Wage gap?

[anisotropy]

Yesterday was international women's day, and the issue of 15%+ "wage gap" was on every media almost non-stop.

Didn't studies show, as long as we are comparing oranges to oranges (no sexual connotations intended), that at "most" the gap is 4-8%?  In fact, even in these "almost" orange to orange (women get paid less than men even though they have the same education and do the same duties) comparisons some factors still exist to explain these 4-8% wage gaps.

What I mean is this, many studies compare a male engineer's pay to a female engineer's pay and demonstrate/concluded males are getting paid more. Yet, there's a very simple explanation to this, which few even bother to mention: the men are on a higher pay grade.

Prior to FIRE, I worked at Big Oil as a scientist; the bureaucracy was quite an issue as we had 7, yes, SEVEN, different pay grades within each "generic" job title, ie, seven base salaries exist for people that work under the same job title: Exploitation Engineer. I also had the fortune (or misfortune) to briefly experience the Public side of things and found the pay grade structures to be quite similar.

For those that can't read good and want to learn how to do other stuff good too, the phenomenon of wage gap (ie women get paid less than men even though they have the same education and do the same duties) seems to me can be readily explained by people on different pay grades. I have yet to find any studies that display blatant sexism by paying men more than women when they are on the same pay grade. If you are aware of such studies please share I would love to learn more.

Some might argue why aren't more women on the higher pay grades, plenty books and reports have been written regarding the issue, which is not directly related to the "true" wage gap discussion I am hoping to have here.

[ministashy]

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind that this 'wage gap' thing is all a big lie, and just want people to agree with you.

[PKFFW]

The wage gap issue is not about two people with exactly the same education, skills, experience, knowledge, duties, pay grade and every other factor known to man(or woman!) being paid different amounts.  No two people are ever going to be exactly the same in all respects.

The entire point of the "wage gap" argument is that because of these systemic things such as "it's not sexism at all, it's just that most men are on a different pay grade that gets paid higher" women on average earn less than men in every profession across the board, even professions dominated by women.  Why not ask why it is that men with the same qualifications, doing the same duties, as in your example, are on average getting jobs that have a higher pay grade than women?  Do you think it might be sexism at play or is there some logical reason most men with the same qualifications, doing the same duties, are getting those higher pay grade jobs?

Of course you can argue it isn't sexism at all, it's just nature or different pay grades or that men don't stop work to have babies or any other argument you want to make.  Every argument I've heard thrown up has been accounted for already.  It's either systemic sexism or it's just a jolly big coincidence.

[FIRE Artist]

Sure, as an engineer, I never got paid less than my male peers doing the same job, but that doesn't mean there isn't a systemic issue across the board for womenkind.  In that same company, they chose to value menial jobs traditionally performed by men higher than menial jobs traditionally performed by women.  For example, a female cleaner cleaning in the office block will get paid less than the guy pushing the broom around in the shop.  That is why the pay gap exists.

The issue doesn't just sit on the lower end of the pay scale, the problem also exists in management where women are under represented, even in organizations with significant populations of women working there from which to promote women from. 

I joined healthcare a few years ago, and this management issue is glaring even here.  Male nurses are still a relatively new concept and make up a pretty small portion of the overall nursing staff population, yet male presence in nursing management is (from my observation) disproportionately high considering how small that pool of male nurses to promote from is. 

[LWYRUP]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics did a pretty exhaustive study of this issue in 1996 (Clinton era) and concluded virtually all, if not all, of the gap was due to choice of profession, hours worked, years out of the labor force.

There's another even easier way to dispel this myth.  Why someone doesn't just start up a company to hire all these underpaid people and make an absolute killing from having the same output but lower labor costs that the competition? 

Presumably it's because capitalists are so sexist that they don't like money (i.e., investment returns)?

[MrMoogle]

Of course you can argue it isn't sexism at all, it's just nature or different pay grades or that men don't stop work to have babies or any other argument you want to make.  Every argument I've heard thrown up has been accounted for already.  It's either systemic sexism or it's just a jolly big coincidence.

What do you mean by the bold?

The two main arguments that I've heard that tend to explain the differences are: number of hours and flexibility of those hours.

There was a study with Uber, since prices are calculated with an algorithm that doesn't use sex.  It found that women make less because: number of hours, the time of the hours (men tend to work later at night which was more profitable), location of the fares (men would go to "more dangerous" locations) and the speed they drove (men tend to drive faster, which means more fares per hour).  These are all choices that women and men tend to make somewhat differently.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16980072/uber-driver-gender-earnings-gap-study

So that tends to show there isn't sexism, it's choice.  On the other hand, society brain washes us.  It tells men that they should be afraid, but tells women they are in danger.  It tells women they need to be home at nights to take care of their kids.  And while there is some truth in those statements, it's not necessarily to the level that is true.  Some of it was probably survival tactics from back before we had technology and life spans we currently do (in the US and similar countries).  It probably is still good advice for third world countries, but that doesn't mean it is needed in first world countries. 

So some people are looking at society and saying our society isn't fair because women don't make as much as men.  Men should be doing more at home, which allows women to do less.  Women shouldn't be afraid.  Maybe there's no overt sexism going on in the workplace, but maybe there's hidden sexism going on in our society that limits women on average.  This is why the 15% number is bad.

So on one hand, I think companies are doing a good job with pay of men and women, but our society hasn't advanced enough to give men and women the same options.  If I just consider the companies, I think there's too much regulation and criticism related to sexism.  On the other hand, maybe this regulation will help our society improve.  It definitely has improved over the last 100 years, but I don't think we're there yet.

A lot of the same arguments can be made with races.  "Black people are less educated, so they make less money."  Sure, that's true, but it's a failing of the system that black people are less educated.  And yes it's improved over the last 100 years.  Let's make it even better!

[anisotropy]

Seems there's some confusion on the definition of "wage gap". It is defined thus, the wage differences between a male and a female working in the same organization, in the same location, having the same qualifications (degrees, titles, etc), doing the same job, and being on the same pay grade.

Before I reply, I want to stress that I am looking for wage gaps that manifest as studies that display blatant sexism by paying men more than women when they are on the same pay grade". Thanks.

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind that this 'wage gap' thing is all a big lie, and just want people to agree with you.

Hi ministashy,
Clearly you don't belong to the "can't read good and want to learn how to do other stuff good too" group since you can neither read good and nor want to learn how to do other stuff good too.

I specifically asked for any evidence contrary to my analytically-derived conclusion, after systematically leveling the playing field to deduce the true "wage gap" size. I am not looking for validation from other people, I am looking for contrary evidence. I will spell out in plain English (just for you) what I am looking for in bold: "studies that display blatant sexism by paying men more than women when they are on the same pay grade". Hope this helps. Please share if you know/have any, instead of simply accusing me of "made up my mind and want other people to agree with me".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PKFFW,
I agree with you that women on average earn less than men in every profession across the board, even professions dominated by women, the data is very clear on this. But as I pointed out in my original post, a generic job title within a single organization can have several different grades of pay. A logical hypothesis to explain this is that women tend to have lower pay grades than men (this also happens to be backed by data), which would result that on average women make less than men. I will continue to address you PKFFW, but allow me to bring in FIRE Artist for now, thanks.

FIRE Artist,
I am glad you brought up the pay differences between male and female cleaners, since the data suggests that the wage gap is more pronounced in "lower skilled" (menial) jobs and lessons when the jobs become more "knowledge" based, all else being equal, ie qualifications, hours worked, job titles, pay grade.

