The Gender Pay Gap: convince me

[Zhavric]

I am on the fence when it comes to the gender pay gap. I honestly could go either way on it. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

To define what we're talking about, the gender pay gap is the idea that women make only a fraction of what men make doing the same jobs. Often, the figure is touted as 75%. Moreover, the gender pay gap insists (and this bit is important) that the gap is from some nefarious reason such as bigotry or discrimination.

I've seen studies where stem scientists were given identical applications save for the name (male vs female) and universally chose to give the female applications less pay.

I've read articles from women in reputable magazines (like Forbes) that insist the gender wage gap exists, but there's nothing nefarious about it. They insist the pay gap can be explained by the choices women make. To greatly simplify/paraphrase, if John and Sally both earn $25.00 an hour and John works for 4 hours, but Sally chooses to go home after 3 hours then John will have $100 whereas Sally only has $75.

So which is it, ODN? Convince me one way or the other. Make sure you bring facts and support without linkwarzing.

[Sigfried]

Do I have to convince you?

Because my study on the topic is that both sides have truth to them. Women are discriminated against both intentionally and unintentionally in the workplace. And, there are choices women make that absolutely would impact their salary in a number of ways. Teasing those things apart to seperate them is pretty hard to do.

Bias is something you can't totally eliminate. You can try and reduce it through education and awareness. That's all good. I think in principle there is no reason a given woman should merit a lower wage or salary given she does equal work. But how on earth do you measure equal work on most jobs? Its very hard to do in most lines of work, esepcially when you have both qualitative and quantitiative considerations to take into account.

And its two way, women won't get what they don't fight for, but the real battleground is in the workplace, not the legislature. Women do have to fight for their paychecks by negotiating hard and being mercinary in their career choices. I hate doing that myself, but if you want to make the most money, that's what you need to do. No one is going to hand you a premium salary just because.

Personally, If I were to pass some legislation it would be that employers cannot prohibit their employees from disclosing their salaries as part of their contracts or their codes of conduct. That would give individual women a lot more leverage to see what they are getting and if it measures up. Personally, I do my bit for that by putting my salary info on Glassdoor so folks can see what's going on, even if it's just anonomous. I think hiding salaries is a market distorting action in the labor market that advantages firms at the detriment of workers.

[evensaul]

Because my study on the topic is that both sides have truth to them. Women are discriminated against both intentionally and unintentionally in the workplace.

Sure, this is certainly the case.

...but the real battleground is... not the legislature.

Agreed. Fat people make less than skinny people. Ugly people less than attractive, and short men less than their taller peers. The inarticulate make less than the well-spoken, and the low-IQ less than braniacs. So WHY should women be a special exception protected by the law?

And I'll go further - businesses have legitimate business and social reasons to discriminate against women and in favor of men. If anyone wants to debate that, step right up.

[Zhavric]

And I'll go further - businesses have legitimate business and social reasons to discriminate against women and in favor of men. If anyone wants to debate that, step right up.

I can agree with you for jobs that require a certain body type. No one is going to hire a woman to be an underwear model for men's underwear. But if you're talking about exactly the same work then I'd very much like to hear how you justify that.

[evensaul]

I can agree with you for jobs that require a certain body type. No one is going to hire a woman to be an underwear model for men's underwear. But if you're talking about exactly the same work then I'd very much like to hear how you justify that.

I'll start with one common hiring situation as an example:

Let's say I have a slot open for an entry-level management employee, and the position is usually filled with a recent college grad with a business degree. The expectation is that the new hire will be overpaid for the actual work produced during training and initial experience building (common in entry-level management positions) with the hope that they will get a promotion with increased responsibilities and a relatively small raise in a year. Let's say I have two candidates, male and female, both 23 years old, and both recently married. Which one is most likely to work for me six months or a year and then quit because of pregancy (wasting the money I spent during the training process)? Hint: it isn't the one without ovary.

