I felt it important to do a follow up to my previous post on the wage gap. While I did cover several important points in regards to the wage gap, I failed to do two crucial things: first, I did not make it clear that the contention with the wage gap from feminists is that its origins are found in sexist discrimination rather than market forces. That is to say that employers willfully pay women less simply for lacking a Y-chromosome. It seems to me a terrible reason to pay women less and has been pointed out that if such a state existed most if not all employers would hire only women simply to save on labour costs.
Second, and this point was only briefly eluded to previously, was how the wage gap is earned. I wish to briefly elaborate on this point.
The wage gap does exist in aggregate. When you break down all the way to hours worked within specializations of already specialized professions, you see the wage gap almost wholly disappear. But not fully. Is this the minor contribution of sexism which persists in our workplaces? No, and far from it. The data is still not perfect, specifically on the points of hours worked. Almost all reviews of data from workplaces consider full-time workers those who work 35 hours per work or more, but does not cap full-time wage review relative to working only 35 hours. To be clear, this means, as I have already states previous, that two people paid the same for the same job could earn different paycheques because one of them worked additional hours.
Those extra hours are one of the major sources of where the wage gap comes in, even when we look at pay differences within professions. Men overwhelmingly work more than women, which is the driver behind the pay differences. In a more macro sense, men take on far more dangerous jobs where they are significantly more compensated. A man felling trees in northern British Columbia is going to make significantly more money than a man working equal hours in an air conditioned call center 20 minutes from his home in Seattle, Washington. Yet, the lumberjack is more likely to die or be injured on the job than the call center clerk.
The fact that men work dangerous jobs far from home for more hours with greatly varied start and finish times is overlooked when we talk about the gender wage gap. When we take it into account, I am left with one conclusion: the wage gap does exist and men have earned it.
If women want to catch up to men, then they can fell trees, learn to do petroleum field work with welding, electrical, or plumbing. Women can go off and pull oil out of the ground or wade into filth to solve water purification problems. Working retail or support roles does not pay as well as field work in mining or long haul trucking. Comfort is sacrificed for pay and men are more willing to accept that. The only barrier to women in this free society is themselves. They can take on the challenges of of dangerous work, die more frequently on the job, and be further from home. Once the whining brigade of wage gap conspiracy theorists accept this, the debate will be over.
Men have earned the wage gap. It is up to women to look at the sacrifices which men take to earn their money and understand that to close or end the gap they must be willing to do the same. Until the time comes when a vast number of women are willing to give up comfort in the name of pay we will continue to see the gender wage gap. Earn your way to solving it.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Post 59 -- Wage gap game? It's just that.
The wage gap is that pesky topic which clings to the minds of feminists and concerned feminist allies everywhere. It has a profound impact on the capitalistic, money equals power minds of the cultural kamikazes of today. In any debate about gender, about women, about sexual expression, about fiscal policy, and--as I learned yesterday while listening to NPR--even discussions about homelessness (a problem that is disproportionately male, with between 60 and 85% of homeless populations being male, depending on the municipality) include the topic about the wage gap.
Let me define my best understanding of the talking point which is the wage gap. This isn't going to be someone else's or some dictionary-esque statement on it. This definition is mine from my research and exposure to the topic.
The modern wage gap is defined by the ratio of annual earnings between men and women. It is frequently expressed as the percentage women earn as compared to men or the value of a woman's dollar earned to a man's dollar earned. As such, we hear the statement, "women earn 77 cents on the dollar" or "women are paid 23% less than men for the same work."
Before I unpack this (again), I want to define a few more parameters which make up both the presented stat and the rationale behind it. Firstly, the expression paid is used interchangeably with earned. Paid means something entirely different than earned, but the emotionally salient impact of the difference is central to the conveyance of the wage gap myth. Paid, in its most simple definition from various organizations and the Department of Labor means what an individual is compensated for their work by a defined time segment (e.g., weekly salary or hourly). Earned, however, is the general term to describe the end product compensation. Allow a brief example to clarify the difference:
Secondly, the difference reported between men and women is in aggregate. That is, the calculation is done by totaling the money earned by all full-time women and dividing that by the money earned by all full-time men. There is no nuance into the type of work, tenure, education, or even hours (as "full-time worker" is defined as labouers who worked for at least 40 hours per work).
