Source of Gender Earnings Gap

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

Statistics Canada did an excellent paper exploring this topic a few years ago. It can be found here:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11f0019...013347-eng.pdf

It goes on to analyze what the contributing factors are in Canada specifically.

Thanks for the article.

This part caught my eye:

For example, between 1981 and 1998, the average job tenure of women aged 17 to 64 increased by 25.6 months whereas men’s grew by 3.5 months. The educational attainment of women also increased more than that of men, as did their presence in high-wage industries (such as public services). Furthermore, women moved away from low-paying occupations (such as clerical jobs) and into high-paying occupations (such as those in health, social sciences, education, and government service) to a greater extent than men. Finally, women experienced smaller declines in unionization than men.

Basically everything is trending upwards for women. We all know that 60% of med school students are women, that ~55% of college graduates are women. As women get more experience, their entry into the C-level positions will accelerate, both due to merit and "it's 2015"/Scandinavian quotas.

Even if it's true that women earn 91 cents on the dollar, it's clear that as a society, we've done an excellent job eliminating systemic discrimination. There's really nothing left to be done in Canada. Let's focus our efforts in gender equality in the third world where women are actually oppressed.

I'm just sick of the belief that we need to coddle women. Women like Clinton or Notley or Merkel have shown us that there are no systemic barriers in our modern society. They were allowed to do what they are best at, and they experience victories and failures much like men do.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by driveway

Increase paid parental leave to 12 months, reserve 3 months for Dad (or non-child-bearing spouse in same-sex relationships).

That is one concrete policy we could start with.

Isn't it 12 months already? That's what the Internet tells me.

What good would reserving 3 of those months for the non-child bearer do when that person can already use up to 35 weeks of the parental leave.

What you're essentially doing is creating a problem where the child-bearer can only take up to 9 months, and the other 3 months may or may not be used. It doesn't seem to help the problem, instead just hurting families where the non-child bearer is the primary earner.

[CliffFletcher]

I think some of the stigma against paternity leave comes from the fact a lot of men who take it do so concurrently with their partner. So it's regarded as the guy taking a vacation. Better for parents to take leave consecutively, so fathers learn to be deeply invested in early child care on their own. That might encourage more couples to make the choice of assigning the primary child care role to the father.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

I would encourage you to not judge freakonomics by my memory of the episode.

However, I'm much more interested in people in senior management that are not on the board, namely, the vast majority of people in senior management.

My understanding is that Scandinavia has more women on boards for legal reasons, but fewer when you move beyond that, but again, my memory may be failing me. I'll have to see if I can find the episode.

I like Freakonomics, but it's not just your memory - I read the original book ages ago and there were a few things that were a little too "neatly tied up with a bow" rather than nuanced. I'm sure the podcast is good overall, it's been recommended to be before.

I shouldn't post late - I had written a whole other paragraph that didn't get in there. Norway has quotas for boards, and Sweden has made a concerted effort to increase female representation without quotas, but apparently may implement them if progress is not made. I'm also interested in the layer below the board, but I'm saying a) we may need to take concerted action to encourage real progress, and b) board members need to come from somewhere - it likely makes sense to strengthen at the top as part of a larger strategy.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Isn't it 12 months already? That's what the Internet tells me.

What good would reserving 3 of those months for the non-child bearer do when that person can already use up to 35 weeks of the parental leave.

What you're essentially doing is creating a problem where the child-bearer can only take up to 9 months, and the other 3 months may or may not be used. It doesn't seem to help the problem, instead just hurting families where the non-child bearer is the primary earner.

It's about normalizing men taking leave so it's not seen as much as a woman's role, which it still generally is despite men being able to take part.

I don't think the exact number of months and logistics quite figures into it yet, but in Norway for example the whole program is quite flexible (part time work, can take breaks in leave, etc.) and I believe parents get most, if not all of their salary.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ae118

It's about normalizing men taking leave so it's not seen as much as a woman's role, which it still generally is despite men being able to take part.

I don't think the exact number of months and logistics quite figures into it yet, but in Norway for example the whole program is quite flexible (part time work, can take breaks in leave, etc.) and I believe parents get most, if not all of their salary.

I get the intent but I don't think the proposed plan accomplishes that (or does so in a counter-productive way).

Reserving time specifically for the man in this case has a higher negative impact on couples that then can't (for financial reasons) capitalise on the last three months, or those who have decided that the mother staying home works better for them. It's just another form of social engineering.

I'm sure it would be nice to get your full salary, but I'm not sure that (or increasing the 12 months to include months that are dedicated to the father only) is very appealing to the tax payer.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I get the intent but I don't think the proposed plan accomplishes that (or does so in a counter-productive way).

Reserving time specifically for the man in this case has a higher negative impact on couples that then can't (for financial reasons) capitalise on the last three months, or those who have decided that the mother staying home works better for them. It's just another form of social engineering.

I'm sure it would be nice to get your full salary, but I'm not sure that (or increasing the 12 months to include months that are dedicated to the father only) is very appealing to the tax payer.

Sure, I'm just pointing out what Norway does. Is there actually a proposed plan for us to discuss?