So if the two candidates are equally qualified in all other respects, I am much more likely to hire the young man rather than the young woman. And if I do decide to offer a job to the young lady, I will be very tempted to offer a lower rate of pay so that I don't waste as much training dollars if she some day walks into my office and says she needs to quit to take care of her new baby. Business owners and executives face this kind of problem all the time, and have legitimate reasons to make decisions in favor of men.

[Zhavric]

I'll start with one common hiring situation as an example:

Let's say I have a slot open for an entry-level management employee, and the position is usually filled with a recent college grad with a business degree. The expectation is that the new hire will be overpaid for the actual work produced during training and initial experience building (common in entry-level management positions) with the hope that they will get a promotion with increased responsibilities and a relatively small raise in a year. Let's say I have two candidates, male and female, both 23 years old, and both recently married. Which one is most likely to work for me six months or a year and then quit because of pregancy (wasting the money I spent during the training process)? Hint: it isn't the one without ovary.

So if the two candidates are equally qualified in all other respects, I am much more likely to hire the young man rather than the young woman. And if I do decide to offer a job to the young lady, I will be very tempted to offer a lower rate of pay so that I don't waste as much training dollars if she some day walks into my office and says she needs to quit to take care of her new baby. Business owners and executives face this kind of problem all the time, and have legitimate reasons to make decisions in favor of men.

Congratulations! You have violated the Equal Pay act of 1963 and earned yourself a lawsuit! :D

Now I'm not saying the scenario you detailed doesn't happen. I'm 100% sure it does. Do you have any numbers on how often this happens? Or are you saying it's possible and nothing more?

[evensaul]

Congratulations! You have violated the Equal Pay act of 1963 and earned yourself a lawsuit! :D

Only a problem if I do pay her less, and she sues, and she wins. Find me some cases where that has happened with entry-level positions. Also, saying a practice is illegal isn't an effective argument that it is immoral. Are you going to make that argument?

Do you have any numbers on how often this happens? Or are you saying it's possible and nothing more?

Oh, I'm quite certain it happens, especially at small businesses, which are understandably not inclined to offer anyone statistics on the practice. But here's one story- you can find others: https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...aternity-leave

[Zhavric]

Immoral things do not suddenly become moral simply because you weren't seen doing them. The concern you brought up is still very much an illegal one. Remember that the Act in question isn't mean to protect women from wicked scoundrel twirling a mustache. It's meant to be a safeguard against any inappropriate or discriminatory consideration exactly like what you detailed. No crime ceases to be illegal or bad because it wasn't caught. Killing people doesn't miraculously become okay if you're super good at covering your tracks. Nor does paying women less simply because you didn't advertise it.

As for the article: https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...aternity-leave

You've proven that it's not some tiny fluke. But your claim was that it was a legitimate reason. So far you have not done that. The article talks about the fears of managers as opposed to their well thought out & researched studies. What can you show to back up the claim from earlier that these concerns are legitimate?

[evensaul]

Immoral things do not suddenly become moral simply because you weren't seen doing them.

Practices aren't immoral just because they are illegal, just as they aren't moral because they are legal. If you want to argue that discrimination against women is immoral, then make that argument without leaning on current law.

Some liberal-minded company executives believe their businesses should be guided by the progressive social agenda. Starbucks executive Howard Schultz is quoted just today as saying "Now, we are living at a time both at home and abroad where the challenges are significant and acute. We have significant systemic issues – social issues in the country – and as a result of that, I feel so strongly that today businesses and business leaders must understand that we are living at a time where the rules of engagement for a public company are very, very different than they've ever been, because we must pick up the slack and, unfortunately, the lack of responsibility of the political class”. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...te-contrition/ If it is morally right for leftist business executives to promote a certain social agenda, isn't it also morally acceptable for right-wing executives to do the same? If the moral compass of a business owner tells him that men should make more money than women, to support the social structure of men as head of household and the natural bread-winner, shouldn't he be allowed to hire a man over an equally qualified women? Or even a better qualified woman? Isn't what's good for the liberal goose also good for the conservative gander, when it comes to pushing a social agenda through business practices? If not, why not?

You've proven that it's not some tiny fluke. But your claim was that it was a legitimate reason. So far you have not done that. The article talks about the fears of managers as opposed to their well thought out & researched studies. What can you show to back up the claim from earlier that these concerns are legitimate?