The wage gap is a myth. It should be clear by my additional definitions which are used in the argument for the gap to begin with, but there is more to add. To take the issues in the order given, being paid differently for the same work (assuming same qualifications) is illegal. It is illegal in the United States, in Canada, in Britain, in Germany, and in most other western democracies. The risk to employers, big or small, public or private, to willfully pay women less simply because they are women is too great a liability. The litigious nature of the United States would make it impossible for employers to successfully get away with such an injustice. The amount of technology which goes into monitoring hours and pay, such as Kronos or ADP, would leave a conclusive paper trail whereby even a mediocre lawyer would successful bring suit on behalf of the female employee against her employer.
When we clearly and willfully separate paid with earned we see the inherent problem at the core of the myth. If Sally and Eric work the same job with the same pay and work the same hours then Sally and Eric will earn the same. However, if Sally and Eric are paid the same but Eric works additional hours, then Eric will have earned more than Sally. When looked at in aggregate, this crucial point is lost. In 2014, men worked 57% of the 272,662,680,000 labour hours. Of all full-time workers, men worked 8.4 hours a day on average, while women worked 7.8. If we assume that men and women occupy jobs equally and are all paid equally, then the pay gap would be a neat 14% on the mere fact that men work more than women.
The completed and revised numbers for 2013 indicate women made "82 percent of the median weekly earnings of a male full-time or salaried worker." So, not only do supporters of the wage gap gloss over hours worked, the '77 cents on the dollar' point is also fallacious. It should be added that the maxim 'do not attribute malice to which can be best explained by stupidity' works in this case; most likely, supporters of the wage gap are recycling numbers of several years ago, rather than staying up to date. Probably because being up to date would also mean exposing themselves to additional reasons why the wage gap is a myth.
Obfuscated from the general transmission of the wage gap is the distribution of jobs. Men tend to occupy jobs which are far more dangerous, have more varied hours (both by day and by schedule), and are further from home. Such jobs provide greater compensation and lead to a widening of aggregate earnings for men over women. Moreover, variables such as education and tenure are also scrubbed from message. When we control the essential variables the gap shrinks to less than 2%, with the final discrepancy found in over-time hours worked and performance bonuses. Consider that many jobs pay additional compensation for over-time hours at a rate of time-and-a-half, effectively bumping the approximately 104 additional yearly hours worked by men over women to 156 hours of at-pay compensation*.
Now that I have made it clear how the wage gap game is played and how it is an unabashed myth perpetuated by ignorant or malevolent individuals, I want to turn my attention to why we should be against equal pay in all cases. Not in a general sense, but in specific, individual by individual understanding of it. I want to use you, my dear reader, as the example.
Most of us agree that equal work deserves equal pay. But what of the variables such as education, tenure, an output? Let us say that you work a job which does not require an education but that having a specific education significantly helps you perform your duties. Let us now say you have such a job and also possess an education complimentary to, though not required of, the job. You have a co-worker to whom you share an identical role, title, and job description. This job is hourly. Your education allows you to consistently out perform your co-worker. Do you think you deserve to be paid the same as your less qualified co-worker? If you said 'no', then you understand where my argument against equal pay comes from.
To take this point further, I wish to impress upon you the importance of experience. Again, let us say you have an hourly paid job to which you have worked at for 10 years. You have a new co-worker who has the identical title and job description as you. Do you think you should be paid the same as your new co-worker? If you say 'yes' because you believe equal work deserves equal pay, then you fail to see the impact which experience plays on one's ability to perform their job. You have invested and committed yourself for 10 years to a company and role, you deserve to be appropriately compensated for that work.
I want to make it abundantly clear the role which personal qualifications and tenure ought to play in compensation. Those who perform better and are more qualified deserve to be better compensated than those who perform less and are less qualified. This factor does not concern itself with gender, race, or any of the other myriad identifiers which exist. This philosophy should be championed by every worker in some form. Grid systems, tier systems, set annual increases, or any other method which rewards both tenure or some form of improved work output rewards experience and tenure.
Further, the role which negotiating plays in starting compensation should not be overlooked. Negotiating is not restricted to men alone. In fact, and I am certain there are feminists out there who agree with me, women should be doing more for themselves to ensure they, as individuals, are being appropriately compensated. Document your work ethic and build rapport with your co-workers. Challenge your employer over your compensation using the evidence you have gathered about your worth to the company. Rarely will one by removed for doing so, making this a low-risk attempt to achieve better recognition for the work you perform.
