Pay inequality?

[NBVegita]

I was reading through news articles and stumbled upon another article mis-quoting the now common fact that women earn between 77-% less than men do.

 

Many people who quote this number, quote it erroneously. They try to state or imply that women earn 20-23% less than men doing the EXACT same job. Well although this could be true in some instances this study is simply the mean average of all men and women who worked 35 hours a week.

 

This number doesn't even remotely imply that if I am a financial analyst that a female financial analysts only makes $,000 while I make $100,000. There are hundreds of studies that show math and engineering fields of study are greatly dominated by men in colleges. Women also tend not to take jobs that are more dangerous, have longer hours or require relocation/travel. There are dozens of other cases to support why this median has a discrepancy.

 

Things like this get under my skin because they undermine any real sexism that exists.

[Bak]

If it were true, what incentive would any company have to hire a man. You can cut 20% off of payroll costs by hiring only women. I vote myth.

[»Lynx]

I heard on the radio recently that women and men earn on ~ the same... Sorry that was a bit of useless information, but .. meh, just what I heard on the radio. I also heard something about black women now earning more than white women on ~.

[Aceflyer]

If it were true, what incentive would any company have to hire a man. You can cut 20% off of payroll costs by hiring only women. I vote myth.

 

The counter argument to that would be that covert sexism is the reason why men are still hired.

[Bak]

isn't the free market similar to survival of the fittest? Like if one company is sexist and hires men which it has to pay more it would lose business to the women-only company that can lower costs or not go bankrupt? Sexism would get taken care of by itself.

[Aceflyer]

But a women-only company, not being sexist, would pay its (women) employees the same amount the other company pays its (men) employees. So the women-only company would not be able to lower costs. Edited March 4, 2009 by Aceflyer

[Bak]

what about the sexist women-only company?

[Aceflyer]

Like if one company is sexist and hires men which it has to pay more it would lose business to the women-only company that can lower costs or not go bankrupt? Sexism would get taken care of by itself.

 

Company A

Ideology: Sexist

Employees: Exclusively male

 

Company B

Ideology: Non-Sexist

Employees: Exclusively female

 

Your original argument:

Company B pays its employees less. Hence Company A would go out of business and sexism would disappear.

 

My response:

But if Company B is non-sexist, it can't pay its employees less. Hence Company A would not necessarily go out of business.

 

Your response:

Well Company B is sexist. Hence it pays its employees less.

 

My response:

Then Company A would go out of business, but sexism would not disappear. Your conclusion that "sexism would disappear" remains invalid.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Aceflyer

[Bak]

you're right. However, pay inequality would disappear

 

company B isn't necessarily sexist, just greedy, which is reasonable

[Stibbymicto]

you're right. However, pay inequality would disappear