home could also have time to educate herself and grow while the man could be stuck in a dead end factory job working himself to death to provide. Or maybe even working two jobs. But you just see it as the guy works more so that must mean he’s doing better. No.
And yes, there is women getting paid less for the same work. But as you even admitted, there are some men who get paid less for the same work too. I’ve also seen women who are nice and pretty get promoted over more qualified men. The same way I’ve seen guys who are buddy buddy get promotions over well qualified women. But you seem to be only looking at one side of the problem. Both struggle in different ways is my point. We should address those struggles, all of them, and not just focus on one side.
I don’t know if you’re purposely missing the point. Some of the world’s wealthiest people are billionaire women. That doesn’t mean sexism doesn’t exist. Lots of women having high paid jobs doesn’t mean there aren’t more women than men being paid for the same work, or for similar amounts of effort.
You talk about me wing one sided while thinking women doing fully time child care would have time to study to advance their career? Lol, no.
Children take a large amount of time and resources to raise. The way society is set up, women are expected and obliged to sacrifice time, men are expected to provide resources. In the mens case, this means pressure to advance, through promotion or a higher paid role. For women the pressure is to cut down on work and responsibilities at work to the detriment of their long term career.
You talk about men having to sacrifice a preferred career ro take a better paid one. How do you think it goes for the woman’s preferred career while full time caring for kids? The end result is both parties would lose their preferred careers but in the man’s case he ends up wealthier.
Easy, half of the products have a difference of -10% between men and women, the other half is +10%
I was referencing the first sentence.
I think you’re talking about the second
If I’m not mistaken, the gender pay gap has already reversed when you look specifically at Millennials and Gen Z. On average, women in these generations are both more highly educated and earning more than their male peers. That makes sense anecdotally too. Thinking back to my time in school, it definitely wasn’t us guys who were thriving in that environment.