Because I've seen it happen plenty of times, and experienced the problem myself. My experiences with young women getting pregnant and quitting or asking for expensive (to me) maternity leave cannot be unique, isolated, or a freak of statistics. It is a fact of nature and business. What I've experienced has undoubtedly been shared by an uncountable number of employers and business managers. That's why there is a widespread fear of it happening - because it happens all the time.

[Zhavric]

If you want to argue that discrimination against women is immoral

Misogynistic overtones aside, you're shifting the burden of proof: YOU claimed there are legitimate reasons to discriminate against women. YOU have to support that claim.

Do you have any thing to point to beyond anecdotal evidence? If it's "a fact of nature and business" then why aren't you burying me in a pile of quotes, links, and support?

Let's not mince words: you've proven that managers fear a thing happening with support from an article and I respect that. But the same article does nothing to conclude whether or not their fears are warranted or appropriate. For your original claim to be true, you have to prove not only that their claims are true, but that they're warranted.

An unfortunate, but accurate parallel would be the KKK. You've provided the equivalent of an article that says, "KKK Members are concerned that Jews are stealing all their money". The article proves their FEAR exists, but doesn't establish any Zionic thievery. So you need to prove with evidence that there's an actual problem and not just a perception of one. If the best you can say is "It happened to me" then my counter is simply "It never happened to me" and you're back to square one.

Furthermore, to jump back to women, they should be protected from scenarios such as you've dictated and that's what the Equal Pay act does. So even if you do somehow manage to prove that the problem is real, you have to provide a supported argument that proves employers SHOULD trump women when it comes to giving them pay. Which is, quite frankly, insane. Because at the core of your reasoning is, "I should pay you less based on something that might happen." You don't know if any individual woman will choose to have kids, don't know if she will/will not come back after having them, and don't know what her performance will be like. It's a ludicrous way to hire people and no other group would stand for anything like it.

Would you pay black men less than white men because statistically black men are incarcerated more?
Would you pay a Christian less than an atheist because the Christian is going to want more Holidays off?

[evensaul]

Do you have any thing to point to beyond anecdotal evidence? If it's "a fact of nature and business" then why aren't you burying me in a pile of quotes, links, and support?

Because I didn't think you were the kind of person who would demand proof that the sky looks blue. I guess I was wrong.

"For all women 30 and older... 29% of them did not work during the year after their pregnancy. That percentage was as high as 42% of 22- to-24-year olds.

For women 30 and older:

61% took paid leave
12.3% quit their job
2.8% were let go


For women 25 to 29 years old:

60% took paid leave
17.9% quit their job
3.8% were let go

For women 22 to 24 years old:

48% took paid leave
18.8% quit their job
7.6% were fired
https://www.theguardian.com/money/us...y-unemployment

20-or-so percent of women quit their jobs around the birth of a child.

So, why are new moms opting out of the workforce? We polled our Care.com members to fnd the top reasons new moms leave their jobs.

Spoiler Alert: It's not all about wanting to spend more time with their families.

The real reasons include:

Cost of child care
Desire to spend more time with family
Lack of workplace flexibility
Concerns about quality of child care
http://workplace.care.com/why-new-mo...ing-their-jobs

Furthermore, to jump back to women, they should be protected from scenarios such as you've dictated and that's what the Equal Pay act does.

Let's see what your options are to support the claim that women should be protected from discrimination. 1) personal gut reaction 2) popular opinion 3) hmmm...can't think of anything else. So what is your support?

So even if you do somehow manage to prove that the problem is real, you have to provide a supported argument that proves employers SHOULD trump women when it comes to giving them pay.

You need to rephrase this for it to make any sense. As you suggested, this mustachioed guy isn't hauling women bound and helpless onto the railroad tracks, or even forcing them to take a job for too little pay. No, my argument is that conservative employers should have the same right to push their social agendas as liberals, and that includes the ability to prefer hiring men and to pay them more. And that is an argument to which you've offered no rebuttal.