Often on a construction site (perhaps a poor example, since construction can be pretty high skilled), the female general labourers tend to be doing less strenuous jobs such as holding traffic signs when the male general labourers tend to be doing the digging and shovelling. Notice I said general labourers, ie, not operating special machineries. Surely in this scenario the men ought to be paid more for the same hours of work performed? Our biological differences often place constraints on what we can physically do without hurting ourselves.

In the cleaning lady example, however, I find it hard to justify the men getting paid more than women, as long as their quality (and quantity) of work is the same unless.... the men cleaners are in supervisory roles. And here is where I bring PKFFW back into the discussion.

Indeed why do men occupy higher pay grades than women? Why do women tend to be overlooked during promotions (such as the nursing profession as you say)? Why are there fewer women in higher management? Like I said in my original post, plenty of studies and books have been written on this subject, my findings suggest that blinx7 is right. Quantitative studies seem to point to hours worked, years out of labor force, which.... all lead to different temperaments between men and women.

I think it is not a surprise to anyone that most women that made it big are a lot more "aggressive" and "competitive" than an average female, heck even more than an average male, but are on par with successful males. In fact, based on personality traits studies, successful men and women have more in common than with their respective sexes. It's just that these traits tend to occur with higher frequencies in Men than Women. Note, I am simply stating scientific findings which I will quote below and comment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

"Replicating previous findings, there was a significant gender difference in Agreeableness such that women tend to score higher than men, and this pattern was the same for the aspects, Compassion and Politeness, when measured in terms of raw scores or residualized scores"
Comment: A high agreeableness almost always predict poor advancement within an organization, in short, you are putting others before yourself.

"Though no gender difference was found for Industriousness when using the raw scores, we found a gender difference in Industriousness when using the residualized score that removed any variance shared with Orderliness. This gender difference was such that men scored higher than women in Industriousness. This difference in residualized scores but not raw scores can be interpreted as follows: if one examines a group of people with equal levels of Orderliness, the men in that group will on average score higher in Industriousness than the women."

"The age trend for women indicated a decline in Orderliness relative to Industriousness, whereas the trend for men indicated an increase."
Comment: Orderliness is linked to maintaining order and perfectionism, which is moderated by age for women. To put it simply, women become "nicer" as they age, while men become meaner and more demanding as they age, seems to have some correlation with career advancement.

"Assertiveness, on the other hand, reflects traits related to agency and dominance. Consistent with previous research showing a gender difference favoring men for facets such as Assertiveness and Excitement Seeking (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001), we found that men score higher than women in Assertiveness. "
Comment: How do women advance without being more assertive? Assertiveness convey confidence, whom would you rather promote and believe, someone with higher or lower assertiveness?

"where women score higher than men on facets marking Openness (such as Esthetics and Feelings), but men score higher than women on the Ideas facet, which is a marker of Intellect (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001)."

"Although Intellect includes perceptions of cognitive ability and is more strongly associated with IQ scores than Openness (DeYoung et al., submitted), the fact that men score higher than women in Intellect should not be taken as indicative of greater intelligence for men than women. Gender differences in general intelligence are negligible, although men are typically found to show more variance in scores than women (Deary et al., 2007; van der Sluis et al., 2008)."
Comment: OK, I want the folks that that can't read good and want to learn how to do other stuff good too to understand this intellect is not IQ. So don't accuse of me of saying men are smarter than women in general. That is not true.

These are some measureable (biological?) differences of men and women in terms of personality differences that might hinder female career advancements. And we haven't even talked about hours worked (and flexibility) and years out of the labor force (for families) that could contribute to it! Please note I am not arguing women should not advance within organizations, I am simply stating possible reasons from studies.

Before I close, I want to stress that I am looking for wage gaps that manifest as studies that display blatant sexism by paying men more than women when they are on the same pay grade". Thanks.

[TempusFugit]

There was actually a very interesting study done using Uber driver statistics that gave some insight to the wage gap. 

I heard about this on a Freakonomics podcast recently.   

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

Anyway, as you can imagine, the Uber data gives us a window into male vs female driver income with plenty of capability to control for hours worked and days of the week, etc,etc.   Since the customer doesn't have a real opportunity for discrimination of any sort, and since the algorithm doesn't discriminate in how drivers are assigned to any routes or anything, we should, one would think, get equal income from both genders. 

But it wasn't. There was something like a 7% differential.   I think the leading hypotheses are that male drivers are working more lucrative hours (surge hours, or late night) and are working in different areas of town.   Also that perhaps male drivers have, on average, worked the uber system a little better (this was unclear how exactly, but was in the areas of longer vs shorter rides, airport rides vs other, etc).   Also a rather large factor was how fast the male drivers drove, meaning that they could do more rides in the same hours.  I guess we'll consider that a personality trait. 

"They found that even in a labor market where discrimination can be ruled out, women still earn 7 percent less than men — in this case, roughly 20 dollars an hour versus 21. The difference is due to three factors: time and location of driving; driver experience; and average speed." 


So what it boiled down to was basically the same explanation that most of the studies on the wage gap in the larger economy have concluded, which is that, on average, the gap is explained by the choices that men vs women make about the hours that they work and the flexibility of those hours.   Not discrimination on the part of the economy or the businesses, per se, but rather the larger social norms that perhaps incentivize women to make different choices about their work hours and flexibility.  And men drive faster. 

[PKFFW]

What do you mean by the bold?

The two main arguments that I've heard that tend to explain the differences are: number of hours and flexibility of those hours.

What I mean by the bolded part is that the arguments I've read denying the wage gap have been accounted for.

For example, number of hours and flexibility of those hours.  That argument has been comprehensively analysed and debunked for the overwhelming majority of industries and professions.  Even accounting for those factors women on average are paid less than men.

Your Uber example is not what the wage gap is about however.  Uber pays men and women doing the exact same job, with the same qualifications, at the same time, going to the same place, etc, the same wage.  The fact some women choose to work less hours or take different routes, etc and therefore earn less, is not what the term wage gap is referring to.

Let me reiterate my previous post.  No one who refers to the "wage gap" is referring to a situation in which a man and woman who are exactly the same in all respects are paid different wages, with the man's being the higher wage.  The term "wage gap" refers the the fact that on average women doing the same job, with the same qualifications, in the same industry, working the same number of hours, are being paid less than men are on average.

[PKFFW]

Seems there's some confusion on the definition of "wage gap". It is defined thus, the wage differences between a male and a female working in the same organization, in the same location, having the same qualifications (degrees, titles, etc), doing the same job, and being on the same pay grade.

No, that is how you want to define the term for this particular discussion, it is not the widely accepted definition of the term.

I agree with you that women on average earn less than men in every profession across the board, even professions dominated by women, the data is very clear on this. But as I pointed out in my original post, a generic job title within a single organization can have several different grades of pay. A logical hypothesis to explain this is that women tend to have lower pay grades than men (this also happens to be backed by data), which would result that on average women make less than men.

You are absolutely correct that someone on a higher pay grade will be paid a higher wage.  What exactly is your point though?  That the wage gap issue is a myth because women tend to get the lower pay grade job while men tend to get the higher pay grade job?

It's that kind of situation that is exactly at the heart of the wage gap issue.  Why do women tend to have a lower pay grade than men for doing, by your own admission in your first post, the same job with the same qualifications?  Do women just like getting lower pay grade jobs?  Do men just naturally deserve the higher pay grade? What's the reason?

[Papa bear]

What do you mean by the bold?

The two main arguments that I've heard that tend to explain the differences are: number of hours and flexibility of those hours.