We've already increased our mat leave significantly - the last jump was from 6 to 12 months I believe, several years ago, and it's been successful. So I don't think we're averse to change if we see the benefit. Norwegians with small children seem pleased with their system and the proportion of time allocated to fathers has increased (started at something like 4 weeks only).

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wash...?client=safari

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ae118

Sure, I'm just pointing out what Norway does. Is there actually a proposed plan for us to discuss?

We've already increased our mat leave significantly - the last jump was from 6 to 12 months I believe, several years ago, and it's been successful. So I don't think we're averse to change if we see the benefit. Norwegians with small children seem pleased with their system and the proportion of time allocated to fathers has increased (started at something like 4 weeks only).

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wash...?client=safari

The Norway system hasn't actually produced any evidence that it has a positive impact on the wage gap or the role of the mother and father, according to any studies I could find.

I would just like to see some studies and some actual evidence that suggests the father quota has any impact at all on what we're talking about. If anything, there is evidence that blended systems (like we have) are better than mother-dedicated and father-dedicated time periods. Having both parents present is beneficial, having the mother present is more beneficial directly after birth, but I haven't seen any evidence that the father quota has a positive impact at all (other than conjecture and "we like it").

Norway is vastly different in a lot of different areas. It's pretty hard to point at one of their many social engineering practices and say "that's why this problem is reduced" when the fact is, a ton of stuff goes into that problem.

And I disagree that Canadians in general aren't averse to change if "it works." You have to define what "it works" really means, and even then, there are a swath of people that wouldn't care.

The majority (60+%) of Norwegians want he father quota abolished. What chance does it stand here if "it works" there and most don't even want it?

[ae118]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The Norway system hasn't actually produced any evidence that it has a positive impact on the wage gap or the role of the mother and father, according to any studies I could find.

I would just like to see some studies and some actual evidence that suggests the father quota has any impact at all on what we're talking about. If anything, there is evidence that blended systems (like we have) are better than mother-dedicated and father-dedicated time periods. Having both parents present is beneficial, having the mother present is more beneficial directly after birth, but I haven't seen any evidence that the father quota has a positive impact at all (other than conjecture and "we like it").

Norway is vastly different in a lot of different areas. It's pretty hard to point at one of their many social engineering practices and say "that's why this problem is reduced" when the fact is, a ton of stuff goes into that problem.

And I disagree that Canadians in general aren't averse to change if "it works." You have to define what "it works" really means, and even then, there are a swath of people that wouldn't care.

The majority (60+%) of Norwegians want he father quota abolished. What chance does it stand here if "it works" there and most don't even want it?

A) Possibly, I'm not an expert on Norwegian paternity leave (and in addition the child needs to be considered along with the wage gap and the family unit). My point continues to be that we should be open to possibilities, even if conservatives have a distaste for "social engineering".

B) I agree, and defer to any experts in family leave on this, because I'm not.

C) Yes, I'm pretty sure I know that Norway has completely different circumstances. I never said that this idea was the be all and end all, I was saying it's something to think about. I'm not trying to debate, just discuss.

D) In the context of upping our current mat leave to 12 months, I didn't and don't hear a lot of anger - mostly support or neutrality. That was the context of my comment.

E) If you're taking that from Wikipedia, note that the paper that ran the poll is conservative, and people with young children were broadly in support. That's what I care about.

Anyway - I think you've mischaracterized me as a huge proponent of paternity-only leave. I'm just saying we should (yes) look at whatever evidence there is and keep an open mind when we think about societal goals. Maybe it's an idea worth considering as we strive for equality between the genders both at home and in the workplace.

[GGG]

I think the biggest issue with mandatory leave is funding it.

In households where one person earns substantially more than the other forcing one of the people to take leave could impose financial hardship. So unless it is a full top up I cant see it being feasible.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Thanks for the article.

This part caught my eye:



Basically everything is trending upwards for women. We all know that 60% of med school students are women, that ~55% of college graduates are women. As women get more experience, their entry into the C-level positions will accelerate, both due to merit and "it's 2015"/Scandinavian quotas.

Even if it's true that women earn 91 cents on the dollar, it's clear that as a society, we've done an excellent job eliminating systemic discrimination. There's really nothing left to be done in Canada. Let's focus our efforts in gender equality in the third world where women are actually oppressed.

I'm just sick of the belief that we need to coddle women. Women like Clinton or Notley or Merkel have shown us that there are no systemic barriers in our modern society. They were allowed to do what they are best at, and they experience victories and failures much like men do.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Stop coddling us and making it so damn easy. Canada is a non-discriminatory utopia so let's just move on to doing nothing about third world countries.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Yeah, that's the ticket. Stop coddling us and making it so damn easy. Canada is a non-discriminatory utopia so let's just move on to doing nothing about third world countries.

lol I remembered this from a few months ago:

Originally Posted by Regorium

Canada does not have a problem with black people.

At least he's consistent.
Canada: we solved all the problems already.

[ae118]

I just decided to ignore it, Peanut. Because likewise, Barack Obama winning the presidency means the US must have no issues with racism.