Would you pay black men less than white men because statistically black men are incarcerated more?
Would you pay a Christian less than an atheist because the Christian is going to want more Holidays off?

I'm for employer rights, so maybe I would.

[Zhavric]

20-or-so percent of women quit their jobs around the birth of a child.

Which is to say that 80% of women didn't quit. I didn't think you were the kind of person who would demand explaining basic math but if you're basing your decision on the majority of the actions of a fraction that's shy of 20, you're out of your mind. "Of the ten of you I'm hiring, statistically, two of you might quit so based on that I'm sure you can see where it's perfectly justifiable to pay the rest of you less then what I would pay men." That's insane. You're taking raw statistics and insisting that individuals should suffer based on the actions of others. I don't know any other word for that beyond insane.

We need to protect people against discrimination because discrimination is wrong. It's needlessly unfair, motivated by bigotry, and more often then not based on terrible logic (like penalizing an individual because 20% of a group might do a thing. Honestly, I can't get over that you actually posted that as support. ) It's one of those things in that document... what's the name of those silly documents? That everyone ignores? Oh yeah! The writing of the founding fathers: all men are created equal and we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you honestly think that I have to prove to you that discrimination is a bad thing, then I submit you're either being deliberately obtuse ("Oh yeah! Well you have to prove to me that the holocaust was bad!") or you're too far gone to be participating in any polite debate. Your smokescreen from shifting the burden of proof dispelled, we can now move on.

As for conservative employers and their agendas, I have no idea what you're talking about. Conservative employers do NOT hold bigotry and inequality of pay as a value. That's all you, hoss. I will simply say that any employer can further any agenda they want as long as they're treating their employees legally, ethically, morally, and fairly.

This next part is where I saw just how confused you were:

Me: Would you pay black men less than white men because statistically black men are incarcerated more?
You: I'm for employer rights, so maybe I would.

Sorry, hoss. Paying black people less because of statistics isn't an issue of employer rights: it's an issue of you having declared yourself a racist.

"No no no! I'm not racist! I just want to pay black people less than white people based on blah blah blah" in 5, 4, 3, in 2...

[evensaul]

I don't know any other word for that beyond insane.

No, it's simple common-sense risk analysis and management. If 60% of pregnant women take paid leave while another 20% quit, then it is very much a valid concern, and that is why 40% of managers (not just I) would consider hiring men instead of young women. Trying to prevent thousands of dollars from being sucked off the bottom line (that's the profit line) is a very rational and legitimate motive for hiring the less risky applicant.You may not like that motive, but it isn't insane.

We need to protect people against discrimination because discrimination is wrong...

Discrimination in hiring happens all the time. Airlines discriminate against unattractive and overweight people. Hi-tech firms discriminate against the less educated and slow-witted. Life-guard companies discriminate against people who can't swim extremely well. Harvard now discriminates against Asians and whites in the admissions process in favor of blacks and hispanics (you support that, right?). I could go on and on.

What you really need to do here is persuasively explain why this particular type of discrimination is immoral when so very many other kinds are not. Without gross generalizations and adhoms.

[Zhavric]

You keep forgetting the argument you're trying to support. You're not trying to prove that "discrimination in hiring happens all the time" (another claim you didn't provide support for...

You claimed that there are legitimate reasons to discriminate. All you've done so far is list off some very ILLEGITIMATE reasons to discriminate and demand we accept them as legit. I'm sorry, but up is not down. Stealing and rape and murder happen quite a bit but that doesn't make them moral. You've failed to give me any reasoning that these things are legitimate beyond "it benefits me" which is a textbook definition of discrimination.

Furthermore, you've hinted that you're allegedly a conservative and are wanting to forward conservative values and, hoss, you could not be more confused on that. Last I checked, it's the liberals who engage in identity politics and the conservatives who put the emphasis on the individual. You're just taking the worst aspects of liberal snowflakery and insisting that it's (somehow) "conservative" values. To be sure, treating people as individuals is a conservative value. Treating people as a member of a group with the same traits of the group is not.