What I mean by the bolded part is that the arguments I've read denying the wage gap have been accounted for.

For example, number of hours and flexibility of those hours.  That argument has been comprehensively analysed and debunked for the overwhelming majority of industries and professions.  Even accounting for those factors women on average are paid less than men.

Your Uber example is not what the wage gap is about however.  Uber pays men and women doing the exact same job, with the same qualifications, at the same time, going to the same place, etc, the same wage.  The fact some women choose to work less hours or take different routes, etc and therefore earn less, is not what the term wage gap is referring to.

Let me reiterate my previous post.  No one who refers to the "wage gap" is referring to a situation in which a man and woman who are exactly the same in all respects are paid different wages, with the man's being the higher wage.  The term "wage gap" refers the the fact that on average women doing the same job, with the same qualifications, in the same industry, working the same number of hours, are being paid less than men are on average.

I listened to the same podcast. Good summary. It's worth a listen for everyone on here as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[anisotropy]

For example, number of hours and flexibility of those hours.  That argument has been comprehensively analysed and debunked for the overwhelming majority of industries and professions.  Even accounting for those factors women on average are paid less than men.

Can you kindly link the quantitative studies/sources so I might study them in detail thank you, since this is what I am looking for in the first place.

If we consider your (supposedly more widely accepted) definition of "wage gap":
the fact that on average women doing the same job, with the same qualifications, in the same industry, working the same number of hours, are being paid less than men are on average.


I believe this is thoroughly explained in my posts; women, as data shows, tend to be on the lower end (ABC for example, if we use my example of 7 pay grades of the same title) of the pay grade within the confines of the same position/title, while men tend to be on the higher end (DEFG) of the pay grades of the same position. So when a study looks at the wages of the same position at face value without considering the difference in the "hidden" pay-grades, of course we get the picture that women on average appear to be paid less than men for the same position with the same qualifications and work the same hours. You can't expect one gender that, on average, are at grade C get paid as much as the other gender that, on average, get grade E wages. That's just math.

In case I was not clear, I believe a female X (any knowledge-based profession) at the same pay grade as her male counterpart should get paid the same, and they are, as any company with structured grades of pay can show. What I am looking for specifically are cases/studies that document otherwise. In its absence, it seems the reported "wage gap" by the more widely accepted definition is a result of one gender being collectively or on average on the lower pay-grade than the other gender.

Let me say it again, all else (even the title of position and hours worked) being equal, women get paid less because on average, they are on lower pay grades such as ABC, while men, on average, are on higher grades such as DEFG. (again, using my experience of seven pay grades within the same position)

Now that we've established it's a matter of higher vs lower pay grade as opposed to a deliberate purely gender based pay gap within the same pay grade, we can investigate further WHY women tend to be on average stuck on a lower pay grade.

The citations regarding gender differences in personalities, which ultimately influence our choices and priorities, explain why women on average are having a tougher time moving up the pay grade compared to men. The odds of having "low agreeableness", "high orderliness and industriousness" as women age, "high assertiveness" and other traits that correlate strongly with moving up in an organization are simply not as likely to occur in the female population, which is why, on average, fewer women move up relative to men.

Men on the other hand, on average, scores
lower in agreeableness
higher in orderliness and higher in industrious as they age
higher in assertiveness
etc, etc, the list goes on and on

The uber experiment also supports the personality differences between the two genders, on average.

I hope I have answered your concerns:

1. women are paid less for doing the same (knowledge based) job because they, on average, tend to occupy the lower pay grades while men tend to occupy the higher pay grades, on average.
2. to go up the pay grades, ie, from A to E, often require promotions of some kind
3. promotions tend to happen to people with low agreeableness, high assertiveness, high orderliness, high industriousness, etc
4. these traits are, on average, found to be more common in men than in women.
5. women, thus, on average, are less likely to go up their respective pay grades
6. therefore, women, on average, are paid less than men for the same job, not because of a deliberate gender pay gap, but because they are, again, on average, occupy a lower pay grade.

This to me, is not really a wage gap as sinister as some media would have you believe. Of course, if you have contrary evidence, ie, wage gaps that manifest as studies that display blatant sexism by paying men more than women when they are on the same pay grade, please share with me. Thanks.

[big_owl]

I work in oil and gas as an engineer, and if you are female and competent in my company you can basically write your own ticket.  The pay gap the opposite, ladies have the yellow brick road.  That said, I'm fine with it.  I'd much rather work for a woman than man, in my experience ladies make much better personnel managers. 9/10 I'd rather work for a woman. And women put up with so much BS passive aggressive sexism in my industry, so they deserve it as far as I'm concerned.

[TheWifeHalf]

Where TheHusbandHalf works, wages are paid for the job done, not because of who does the job. Age, gender, sexual orientation, skin color are not considered. In fact, if there is proof they are, steps to take are documented.

(Just gone done reading a 'won't pay for overtime' thread. That never happens either.)

[LWYRUP]

I know there has been talk here about pay grades and promotions and agreeableness and all that, and I think it's important, but when you look at the actual society-wide gap (as opposed to the much smaller gap between people of similar backgrounds in similar positions) it's clear to me that a lot of it is not even person A getting the job over person B but personal decisions to seek one entirely different lifestyle / career over another.

My wife was valedictorian of her high school, majored in sociology and worked at a small nonprofit making peanuts.  When we were first dating, I suggested that she apply to work as a college administrator ("it's kind of like a nonprofit, just bigger") and she got a big pay bump.
 She later did a masters degree and I heavily encouraged accounting and finance classes ("what if you do finance, just for a big nonprofit").  She did them, and liked them, but ended up deciding to get the nonprofit management certification rather than the finance / accounting one.  She was valedictorian of that too.

I went straight to law school then marched off to a corporate law firm.  Incidentally, she rubbed off on me a bit and I later switched to a smaller law firm and we represent a lot of nonprofits doing mission-driven (but still complex) work.  I guess I realized from her that I am not a robot and that personal fulfillment matters to me too. 

In any case, this is all one anecdote but DW has never made more than $60k (with admittedly great benefits) despite being sharp as a tack and very diligent and successful in her academic career.  But it's all been 100% her choice -- I'm sure some big bulge bracket bank would have loved to have her spend her youth working 90 hours a week for them if she majored in finance and marched off to it.

Some of these high wage jobs are so punishing, and given that life on earth is finite and health is finicky and money has declining marginal returns, I think our culture is way too irrationally focused on long hours, promotions, the "brass ring" to begin with.  So I wonder if women don't have the right attitude and more men should say "man this is not worth it" and pursue more fulfilling, lower-paid things too.

Isn't that part of the reason we are all on the mustache blog to begin with?  :) 

[Sibley]

The other piece that I find troublesome is that there are entire professions and lines of work which are broadly very low paid by our society, despite the fact that they are actually some of the most important professions out there.

In no particular order:
Personal care/home health aides
Teachers & related support
Child care
Nursing and related medical fields (nurses are way more important in patient care than doctors are, yet make far less money)
Social work

These are some of the most important jobs that exist. What else is more important than teaching the next generation? And yet on average teachers make a pittance while working way harder than a lot of other people. My teacher friends routinely work 10-12 hour days during the school year.

And these are the professions that are heavily female. So maybe there is or isn't a significant pay gap in these fields, but the fact that society devalues the types of fields women are dominant in is a real problem.

FYI - women tend to need more flexibility because SOMEONE has to take care of the kids and house and in general keep daily life going, and the male is less likely to take on that burden. Also another problem. It's getting better, but not perfect yet. So please stop arguing that all is fine, because in the grand scheme of things, it is not. Now, go do your part to help.

