Letters to the Editor
-
Playing catch with snowballs in hell!
Robert Franklin and I agree on something: "Women work less and men work more because this society promotes that in an astonishing variety of ways. Yes, individuals make their own choices about how much to work, at least to the extent they can, but those choices are heavily affected by societal messages." Hey, didn't I just say that?
However, I have a minor quibble about your statment that if discrimination accounted for the wage gap, there would be many more lawsuits. It is very very hard to prove wage discrimination. Companies do NOT publish what they pay their employees. In many companies it is a fireable offense to discuss or disclose your salary with your coworkers. Plus as someone who had a provable discrimination claim, unless you have deep pockets or can find enough instances to go class action, it is very time consuming and expensive to get an award. In my case, it was easier to just leave the company for a much better paying job elsewhere.
I think there are many things that affect wages differences: personal choices, societal pressures, demographics. I think that the impact of salary negotiation would really be limited to white collar professions since you really don't get to haggle over your hourly wage at the local McDs. I do believe that women need to be taught the art of salary negotiation. There is a factor of arrogance and ego that comes into it that I think a lot of women don't know how to use to their advantage. There is definitely something to the "pinking" of various industries where once women become a majority in that industries the wages do fall. And I don't think we can completely dismiss discrimination out of hand there have been some well documented cases both in retail (Walmart), the banking industries, and in academia.
-
I know what linear means
You wrote:
Let's assume that your math is accurate.
Women work 86% of the men. Suzy and Bill graduate from college. That first year, Suzy works 2000 hours, and Bill works, 2325 hours. The next year, Suzy works 2000 hours, and Bill works, 2325 hours for totals of 4000 hours and 2325 hours.
At the end of six years, Bill has almost a whole year more experience at the job than Suzy. At the end of 12 years, Bill has two more years of experience than Suzy.
-- No Name Given
As in, working marginally more hours per year automatically and necessarily means more experience and a more valuable employee. And yes, the difference between 2000 and 2325 is a lot more marginal than you want to believe.
That's not linearity by definition, you are right, but that is a serious assumption that needs to be proven.
-
LeCastor
you'd think we had been through this before, but of course we have. The facts haven't changed and neither has your determination to ignore them.
About 12% of the difference comes from the fewer hours worked by "full-time" women workers versus "full-time" male workers (7.1 hrs vs. 8.0 hrs, as stated above). Another about 9% comes from the fact that fewer women work at all than do men. I don't remember the exact figures, but it's 7 - 9 million fewer women workers than male. The other 2 percent is probably seniority and maybe some discrimination.
As I said, it's simple. Some math is hard. This isn't.
-
re: Robert Franklin, you still don't address why women work 86% of women, but earn only 77% of men.
Can you explain?
-
re: And yes, the difference between 2000 and 2325 is a lot more marginal than you want to believe.
It's more than 16 percent, right? So the original premise - that women earn 25% less than men is supposedly a big problem, but 16 percent is marginal?
Please explain that one.
-
Robert Franklin and Man
About 12% of the difference comes from the fewer hours worked by "full-time" women workers versus "full-time" male workers (7.1 hrs vs. 8.0 hrs, as stated above). Another about 9% comes from the fact that fewer women work at all than do men. I don't remember the exact figures, but it's 7 - 9 million fewer women workers than male. The other 2 percent is probably seniority and maybe some discrimination.
I'm sorry, how does the number of workers affect the salary per worker? I'm referring to the 9% you talk about above. Why would the salary/wages per women be lower simply because fewer women work? Math is tough.
"you still don't address why women work 86% of women, but earn only 77% of men.
Can you explain?"
You still don't address why women work 86% of the time men work, but earn only 77% of the money men earn.
re: And yes, the difference between 2000 and 2325 is a lot more marginal than you want to believe.
It's more than 16 percent, right? So the original premise - that women earn 25% less than men is supposedly a big problem, but 16 percent is marginal?
Because 25% less money is money. The purchasing power of a dollar earned by a woman is exactly the same as the purchasing power earned by a man. Money's value is defined strictly.
But 16% more hours? There's not nearly as much as direct relationship between how many hours you work (i'm talking about at this point, the difference between 2000 and 2325) and the skill you have a worker, the effectiveness you have as a worker, the experience you have, the value-added you provide. So it's a lot more fuzzy than the less money argument.
-
Um, it's not exactly a free choice....
Okay, I work full time, and so does my husband. And we have a toddler. We are both salaried employees paid for 40 hours per week (at different companies) with no overtime. However, we are expected to work more than 40 hours per week if we want to stay in the good graces of our bosses, get raises and promotions, etc. Because we think it's important to spend time with our child and each other, both of us generally stick to a 40 hour workweek, but will work more if there is an urgent need. This means that we don't get raises or promotions, and our bosses are constantly irritated with us for "not caring about our careers". This, when we work for the number of hours for which they pay us, and more when necessary! It's outrageous. It's not that I think that I deserve a raise or a promotion as much as the childless people who work 80 hours per week--clearly they are more valuable to the company. But it's outrageous that this type of schedule is mandatory in order to get raises or promotions. Whether or not you have children, you are still entitled to a life outside of work, and shouldn't have to sacrifice that life to be perceived as a dedicated employee.