So to sum up: insisting on paying someone less based on something that might happen in the future that you cannot in any way predict is not just wrong and discriminatory; it's utterly insane. The number of US employers that openly do this is zero and any that do so behind closed doors are not acting morally or legally. That settles the issue. Period. The end. You have failed to support your claim that there are legitimate reasons to discriminate.

This is all very off topic anyway so now that the matter is settled, you should get back on topic. Expect further posts on this particular derailment to be ignored.

[evensaul]

So to sum up: insisting on paying someone less based on something that might happen in the future that you cannot in any way predict is not just wrong and discriminatory; it's utterly insane.

This is just unsupported personal opinion, of zero weight. If that's all you have, you lose.

My argument, for which I've offered support, is that a great number of hiring managers have concerns about hiring young women due to the possibility of them getting pregnant. If something is that common, it is normal, not insane. Those managers have a responsibility to their employers for maximizing profitability. That fact drives them to minimize risks, which may include discriminating against young women in favor of men in the hiring decisions and, yes, paying young women less to further reduce risk of wasting training costs. It happens. The fact that you're not aware of it or don't approve of it doesn't make it insane. And you've offered no substantive argument against the practices.

You've taken a position that all discrimination is wrong. Answer these questions:

If an applicant has a history of getting fired or quitting every job within three months, is it immoral to discriminate against him based on that employment history? Why?
Is it wrong for an accounting firm to discriminate against applicants who do not have degrees in accounting? If yes, explain.
If a barber shop in Harlem has all black customers and employees, is it immoral for the owner to not hire a white guy who doesn't have a barber's license? Why?
Does the NBA practice immoral discrimination by having very few short players, and none that are disabled?
Would it be immoral for the US military to discriminate against blind people who want to be combat soldiers?

I await your answers.

[Zhavric]

This is just unsupported personal opinion, of zero weight.

The number of US employers that openly do this is zero.

Already settled and answered. Move on.

[evensaul]

That's insane. You're taking raw statistics and insisting that individuals should suffer based on the actions of others. I don't know any other word for that beyond insane.

This is a fallacy known as Argument from Incredulity: The popular fallacy of doubting or rejecting a novel claim or argument out of hand simply because it appears superficially "incredible," "insane" or "crazy," or because it goes against one's own personal beliefs, prior experience or ideology. This cynical fallacy falsely elevates the saying popularized by Carl Sagan, that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," to an absolute law of logic. See also Hoyle's Fallacy. The common, popular-level form of this fallacy is dismissing surprising, extraordinary or unfamiliar arguments and evidence with a wave of the hand, a shake of the head, and a mutter of "that's crazy!" http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamso.../fallacies.htm

The number of US employers that openly do this is zero.

This is unsupported, and irrelevant unless you follow it with a dependent conclusion. If you're not willing to do that, your opinion can be ignored.

Already settled and answered. Move on.

Saying an issue is settled and cannot be debated is also a fallacy, Zhav. And you're not an authority on what is settled and what is not. Unless you concede, that is.

It appears that all you have to offer are fallacies and uninformed opinions. And yet you post threads to tell longtime ODN regulars how to debate? Kinda sad.

[Zhavric]

This is unsupported,

Then it should be the easiest thing in the world to refute. Find me a major corporation who openly admits to paying employees less for the same job based on what might happen to said employee in the future. Do so in your next post, please. It's not good to rehash what's already been settled so it's time for you to start providing support for your arguments or stop making them. To clarify: YOU claimed that there are legitimate reasons to discriminate against women/pay them less for the same job based on what might happen. If this were true, it would quite easy to find a company that shared your stance. As we both know there aren't any, we both know you're wrong. But never let it be said that I am not open to evaluating evidence.

You can go ahead and link to their officially posted hiring policies. Something like this.

Starbucks Corporation is an Equal Opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, gender identity or expression, or any other basis protected by local, state or federal law. This policy applies with regard to all aspects of one’s employment, including hiring, transfer, promotion, compensation, eligibility for benefits and termination. EEO is the Law: http://www1.eeoc.gov/employers/uploa...int_poster.pdf.