[anisotropy]

Wise words blinx7, I do recall the awful 90hr weeks prior to lease rounds, and man those sucked.

I also recall reading about how women are not as flexible for work hours because they have to be more flexible at home, since they typically do 5-10x more than men at home. Maybe tech could help with that soon.... now that they have fixed Alexa's creepy laugh.

It is said by someone, I don't remember whom, that once we remove all the environmental constraints/factors, we can begin to truly see the innate biological differences.  We are slowly getting there, it would be really interesting to see what happens then.

[PKFFW]

Can you kindly link the quantitative studies/sources so I might study them in detail thank you, since this is what I am looking for in the first place.

I'd have to take the time to search for it again.  It's not something I've ever kept copies of.  OTOH you could google it just as easily if you are interested.

If we consider your (supposedly more widely accepted) definition of "wage gap":
the fact that on average women doing the same job, with the same qualifications, in the same industry, working the same number of hours, are being paid less than men are on average.

Your "supposedly more widely accepted" comment leads me to believe you are unlikely to do any googling on the above.

I believe this is thoroughly explained in my posts; women, as data shows, tend to be on the lower end (ABC for example, if we use my example of 7 pay grades of the same title) of the pay grade within the confines of the same position/title, while men tend to be on the higher end (DEFG) of the pay grades of the same position. So when a study looks at the wages of the same position at face value without considering the difference in the "hidden" pay-grades, of course we get the picture that women on average appear to be paid less than men for the same position with the same qualifications and work the same hours. You can't expect one gender that, on average, are at grade C get paid as much as the other gender that, on average, get grade E wages. That's just math.

Ok, problem solved, it's just that men get the higher pay grade positions much more often than women do and therefore get paid more.  As it should be I guess.

Glad we got that solved.

[boarder42]

The other piece that I find troublesome is that there are entire professions and lines of work which are broadly very low paid by our society, despite the fact that they are actually some of the most important professions out there.

In no particular order:
Personal care/home health aides
Teachers & related support
Child care
Nursing and related medical fields (nurses are way more important in patient care than doctors are, yet make far less money)
Social work

These are some of the most important jobs that exist. What else is more important than teaching the next generation? And yet on average teachers make a pittance while working way harder than a lot of other people. My teacher friends routinely work 10-12 hour days during the school year.

And these are the professions that are heavily female. So maybe there is or isn't a significant pay gap in these fields, but the fact that society devalues the types of fields women are dominant in is a real problem.

FYI - women tend to need more flexibility because SOMEONE has to take care of the kids and house and in general keep daily life going, and the male is less likely to take on that burden. Also another problem. It's getting better, but not perfect yet. So please stop arguing that all is fine, because in the grand scheme of things, it is not. Now, go do your part to help.

The free market determines the value of any given job.  These calls and pay are readily available to all in society prior to making a career choice.

And your final point is a choice a woman would make based on gender roles.

I see nothing here other than more proof is a choice not a systemic problem in your analysis.

[anisotropy]

Morning PKFFW,
I did in fact google for contrary evidence, I would say I spent a lot more time researching this than you might think. This is a summary what I found:

Wage gap! women make ~20% less than men! ----> then I found they grouped ALL women vs ALL men, regardless of profession or qualifications.
Wage gap! women make ~15% less than men! ----> then I found they grouped ALL women vs ALL men in the same profession, not actual jobs, just professions
Wage gap! women make ~10% less than men! ----> then I found they grouped ALL women vs ALL men in the same industry, not within the same employer
Wage gap! women make ~5% less than men! ----> this turned out to be the one in question, ie, same job title, same company, same qualifications, then I noticed NO ONE even mentioned pay grades (wilful omission or ignorance?), which as we all know, can easily vary 10% within the same job title.

This is when I called in some favors and looked at some internal pay grade stats and found this single variable was quite capable of explaining the remaining 5% pay differences.

In fact, the most "comprehensive" mainstream article I could find, says this:

"According to data for 8.7m employees worldwide gathered by Korn Ferry, a consultancy, women in Britain make just 1% less than men who have the same function and level at the same employer. In most European countries, the discrepancy is similarly small. These numbers do not show that the labour market is free of sex discrimination. However, they do suggest that the main problem today is not unequal pay for equal work, but whatever it is that leads women to be in lower-ranking jobs at lower-paying organisations."

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-chart

I may be FIRE'd but I am still a scientist at heart, I do researches to discover underlying causes of oddities, instead of relying on pre-conceived ideology to "explain" everything.

If you actually read my post you would have noticed further down I changed my wordings to "In its absence, it seems the reported "wage gap" by the more widely accepted definition is a result of one gender being collectively or on average on the lower pay-grade than the other gender. (without supposedly)" and went on to explain WHY more women tend to be stuck on lower pay grades on average compared to men, instead of simply "as it should be".

I welcome your input but please focus on the actual data and analysis, including the contrary evidence I would love to see, instead of throwing "hissy fits". Since we are an issue where difference in genders are related and central to the discussion, I would hate to see your strongest/only argument to be
"It's not what you said, it's how you said it!"

We owe it to ourselves to be fully informed so we can make rational choices in life.

[MrMoogle]

There really are two terms for wage gap.  The one arguing it's a big deal use the All men vs All women, and the one arguing it's not a big deal show that taking into account profession, hours, experience, etc, men generally make the same as women. 

The second definition points to everything being good.  The first definition is disconcerting.  The question is does the second definition make the first one satisfactory?  It's hard to say.  If there's a problem, it's more of a problem with society and not so much with the businesses, yet it seems as though the businesses are the ones that are paying the price.  International women's day is good to point out the problems seen in the first definition.

Hopefully that made sense, I'm on a new prescription drug and it made it difficult for me to come up with a cohesive statement.

[one piece at a time]

There really are two terms for wage gap.  The one arguing it's a big deal use the All men vs All women, and the one arguing it's not a big deal show that taking into account profession, hours, experience, etc, men generally make the same as women. 

The second definition points to everything being good.  The first definition is disconcerting.  The question is does the second definition make the first one satisfactory?  It's hard to say.  If there's a problem, it's more of a problem with society and not so much with the businesses, yet it seems as though the businesses are the ones that are paying the price.  International women's day is good to point out the problems seen in the first definition.

Hopefully that made sense, I'm on a new prescription drug and it made it difficult for me to come up with a cohesive statement.

The people who make a living talking about this stuff like to focus on the first point because it is simpler and is all they need to talk about to make a living. Those folks (politicians, union leaders, arts majors etc) are not interested in the truth of the matter at all. They have found their niche and are mining it for all its worth. They are no worse than the folks at BMW who are trying to convince you that you need a new 7-series sportswagon. It is all noise. Ignore it.

[Cressida]

Here is a link. OP won't be interested in it, but others posting here might.

[It's long, so set aside some time if you want to read it.]

https://www.vox.com/2017/9/8/16268362/gender-wage-gap-explained

[boarder42]

Here is a link. OP won't be interested in it, but others posting here might.

[It's long, so set aside some time if you want to read it.]

https://www.vox.com/2017/9/8/16268362/gender-wage-gap-explained

this article just further proves the OPs original point - that its a choice women(their households) are making based on historical norms for gender roles.  men are working longer hours and getting promoted for working longer hours - if we really want to talk about the problem here its a work life balance choice that women are making vs many men who are not.  I think the reason we are seeing the wage gap decrease is that more of the younger generation doesnt work towards historical gender roles.  But again its a choice its not discrimination.  If you want to solve the problem then create a work life balance that rewards performance over time spent working.  If you as a woman want to fix what you perceive as a problem and the media talking heads are trying to shine more light on you should start with a conversation with your husband about the balance in care giving for your children. 