So, does the wage gap exist? Absolutely not. Or, at least, not in the way it is so lazily conveyed to us. Even if it did, it would be because men work more dangerous jobs, men work more hours, and women, given a free society which allows them to choose to pursue their own passions and interests, work safer, less harmful jobs. The wage gap myth amounts to an attempt to obliterate equality of opportunity and replace virtues such as work ethic, commitment, and stalwart perseverance with equality of outcome. Where those who work hard earn as much as those who barely show up, those who are more learned are compensated the same as those who are willfully ignorant, and those who are qualified are paid equally to those are couldn't be bothered to try.
By fighting equality of outcome, you are fighting for yourself and the belief that the individual is more important than some loose collective. That your work ethic, commitment, and drive ought to be rewarded and not overlooked to accommodate another who lacks such moral character. The wage gap is not real and we should be damn happy that it isn't.
Talk to me on Twitter: @nrokchi
* From BLS 2014 statistics, full-time men worked 8.4 per day. Full-time does mean 35 or more hours per work in this publication, but many labour laws define overtime as greater than 8 hours per day, but this varies by state. The publication lists men as working 52 minutes more than women, but focusing on the time over the standard 8 hour day, we have men working 2 additional hours a week. This adds to 104 additional hours worked in the year, on average. Compensation for overtimes is assumed to be time-and-a-half (1.5x), multiplying the 104 overtime hours to 156 compensation hours. This is to show how rapidly a gap can grow between pay and earnings when a labourer works overtime hours and further clarifies why there is an aggregate difference between men and women.
Let me define my best understanding of the talking point which is the wage gap. This isn't going to be someone else's or some dictionary-esque statement on it. This definition is mine from my research and exposure to the topic.
The modern wage gap is defined by the ratio of annual earnings between men and women. It is frequently expressed as the percentage women earn as compared to men or the value of a woman's dollar earned to a man's dollar earned. As such, we hear the statement, "women earn 77 cents on the dollar" or "women are paid 23% less than men for the same work."
Before I unpack this (again), I want to define a few more parameters which make up both the presented stat and the rationale behind it. Firstly, the expression paid is used interchangeably with earned. Paid means something entirely different than earned, but the emotionally salient impact of the difference is central to the conveyance of the wage gap myth. Paid, in its most simple definition from various organizations and the Department of Labor means what an individual is compensated for their work by a defined time segment (e.g., weekly salary or hourly). Earned, however, is the general term to describe the end product compensation. Allow a brief example to clarify the difference:
I am paid $10.00 an hour. I worked 40 hours this past week. I earned $400.00 this past week.This example illustrates the difference between paid and earned by showing pay as the rate of compensation and earnings as being the accumulated compensation for the work done.
Secondly, the difference reported between men and women is in aggregate. That is, the calculation is done by totaling the money earned by all full-time women and dividing that by the money earned by all full-time men. There is no nuance into the type of work, tenure, education, or even hours (as "full-time worker" is defined as labouers who worked for at least 40 hours per work).
The wage gap is a myth. It should be clear by my additional definitions which are used in the argument for the gap to begin with, but there is more to add. To take the issues in the order given, being paid differently for the same work (assuming same qualifications) is illegal. It is illegal in the United States, in Canada, in Britain, in Germany, and in most other western democracies. The risk to employers, big or small, public or private, to willfully pay women less simply because they are women is too great a liability. The litigious nature of the United States would make it impossible for employers to successfully get away with such an injustice. The amount of technology which goes into monitoring hours and pay, such as Kronos or ADP, would leave a conclusive paper trail whereby even a mediocre lawyer would successful bring suit on behalf of the female employee against her employer.
When we clearly and willfully separate paid with earned we see the inherent problem at the core of the myth. If Sally and Eric work the same job with the same pay and work the same hours then Sally and Eric will earn the same. However, if Sally and Eric are paid the same but Eric works additional hours, then Eric will have earned more than Sally. When looked at in aggregate, this crucial point is lost. In 2014, men worked 57% of the 272,662,680,000 labour hours. Of all full-time workers, men worked 8.4 hours a day on average, while women worked 7.8. If we assume that men and women occupy jobs equally and are all paid equally, then the pay gap would be a neat 14% on the mere fact that men work more than women.
The completed and revised numbers for 2013 indicate women made "82 percent of the median weekly earnings of a male full-time or salaried worker." So, not only do supporters of the wage gap gloss over hours worked, the '77 cents on the dollar' point is also fallacious. It should be added that the maxim 'do not attribute malice to which can be best explained by stupidity' works in this case; most likely, supporters of the wage gap are recycling numbers of several years ago, rather than staying up to date. Probably because being up to date would also mean exposing themselves to additional reasons why the wage gap is a myth.