... but where it's instead worded something similar to "[name of company] reserves the right to pay employees based on what might happen to them and is not bound by state or federal anti-discrimination law".

Alternately, you could just say, "I was wrong: discrimination DOES happen which we BOTH agree on, but there are no legitimate reasons for it and certainly no legal ones."

Your call.

Don't expect a reply if you ignore the challenge.

[evensaul]

Then it should be the easiest thing in the world to refute.

No, that's not how it works, Zhav. Unsupported and illogical claims do not need to be refuted, but...

Find me a major corporation who openly admits to paying employees less for the same job based on what might happen to said employee in the future.

The lack of evidence for openly doing an illegal action isn't evidence that the action does not occur in private, or that the behavior is immoral. How many guys have sex with other guys in public? Should that lack of that illegal public activity be considered evidence that no men are having homosexual sex in private, or that it is immoral? Hmmm? Your position is illogical.

...but there are no legitimate reasons for it and certainly no legal ones

As I've demonstrated, there is a legitimate and logical reasons why hiring managers should consider discriminating against women and in favor of men - the financial health of their business.

Claiming something is immoral and illegitimate solely by the fact that it is illegal is nothing more than an extended Appeal to Popularity. Many things are illegal because enough voting adults pressure lawmakers to make it illegal. That is how the Equal Pay Act of 1963 happened, right? Women, empowered with a right to vote, pushed for the Act to get passed. So once again, you're just offering up another fallacy and hoping it will get accepted as a valid argument. Well, it's not going to work here.

[Zhavric]

Then it should be the easiest thing in the world to refute. Find me a major corporation who openly admits to paying employees less for the same job based on what might happen to said employee in the future. Do so in your next post, please.

Let's see how you did:

First, let's address the links and sites you brought to the table:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Yikes. That's a big zero. Anything you tried to reason?

The lack of evidence for openly doing an illegal action isn't evidence that the action does not occur in private

Clearly, you're confused. Let me help clear things up for you:

And I'll go further - businesses have legitimate business and social reasons to discriminate against women and in favor of men.

[emphasis mine]

That's the quote that you were trying to support. And, sadly, you've failed to do so. It's not a dig at you: it's just a fact of the argument you presented. You keep trying to insist that employers break the rules all the time. But that just tells us they're acting immorally... that they're discriminating illegitimately. Your had been to prove the legitimate part.

As I've demonstrated, there is a legitimate and logical reasons why hiring managers should consider discriminating against women and in favor of men - the financial health of their business.

Ugh... so... in spite of losing a challenge and not providing evidence when it was asked of you (and being completely off topic now), you don't seem to realize that your argument has lost the debate. To save us both some time I'll skip ahead to the end:

I challenge you with a hypothetical office job that involves no manual activity beyond typing/using a mouse. I ask you, "Is it legitimate for me to pay a new hire less based specifically on the criteria that they may break their arm at some point and thus type slower?".
If you answer "yes, that's legit" then I ask you to predict with accuracy how often employees in an office setting break their arms. You admit that you have no such way to predict such things beyond perhaps some national average "X number of adults will break their arm this year" or the like. I press you on it and you admit that for any individual you really have no clue whether their arm will break or not and so it's pointless to pay them less for it. I make sure you understand that the numbers don't matter if you can't apply them to an individual with any degree of certainty.
If you answer "no, that's not legit" then that saves us some time as you've effectively now reversed your argument (albeit for the better).
I point out that not only can you not predict pregnancy you can't predict job performance before or after nor can you predict people leaving. I use your own statistics against you and point out that 80% from earlier. c
Finally, I press you for a definition of "legitimate" as it applies in this context and you're forced to admit that only accurately predictable criteria for a specific employee (and not those you ascribe them from a group) are relevant/legitimate.
And you end up with a failed argument.

For an encore, I point out that no conservative shares your discriminatory views. Conservatives are ALL ABOUT the individual and scoff at identity politics. But, you know... I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.

Now... having failed the challenge and seeing your failed argument laid out in front of you, do you want to concede? Or do we have to actually play out the moves for you to realize you're in checkmate?