[GuitarStv]

Sure, as an engineer, I never got paid less than my male peers doing the same job, but that doesn't mean there isn't a systemic issue across the board for womenkind.

I've had the chance to do a big multi-year study on the pay discrepancy between men and women at engineering jobs.

My wife's an engineer, as am I.  We went to the same school, got the same degree, worked at the same first job (with the same title at the same company, although in different departments) for four years then left that company and worked at the same second job (with same title at the same company, although in different departments) for eight years.  I've always made 10 - 15% more than she has, and she has always had better performance reviews.

People rarely talk about what their exact salary is.  My wife would have never known that she was being underpaid for being a women.  I would have never known that I was being overpaid for being a guy.  Our experiment has opened my eyes though.  Never dismiss the pay benefit of having a dick.  :P

[maizefolk]

Here is a link. OP won't be interested in it, but others posting here might.

[It's long, so set aside some time if you want to read it.]

https://www.vox.com/2017/9/8/16268362/gender-wage-gap-explained

Here's a quick summary of what you'll find if you decide to click on it. It was an interesting read, but posting a link without much context means fewer people will actually click it:

Essentially the thesis of that article is that the vast majority of the gender pay gap is actually a motherhood pay gap, and it notes the the pay gap is quite small for both women in their first jobs out of college, and for unmarried women without children.

It goes on to point out that the motherhood pay gap likely doesn't result from direct sexism, but is concentrated in occupations where people need to be in the office at certain hours in order to be effective, and where willingness to work more and more total hours and have no sense of work-life balance leads to higher pay (both of which can be hard while also caring for a child).

@boarder42 Another potential explanation is that the continued declines in fertility rates mean that the ratio of women without children (small or no pay gap) to women with children (bigger pay gap) is changing, and with it the overall pay gap when we lump those two very different groups together. I guess we'd have to look at whether the motherhood pay gap is decreasing, rather than the overall gender pay gap, to know which explanation makes more sense.

[FrugalToque]

This is a long standing issue, and it's come up here before.

The first thing to consider:  in establishing the "wage gap", as the term is to be used, are we going to:
a) take into account all of the ways that girls are steered away from high paying professions?
b) take into account the studies showing that women are offered lower pay despite having the same qualifications?

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer
This study goes against the result that is claimed above: the idea that women will get the same pay as men if they do the same jobs.  If you're trying to say "the wage gap doesn't exist when women put in the same work", that's clearly not true.  People (both men and women) attribute lower competency to applicant women just because they're women.
That's not the only study on the subject:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
Students rated their online TAs lower if they thought they were female, even though they were randomly assigned male or female TAs.
That makes me wonder about the Uber results.  How significant is "Tipping" for an Uber driver?  Is it counted as part of their income for these purposes?  If so, are people rating male drivers better because of the well known biases regarding women and cars?

But put all of that aside, too, because you shouldn't just be looking at the actual ways that women doing the same jobs are less valued.

You should also be examining the ways that women are steered into lower paying fields.  When was the last time a male CEO was asked how he balances his family with his high powered job?  When was the last time a young boy was told he couldn't be a doctor because boys aren't nurturing enough?

That happens, and it has a huge effect on outcomes.
https://phys.org/news/2008-09-tracking-girls-science-math.html
"The study confirmed that old stereotypes die slowly. Both boys and girls perceived that teachers thought boys were stronger at math and science. For boys this represented a support, while for girls it acted as a barrier."

So, if we're going to discuss the "wage gap", I think it's disingenuous to eliminate all the things that contribute to the gap throughout a woman's life.

It's like saying, "Yeah, there's a wage gap, but if you get past our society's bias while you're growing up, our hiring patterns as a young adult, our predisposition to fear your inevitable pregnancy in your 20s, and put in the same effort as a man ... well, then we're willing to regard you as 92%-96% of a man."

Toque.

[MrMoogle]

The thing I can't explain when talking about wage gaps is: if you account for all the parameters and say that for the same job/experience/hours/etc, other countries have much lower wage gaps than the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#/media/File:OECD_gender_wage_gap.svg

I wouldn't expect them all to be the same, but I would expect there to be less of a distribution.  I can't explain that.

[MDM]

I've always made 10 - 15% more than she has, and she has always had better performance reviews.

That's an unusual result, unless "better performance reviews" doesn't mean "different performance label" - e.g., "outperform" vs. "meets expectations", or "1" vs. "2", etc.

At least in part due to the desire to avoid being held liable for various discriminations, pay raises have become more formulaic over time.  The better one's rating, and the lower one's current pay, the higher the pay raise the payroll program spits out, with little to no room for the supervisor to modify.

But the raises are almost always as a percent of current pay, so negotiating a high starting salary can have career-long benefits - and not negotiating can have a corresponding downside.

[MrMoogle]

I've always made 10 - 15% more than she has, and she has always had better performance reviews.

That's an unusual result, unless "better performance reviews" doesn't mean "different performance label" - e.g., "outperform" vs. "meets expectations", or "1" vs. "2", etc.

At least in part due to the desire to avoid being held liable for various discriminations, pay raises have become more formulaic over time.  The better one's rating, and the lower one's current pay, the higher the pay raise the payroll program spits out, with little to no room for the supervisor to modify.

But the raises are almost always as a percent of current pay, so negotiating a high starting salary can have career-long benefits - and not negotiating can have a corresponding downside.

They were in different departments.  At my first job, I started in the System Engineering department, which had mostly people in their 50's and 60's who made double or more than I did.  So when each department got 4%, my manager would take 1% from 3 people, then give me a 10% raise.

Later on, I switched to the Electrical Engineering department, where it was mostly people in their 30s.  So when that manager took 1% from 3 people, I'd only get ~7%. 

Financially, I would have done better in the first department, and I was doing mostly the same work.  I switched over because leadership was trying to reduce the power of that department, so it was recommended that I switch over.

[Kris]

The thing I can't explain when talking about wage gaps is: if you account for all the parameters and say that for the same job/experience/hours/etc, other countries have much lower wage gaps than the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#/media/File:OECD_gender_wage_gap.svg

I wouldn't expect them all to be the same, but I would expect there to be less of a distribution.  I can't explain that.

Better social safety net, for things like cost of/availablity of day care, sick day policies, maternity leave, etc., I'd guess. Those things tend to disproportionately affect women, as women tend to be the ones who take charge of child care, stay home when kids are ill, etc.

[MDM]

They were in different departments....

That is a possible explanation, but it is still unusual for two people at the same job level when the one receiving higher ratings for 12 years has the lower pay.

[boarder42]

Sure, as an engineer, I never got paid less than my male peers doing the same job, but that doesn't mean there isn't a systemic issue across the board for womenkind.

I've had the chance to do a big multi-year study on the pay discrepancy between men and women at engineering jobs.

My wife's an engineer, as am I.  We went to the same school, got the same degree, worked at the same first job (with the same title at the same company, although in different departments) for four years then left that company and worked at the same second job (with same title at the same company, although in different departments) for eight years.  I've always made 10 - 15% more than she has, and she has always had better performance reviews.