Obfuscated from the general transmission of the wage gap is the distribution of jobs. Men tend to occupy jobs which are far more dangerous, have more varied hours (both by day and by schedule), and are further from home. Such jobs provide greater compensation and lead to a widening of aggregate earnings for men over women. Moreover, variables such as education and tenure are also scrubbed from message. When we control the essential variables the gap shrinks to less than 2%, with the final discrepancy found in over-time hours worked and performance bonuses. Consider that many jobs pay additional compensation for over-time hours at a rate of time-and-a-half, effectively bumping the approximately 104 additional yearly hours worked by men over women to 156 hours of at-pay compensation*.
Now that I have made it clear how the wage gap game is played and how it is an unabashed myth perpetuated by ignorant or malevolent individuals, I want to turn my attention to why we should be against equal pay in all cases. Not in a general sense, but in specific, individual by individual understanding of it. I want to use you, my dear reader, as the example.
Most of us agree that equal work deserves equal pay. But what of the variables such as education, tenure, an output? Let us say that you work a job which does not require an education but that having a specific education significantly helps you perform your duties. Let us now say you have such a job and also possess an education complimentary to, though not required of, the job. You have a co-worker to whom you share an identical role, title, and job description. This job is hourly. Your education allows you to consistently out perform your co-worker. Do you think you deserve to be paid the same as your less qualified co-worker? If you said 'no', then you understand where my argument against equal pay comes from.
To take this point further, I wish to impress upon you the importance of experience. Again, let us say you have an hourly paid job to which you have worked at for 10 years. You have a new co-worker who has the identical title and job description as you. Do you think you should be paid the same as your new co-worker? If you say 'yes' because you believe equal work deserves equal pay, then you fail to see the impact which experience plays on one's ability to perform their job. You have invested and committed yourself for 10 years to a company and role, you deserve to be appropriately compensated for that work.
I want to make it abundantly clear the role which personal qualifications and tenure ought to play in compensation. Those who perform better and are more qualified deserve to be better compensated than those who perform less and are less qualified. This factor does not concern itself with gender, race, or any of the other myriad identifiers which exist. This philosophy should be championed by every worker in some form. Grid systems, tier systems, set annual increases, or any other method which rewards both tenure or some form of improved work output rewards experience and tenure.
Further, the role which negotiating plays in starting compensation should not be overlooked. Negotiating is not restricted to men alone. In fact, and I am certain there are feminists out there who agree with me, women should be doing more for themselves to ensure they, as individuals, are being appropriately compensated. Document your work ethic and build rapport with your co-workers. Challenge your employer over your compensation using the evidence you have gathered about your worth to the company. Rarely will one by removed for doing so, making this a low-risk attempt to achieve better recognition for the work you perform.
So, does the wage gap exist? Absolutely not. Or, at least, not in the way it is so lazily conveyed to us. Even if it did, it would be because men work more dangerous jobs, men work more hours, and women, given a free society which allows them to choose to pursue their own passions and interests, work safer, less harmful jobs. The wage gap myth amounts to an attempt to obliterate equality of opportunity and replace virtues such as work ethic, commitment, and stalwart perseverance with equality of outcome. Where those who work hard earn as much as those who barely show up, those who are more learned are compensated the same as those who are willfully ignorant, and those who are qualified are paid equally to those are couldn't be bothered to try.
By fighting equality of outcome, you are fighting for yourself and the belief that the individual is more important than some loose collective. That your work ethic, commitment, and drive ought to be rewarded and not overlooked to accommodate another who lacks such moral character. The wage gap is not real and we should be damn happy that it isn't.
Talk to me on Twitter: @nrokchi
* From BLS 2014 statistics, full-time men worked 8.4 per day. Full-time does mean 35 or more hours per work in this publication, but many labour laws define overtime as greater than 8 hours per day, but this varies by state. The publication lists men as working 52 minutes more than women, but focusing on the time over the standard 8 hour day, we have men working 2 additional hours a week. This adds to 104 additional hours worked in the year, on average. Compensation for overtimes is assumed to be time-and-a-half (1.5x), multiplying the 104 overtime hours to 156 compensation hours. This is to show how rapidly a gap can grow between pay and earnings when a labourer works overtime hours and further clarifies why there is an aggregate difference between men and women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)