Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie
Not going to quote someone but feel the need to put this in. The one study I alluded to a number of pages back regarding gender bias and wage gap.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1
And many other studies show similar things. This includes biases in hiring male applicants that are underqualified vs the qualified female applicant. Hiring male applicants preferentially into longer hour positions etc etc. And while taking time away from work does play into future earnings it has been shown that such reasoning can't account for the final 10-15% of the wage gap. The wage gap exists. The gender bias exists. It is real. And there is a reason why the big companies do guard against it by making sure female employees are receiving similar performance grades compared to males. But not every company is a large company that makes sure this is happening and guards against the biases. As such, in the end over the entire hiring market the bias and inequality is present. Not as prevalent as it was but it is still present. Present in quite subtle but substantive ways. |
There's also pretty solid evidence that as a field becomes inundated with women, despite previous wages for the same job while male-dominated, the wages drop.
Quote:
She is a co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000, when the share of women increased in many jobs. The study, which she conducted with Asaf Levanon, of the University of Haifa in Israel, and Paul Allison of the University of Pennsylvania, found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography.
And there was substantial evidence that employers placed a lower value on work done by women. Its not that women are always picking lesser things in terms of skill and importance, Ms. England said. Its just that the employers are deciding to pay it less.
A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation working in parks or leading camps which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/up...pay-drops.html
There are obviously a lot of factors involved, and this is far from a black-and-white issue, but to say that it's a myth is exasperating. Again, it is 2016 and for the first time in our country's history we have a major party with a female presidential nominee. She's ludicrously experienced, has proven herself at every level of public service, and yet she's being graded unfairly on a curve against a man who lives in his own world entirely averse to facts and reality.
And even at that, we have glorious things like this:
The good old "but ladies and their hormones" pearl-clutching. Of course this particular person doesn't seem to grasp that Hillary wouldn't have had "that time of the month" in probably two decades, but that's neither here nor there. These same people panicking about Clinton's hormone levels dictating her policy seem to be fine with a man who threw a temper tantrum about an SNL skit.
Regardless of the extent of the "wage gap," women are often held to a different standard than men, and this election is a golden example of such.