People rarely talk about what their exact salary is.  My wife would have never known that she was being underpaid for being a women.  I would have never known that I was being overpaid for being a guy.  Our experiment has opened my eyes though.  Never dismiss the pay benefit of having a dick.  :P

the different dept piece of this puzzle is a large variable that should not be overlooked at my company depending on the division or dept you're in your pay can easily vary by 10-15%.  i had a guy to guy example when i first started myself and another interned one year at this company and both had EE degrees and started in the same division on the same day full time, but different dept's we got the same reviews and he recieved a bonus and raise that were 10-15% total comp higher than mine 3 years into our working careers.  only difference the dept's we were in - oh and i called them out on it and they went back and they "forgot" i was an engineer and got me a bit more money.  Different depts and divisions can effect alot at companies.

[MrMoogle]

They were in different departments....

That is a possible explanation, but it is still unusual for two people at the same job level when the one receiving higher ratings for 12 years has the lower pay.

Yes, it is unusual.  One of the guys I worked with in the Electrical Department got slightly worse ratings (but still really good), and was getting the 7%'s while I got the 10%'s (until I switched over).  I also got a mid year raise that he never got.  I'm pretty sure my slightly better ratings wouldn't account for such a difference.  Honestly I got really lucky in a lot of ways with that job.

And for what it's worth, he probably makes more than I do now, he's taken on more of a management/lead role, while I've stayed completely technical.  I would totally work under him :)

[ministashy]

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind that this 'wage gap' thing is all a big lie, and just want people to agree with you.

Hi ministashy,
Clearly you don't belong to the "can't read good and want to learn how to do other stuff good too" group since you can neither read good and nor want to learn how to do other stuff good too.

I specifically asked for any evidence contrary to my analytically-derived conclusion,

Wow, congratulations--you managed to be elitist AND condescending all in the same reply.

So fine, since you want people to disprove your 'analytically-derived conclusion' (because you couldn't possibly have any pre-existing biases, you're FAR too smart and educated for that, I'm sure), then let's play that game.  You start.  Show us all the documentation on YOUR studies on the wage gap.  Don't forget to make sure to include large sample sizes across diverse populations, not to mention documentation of YOUR methodology, and lay out why that has led you to the conclusion that there is no 'true' wage gap.  (One wonders if this is related to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.) 

Because I'm sure you have all the peer-reviewed documentation on hand  to support your argument, rather than just cherry-picking a few different studies, plus a nice sprinkling of anecdotal evidence, in order to support your conclusions, Mr. Scientist.

Before I close, I want to stress that I am looking for wage gaps that manifest as studies that display blatant sexism by paying men more than women when they are on the same pay grade"

So in other words--you want people to find studies to refute your assumption--oh, I'm sorry, carefully researched conclusion--that 'if women get paid less, it's their own fault because they don't ask for it/take time off to have kids/don't go after the high-paying jobs', while at the same time narrowing the parameters of your question almost to the point of irrelevancy.  Good to know!

[GuitarStv]

I've always made 10 - 15% more than she has, and she has always had better performance reviews.

That's an unusual result, unless "better performance reviews" doesn't mean "different performance label" - e.g., "outperform" vs. "meets expectations", or "1" vs. "2", etc.

At least in part due to the desire to avoid being held liable for various discriminations, pay raises have become more formulaic over time.  The better one's rating, and the lower one's current pay, the higher the pay raise the payroll program spits out, with little to no room for the supervisor to modify.

But the raises are almost always as a percent of current pay, so negotiating a high starting salary can have career-long benefits - and not negotiating can have a corresponding downside.

They were in different departments.  At my first job, I started in the System Engineering department, which had mostly people in their 50's and 60's who made double or more than I did.  So when each department got 4%, my manager would take 1% from 3 people, then give me a 10% raise.

Later on, I switched to the Electrical Engineering department, where it was mostly people in their 30s.  So when that manager took 1% from 3 people, I'd only get ~7%. 

Financially, I would have done better in the first department, and I was doing mostly the same work.  I switched over because leadership was trying to reduce the power of that department, so it was recommended that I switch over.

We worked on different parts of the software product at both companies (Software - Simulators vs Software - Airframes at the first place, and Software - Management Control Systems vs Software - Tools and Simulators).  It wasn't like the difference between a systems engineer and an electrical engineer, we were both doing software engineering and under the same department head (although had different immediate supervisors).

[FrugalToque]

Seems there's some confusion on the definition of "wage gap". It is defined thus, the wage differences between a male and a female working in the same organization, in the same location, having the same qualifications (degrees, titles, etc), doing the same job, and being on the same pay grade.

Before I reply, I want to stress that I am looking for wage gaps that manifest as studies that display blatant sexism by paying men more than women when they are on the same pay grade". Thanks.

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind that this 'wage gap' thing is all a big lie, and just want people to agree with you.

Hi ministashy,
Clearly you don't belong to the "can't read good and want to learn how to do other stuff good too" group since you can neither read good and nor want to learn how to do other stuff good too.

I specifically asked for any evidence contrary to my analytically-derived conclusion,

I think what actually happened here is that people are disagreeing with your premises, not any "analytically derived conclusion" you derived from them.  You eliminated a whole host of ways in which our society discriminates against female employees, then did your analysis.

Also, please mind your manners.  We're not stupid.  We're disagreeing with the way you're approaching this issue.

Toque.

[MrMoogle]

The thing I can't explain when talking about wage gaps is: if you account for all the parameters and say that for the same job/experience/hours/etc, other countries have much lower wage gaps than the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#/media/File:OECD_gender_wage_gap.svg

I wouldn't expect them all to be the same, but I would expect there to be less of a distribution.  I can't explain that.

Better social safety net, for things like cost of/availablity of day care, sick day policies, maternity leave, etc., I'd guess. Those things tend to disproportionately affect women, as women tend to be the ones who take charge of child care, stay home when kids are ill, etc.

I think you are correct as to what drives the lower gap in those countries.  Most of that seems pretty small in cost (well, not the day care). 

So the question we are trying to answer is:  Is the wage gap (all men vs all women) a problem?
Here are the key points:
The median woman's salary is ~15% less than the median man's salary. Or ~19% from average to average.
For the same job, experience, hours, etc, men and women generally make the same.
Other countries drop that ~19% down to ~4%.
This might be accounted by having a bigger social services.

To me, it seems like the wage gap is generally not a big deal, but I can definitely understand if someone is pushing for more social services to lower the gap. 

[Cressida]

Here is a link. OP won't be interested in it, but others posting here might.

[It's long, so set aside some time if you want to read it.]

https://www.vox.com/2017/9/8/16268362/gender-wage-gap-explained

this article just further proves the OPs original point - that its a choice women(their households) are making based on historical norms for gender roles.  men are working longer hours and getting promoted for working longer hours - if we really want to talk about the problem here its a work life balance choice that women are making vs many men who are not.  I think the reason we are seeing the wage gap decrease is that more of the younger generation doesnt work towards historical gender roles.  But again its a choice its not discrimination.  If you want to solve the problem then create a work life balance that rewards performance over time spent working.  If you as a woman want to fix what you perceive as a problem and the media talking heads are trying to shine more light on you should start with a conversation with your husband about the balance in care giving for your children.

I noted that the OP wouldn't be interested in the article. I'm aware that it doesn't address his hyper-specific premise.

[maizefolk]

I hadn't seem the median number before. Given that median compensation is closer than the mean, one idea to test would be whether countries with greater pay gaps between men and women are also countries with high levels of income inequality overall.

If so, maybe the skew towards men tending to occupy the higher paid positions or higher paid professions is more similar across all countries, but the difference between the compensation for those positions and others is smaller in the countries with lower overall average pay gaps between men and women?

It also strikes me that there may be a correlation between a country's ranking in that graph and a country's ranking in this graph:



Which would be consistent with the model proposed by @Cressida's article that a big chunk of the gender pay gap is actually a motherhood pay gap because people who are also caring for small children are going to have more trouble putting in 50+ hour work weeks than people (male or female) who are not.

[FIRE Artist]

Sure, as an engineer, I never got paid less than my male peers doing the same job, but that doesn't mean there isn't a systemic issue across the board for womenkind.

I've had the chance to do a big multi-year study on the pay discrepancy between men and women at engineering jobs.

My wife's an engineer, as am I.  We went to the same school, got the same degree, worked at the same first job (with the same title at the same company, although in different departments) for four years then left that company and worked at the same second job (with same title at the same company, although in different departments) for eight years.  I've always made 10 - 15% more than she has, and she has always had better performance reviews.

People rarely talk about what their exact salary is.  My wife would have never known that she was being underpaid for being a women.  I would have never known that I was being overpaid for being a guy.  Our experiment has opened my eyes though.  Never dismiss the pay benefit of having a dick.  :P

Oh, I can believe this, but I worked in operations management in the oil patch, where as someone mentioned above, female managers are as scarce as hens' teeth and often treated like gold.  Every year I had to review salary comp reports so I knew where I was on the bell curve.  Prior to being in ops management, I worked as a quality manager and the HR manager was fantastic and also shared my position in the salary ranking with me.  I am comfortable with my previous statement, but certainly accept that this is not the situation shared by all female engineers.  I had many gripes about my previous work environment, but compensation was not one of them. 

[anisotropy]

Hi all, OP here, thread has clearly expanded, took me awhile to read all the posts.

Thank you Cressida for the link, I read it, even as you admit, it doesn't meet my super specific premise as contrary evidence. As boarder42, maizeman, and Mr.Moogle (maybe) commented, a huge part of this pay gap relates to motherhood and the resulting time out of employment. In addition to choice of profession, I tend to agree that the motherhood issue boils down to personal choice, perhaps reinforced by biological instinct and societal pressure.  I dug around and found that some countries have taken steps to lessen the outside influence (social and environmental factors), such as Sweden and other Scandinavian countries.

These are old articles from 2014, couldn't find newer ones, sorry.

http://www.scandinaviastandard.com/what-about-women-in-the-workplace-in-scandinavia/
Other measure being taken to close the wage gap include breaking up traditional notions of gendered jobs, which has often seen women being steamrolled into work that is considered “feminine” and is, as a result, paid less. For instance, the Swedish government has allotted money to initiatives encouraging men to work in areas typically seen as feminine, such as elderly care, and encourage women to work in traditionally male sectors like tech and engineering (Business Insider).


Regarding policies results
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21632512-worlds-most-female-friendly-workplaces-executive-suites-are-still-male-dominated
Furthermore, in the first substantial study of the Norwegian reforms, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago’s Booth business school and three colleagues conclude that “there is no evidence that these gains at the very top trickled down.” They have done nothing to improve the career prospects of highly qualified women below board level. They have not helped close the gender gap in the incomes of recent business-school graduates. Nor have they done anything to encourage younger women to go to business school in the first place.


As I mentioned in my earlier post, when we lessen the outside (social and environmental) factors, we hope to observe how much of the end result boils down to personal choice. I think I need to stress, equality of outcome (in this case, wage) regardless of personal choices seem pretty absurd.

GuitarStv,
That is extremely interesting, and could potentially be considered a contrary evidence that I've been looking for. Do you mind to give more detail regarding your experience, including how the functions of the two departments differed, and if the company had a standardized pay grade system in place. You could also PM me if you prefer, thanks.

Toque (as poster), and ministachy,
I did in fact provide a summary of my findings (post #6, #11, #19), I gave my detailed observation and thought process, then asked for contrary evidence to see if I missed anything. What I noticed was the more widely accepted definition of wage gap (ie, women make less than men, on average) gets smaller and smaller.
Toque, you disagreed with my premises where I eliminated other factors to isolate and identify true "wage gap" that are true gender bias based instead of psychology/choice based. Yet, this is how science is done, you isolate the part in question to learn more about it, same with engineering. When EVERY differences are accounted for (motherhood, profession, personal choices, pay grade, etc), the wage gap then almost disappears (if not entirely, the 1% difference in the UK case could easily have been a rounding error). Equality of outcome (wage), regardless of personal choices, is clearly absurd. Note Toque, I am separating the reply regarding the topic and poster behavior, which I am assuming came from a mod position, see below please.

Toque (as mod),
Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too is a joke from Zoolander (2001), it was used here to caution people to read carefully, because most people tend to read things out of context on the internet, which clearly happened. You have issue with my manner, yet I have been nothing less than courteous even semi-professional when discussing with people that provided actual substance in this discussion. When I tear someone a new one, it's usually when they initiated the "fight". Take ministashy for example, their very first post here said
"Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind that this 'wage gap' thing is all a big lie, and just want people to agree with you."
without contributing to the discussion at all, even though I laid out some possible explanations and specifically asked for contrary evidence, if they knew any. This is borderline trolling behavior as they did not even discuss the issue in their post but only made snide personal remarks.

Later on, they came back and, without responding to any of my and other people's arguments regarding the examination of "true" wage gap, demanded to see data, methodology, and documentations, even though there were already no less than four links to studies and reports in this very thread, yet another clear action of trolling.

My response was a play on the original zoolander joke, since ministashy clearly had no intention to read nor contribute to a meaningful discussion, that is based by studies. Based on arebelspy's pyramid (forum rules), I would suggest I've been doing the top three while ministashy has been doing the bottom three. Thank you.

[shenlong55]

Hi all, OP here, thread has clearly expanded, took me awhile to read all the posts.

Thank you Cressida for the link, I read it, even as you admit, it doesn't meet my super specific premise as contrary evidence. As boarder42, maizeman, and Mr.Moogle (maybe) commented, a huge part of this pay gap relates to motherhood and the resulting time out of employment. In addition to choice of profession, I tend to agree that the motherhood issue boils down to personal choice, perhaps reinforced by biological instinct and societal pressure.  I dug around and found that some countries have taken steps to lessen the outside influence (social and environmental factors), such as Sweden and other Scandinavian countries.

So, if my wife and I decided today that we wanted another child how would I go about choosing to carry the baby in her place for the first ~9 months of it's life?

[maizefolk]

a huge part of this pay gap relates to motherhood and the resulting time out of employment. In addition to choice of profession, I tend to agree that the motherhood issue boils down to personal choice, perhaps reinforced by biological instinct and societal pressure.

Well this is where you have to be careful. We can use statistics to estimate the proportion of the gender pay gap which is actually the motherhood pay gap. Whether you consider motherhood to be a personal choice or something else (perhaps a protected class? a right?), is a matter of political opinion rather than something inherent in the data.

[anisotropy]

This is a long standing issue, and it's come up here before.

The first thing to consider:  in establishing the "wage gap", as the term is to be used, are we going to:
a) take into account all of the ways that girls are steered away from high paying professions?
b) take into account the studies showing that women are offered lower pay despite having the same qualifications?

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer
This study goes against the result that is claimed above: the idea that women will get the same pay as men if they do the same jobs.  If you're trying to say "the wage gap doesn't exist when women put in the same work", that's clearly not true.  People (both men and women) attribute lower competency to applicant women just because they're women.
That's not the only study on the subject:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
Students rated their online TAs lower if they thought they were female, even though they were randomly assigned male or female TAs.
That makes me wonder about the Uber results.  How significant is "Tipping" for an Uber driver?  Is it counted as part of their income for these purposes?  If so, are people rating male drivers better because of the well known biases regarding women and cars?

But put all of that aside, too, because you shouldn't just be looking at the actual ways that women doing the same jobs are less valued.

You should also be examining the ways that women are steered into lower paying fields.  When was the last time a male CEO was asked how he balances his family with his high powered job?  When was the last time a young boy was told he couldn't be a doctor because boys aren't nurturing enough?

That happens, and it has a huge effect on outcomes.
https://phys.org/news/2008-09-tracking-girls-science-math.html
"The study confirmed that old stereotypes die slowly. Both boys and girls perceived that teachers thought boys were stronger at math and science. For boys this represented a support, while for girls it acted as a barrier."

So, if we're going to discuss the "wage gap", I think it's disingenuous to eliminate all the things that contribute to the gap throughout a woman's life.

It's like saying, "Yeah, there's a wage gap, but if you get past our society's bias while you're growing up, our hiring patterns as a young adult, our predisposition to fear your inevitable pregnancy in your 20s, and put in the same effort as a man ... well, then we're willing to regard you as 92%-96% of a man."

Toque.

In case it was not clear, I decided to have a post just to discuss the issues that are brought up. They are valid points, I don't have good and convincing answers to the perception of women being incompetent, other than perhaps women are, on average, less assertive and more agreeable. I will look into this matter, thanks.

Regarding women being steered into lower paying fields, the "Norse" countries in recent years have been attempting to "push" more women into STEM fields with less than stellar results. The cause is not yet apparent, though some people claim it boils down to choices based on biology, I, for one, hope it is not the case.

Finally, I want to reiterate that the 92-96% wage gap can often be explained via the mechanisms explored on post #6.

[boarder42]

Hi all, OP here, thread has clearly expanded, took me awhile to read all the posts.

Thank you Cressida for the link, I read it, even as you admit, it doesn't meet my super specific premise as contrary evidence. As boarder42, maizeman, and Mr.Moogle (maybe) commented, a huge part of this pay gap relates to motherhood and the resulting time out of employment. In addition to choice of profession, I tend to agree that the motherhood issue boils down to personal choice, perhaps reinforced by biological instinct and societal pressure.  I dug around and found that some countries have taken steps to lessen the outside influence (social and environmental factors), such as Sweden and other Scandinavian countries.

So, if my wife and I decided today that we wanted another child how would I go about choosing to carry the baby in her place for the first ~9 months of it's life?

The issue of motherhood does not directly relate the carrying of said child to the lower pay - its the choices made post child to work less and spend more time as a care giver that were shown to decrease the pay for a woman in a similar line of work to a man who chose to work longer hours and put child raising more on the side of the woman in his relationship. 

Also you do have the choice to hire a surrogate to carry your child for you completely eliminating any of the medical needs for time off of work post birth.  unless you know you choose to have her stay home and take care of the kid.

[anisotropy]

a huge part of this pay gap relates to motherhood and the resulting time out of employment. In addition to choice of profession, I tend to agree that the motherhood issue boils down to personal choice, perhaps reinforced by biological instinct and societal pressure.

Well this is where you have to be careful. We can use statistics to estimate the proportion of the gender pay gap which is actually the motherhood pay gap. Whether you consider motherhood to be a personal choice or something else (perhaps a protected class? a right?), is a matter of political opinion rather than something inherent in the data.

Noted, thanks. I struggle to convey the point in an apolitical manner, perhaps someone smarter could help with this? As we all know, men can not carry children, not yet at least.

[boarder42]

a huge part of this pay gap relates to motherhood and the resulting time out of employment. In addition to choice of profession, I tend to agree that the motherhood issue boils down to personal choice, perhaps reinforced by biological instinct and societal pressure.

Well this is where you have to be careful. We can use statistics to estimate the proportion of the gender pay gap which is actually the motherhood pay gap. Whether you consider motherhood to be a personal choice or something else (perhaps a protected class? a right?), is a matter of political opinion rather than something inherent in the data.

Noted, thanks. I struggle to convey the point in an apolitical manner, perhaps someone smarter could help with this? As we all know, men can not carry children, not yet at least.

its what anyone chooses to do in motherhood or fatherhood that creates a larger pay gap between them and their peers in similar positions.  I"m getting ready to have a child and am considering dropping to 4-8s i do this not expecting to keep my pay level increasing at the same as my peers working 40 hour weeks or longer.  its important to understand the choice you make and the result of that choice regardless of if you're male or female. 

[GuitarStv]

GuitarStv,
That is extremely interesting, and could potentially be considered a contrary evidence that I've been looking for. Do you mind to give more detail regarding your experience, including how the functions of the two departments differed, and if the company had a standardized pay grade system in place. You could also PM me if you prefer, thanks.

Two companies.

We were both hired out of university at company A into the software department of an aerospace company specializing in simulators.  My wife worked developing the underlying software that ran the simulation, I developed the software and logic related to air-frames avionics.  Development was in C++ and C# my wife, and C++ for me.  We were on the same pay scale (were told that the same salary max/min applied), I was higher on the payscale when I started, got more stock options (which turned out to be worthless when the company tanked) when they were given out, and finished employment making more money.  We both got great performance reviews at this company.

We both got laid off in 2008, and my wife found a job at company B (which dealt with train control systems )before helping me to get hired there.  My wife worked in two of the software departments there, first the dealing with automatic speed control for the trains (embedded programming, Perl, C and C++, also required regular trips to Asia for on site measurement/adjustment of loaded trains) and later the software department that handles the management and routing of trains in service (C++, C#).  I was hired into the software department that handles general tools, and developed train simulators for testing.  My development was in C++.  We were on the same pay scale (were told that the same salary max/min applied).  I started off making more money (maybe because I made more at my last job?), and continued to get slightly higher raises until being laid off.

We carpooled every day, so it's not like I was staying later or getting in earlier.  I kinda hated my job at the second company, and did just enough work to get by.  My wife has always been more industrious than me, and her managers all gave her significantly better reviews than I ever got.  My wife did get pregnant and take a year off 5 years after starting work at company B, but I had made (and continued to make) more money.

[shenlong55]

Hi all, OP here, thread has clearly expanded, took me awhile to read all the posts.

Thank you Cressida for the link, I read it, even as you admit, it doesn't meet my super specific premise as contrary evidence. As boarder42, maizeman, and Mr.Moogle (maybe) commented, a huge part of this pay gap relates to motherhood and the resulting time out of employment. In addition to choice of profession, I tend to agree that the motherhood issue boils down to personal choice, perhaps reinforced by biological instinct and societal pressure.  I dug around and found that some countries have taken steps to lessen the outside influence (social and environmental factors), such as Sweden and other Scandinavian countries.

So, if my wife and I decided today that we wanted another child how would I go about choosing to carry the baby in her place for the first ~9 months of it's life?

The issue of motherhood does not directly relate the carrying of said child to the lower pay - its the choices made post child to work less and spend more time as a care giver that were shown to decrease the pay for a woman in a similar line of work to a man who chose to work longer hours and put child raising more on the side of the woman in his relationship. 

Also you do have the choice to hire a surrogate to carry your child for you completely eliminating any of the medical needs for time off of work post birth.  unless you know you choose to have her stay home and take care of the kid.

That's interesting.  How did they separate the issues?  Did they study "during pregnancy" separately from "after pregnancy", or did they only study one time period or the other?

I wonder how much hiring a surrogate costs, not something I've looked into much.  Maybe we should just have the government pay for surrogates so that women no longer have to go through pregnancy unless they choose to...