Gender Pay Gap in Australia

[pErvinalia]

But as I said, if that case existed in the data quoted, then you wouldn't expect men and those women to progress at the same rate through organisational structures. But the data quoted says that they do.

The "general case" that you refer to isn't actually what they are presenting. They are presenting a "like for like" case. I do agree with you that it would be interesting to see what effect motherhood and other factors have on the disparity.

[Forty Two]

New research has found female top tier managers in Australia are paid on average $100,000 a year less than their male counterparts.

The 2016 Gender Equity Insights report out of Western Australia also revealed after 10 years of moving through full-time managerial positions at the same pace, men can expect to earn $600,000 more than women by the time they reach an executive role.

Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) and analysed by the Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre (BCEC) found women in key management roles working full-time earned an annual average of $244,569 while men earned $343,269.

The report used data from more than 12,000 employers and captured approximately 4 million employees, or approximately 40 per cent of all Australian workers.

Report author, BCEC Associate Professor Rebecca Cassells, said although some female dominated industries paid less, pay discrimination and preferential recruitment were major factors causing the wage gap.

"Particularly in more senior occupation levels, men are more likely to see greater remuneration levels than woman. So there are obviously some bias in recruitment, woman aren't accessing those high paid jobs," she said.

"This is further evidenced by the greater additional remuneration that men receive, compared to women, beyond their base salary in the form of bonuses and other discretionary pay."

{cont}

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/g ... wa/7215784

Interesting. How much money do you blokes and sheilas make over there in Oz? I mean -- what sample size averages $244,000 and $343,000? Here in the US, that would be, like, 1% of income earners, which is far less than 1% of the population (many of whom aren't earners of any income).

Something sounds weird about this article - it says "The report used data from more than 12,000 employers and captured approximately 4 million employees, or approximately 40 per cent of all Australian workers." -- that can't be the sample of "key management roles" which is the issue with the high level salary disparity. The full report must have covered other salary levels, I suppose. But, to be relevant, shouldn't the data set as to the income range discussed be presented?

[Forty Two]

Hold on, are they comparing like with like? In other words, do senior women managers get paid less than their male counterparts with similar track records in terms of experience and success?

If the track record of feminist statistical research on this issue is any guide, I would hazard to guess that "no" is the answer to your question.

Or is the problem more that they are not getting promoted as much as men to the very highest positions? These are two quite different issues, although they are not mutually exclusive.

The article includes this curious piece:

The report discovered a measurable link between increased gender diversity on governing boards and lower pay gaps for managers.

Ms Cassells said increasing the proportion of women on boards from zero to 50:50 was associated with a 6.3 per cent reduction in the gender pay gap for full-time managers.

The phraseology implies that having a greater gender balance on boards reduces the gender pay gap. Well, maybe it helps. But might it not also be the case of correlation, more than causality? If you see one, you are more likely to see the other, because the same factors contribute to both.

I did a quick google, and apparently about 1% of Australian income earners earn over $210,000 or more. So, earning $240,000 or more is obviously going to be less than 1%. There are only 23 million total Australians, and how many of those are income earners? This is not addressing a large number of people.

Of course if you have more women in a group you will reduce any perceived gender gap. If, for example, you have an all male industry, like, say, coal mining. Then you bring in a couple of women, it will necessarily be the case that those women will earn at the bottom of the pay scale, because they won't have had any experience in coal mining. As the number of women in an industry increase, the number of them with measurable experience will increase. So, when you are talking about the board of directors of a coal mining company, you're talking about people who have been in the industry for decades, with solid experience. The more women who get that solid experience, the more women will be paid commensurate with that experience.

If qualified women could be had at cut-rate prices, managers and CEO's would hire women over men with wild abandon.

[Forty Two]

It would be interesting to make the comparison solely between men, and single women with no children, both having managerial careers. If the pay gap was significantly less than in the more general comarison, it would suggest that part of the reason is the extra burden of being wives and mothers.

Jeez. Can no one read??! It clearly states in the second paragraph that there was a comparison between men and women moving through organisational structure AT THE SAME PACE. What that means is that even if the woman had a child, it didn't impede her working ability.

Yes, I read that, and it makes me want to see the actual study, because it is a curious point. At the same pace? So, we're talking about a sampling of something less than 1% of income earnings, and not only that, they're reducing the sample by eliminating women who did not move through the organizational structure "at the same pace" as men. So, what measure of "pace" was used, and how was the elimination of sample inclusion and exclusion decided?

Were all industries used? Even in industries where hardly any women go? Like mining? fishing? That sort of thing? I mean, you're going to have some industries where precious few women even participate.

I don't think anyone made any firm arguments against the study. However, there is an obvious need for more information as to how the study was conducted.

Sue me for not automatically crediting a study on wage gaps given the shaky stats often put forth as fact in this arena.

[Forty Two]

I still don't get what point you are trying to make. If they move through at the same pace and suffer pay inequality,

Why does "moving at the same pace" mean that there should be pay equality? It's not clear, for example, that they are comparing "male executives in Company X vs. female executives in Company Y", and it's not clear that they are comparing "Male Chief Operating Officers to female Chief Operating Officers in the same company." If females are more likely to be HR Director, and males more likely to be COO or something like that, you're going to have pay disparity between those "executive" positions. Also, if women are more likely to go into Industry X and men more likely to go into Industry Y, then the general disparities that exist between industries will also effect a statistical comparison between earnings of women and men.

It's like the overall gender pay gap here. Part of the reason for the 77 cents on the dollar is that men are holding almost all the positions where one is likely to die or be seriously injured, and those jobs tend to pay a tad higher than average. Men are the ones descending into the Bituminous Coal Mines. That kind of thing. Conceptually, the same kind of industry-related issues may well be present at the higher levels.

[Forty Two]

How's that different to married men? If it is different, then that just confirms even more sexism (that is, women are required to be home to cook for their men, but not vice versa).

Required?

Have you known many women? The one with the choice - the option - to either stay home and cook/clean or follow her career is more likely to be the female. Men, to this day, are far more likely to have one option: work outside the home.

[Forty Two]

How's that different to married men? If it is different, then that just confirms even more sexism (that is, women are required to be home to cook for their men, but not vice versa).

Indeed, that has been the suggestion of many a feminist - that married men get a boost in their careers by dint of the "devoted little woman at home" whereas married women may even find it harder than single women. But have we got the statistics as evidence for that assertion?

Married men, particularly with kids, "get a boost" because the added financial responsibilities incentivizes them to work longer and push harder in their careers to earn more money. The notion that men just "get a boost" -- like gift -- because they get married is a curious way of puttiing it, but it's not surprising that "feminists" like to portray it as such. Yes yes -- men - we have it soooooooo easy.... don't do shit, really. We just "get boosts." When we get married, we just get a raise and the managers at our companies say "here ya go, buddy! No really! Go ahead! Take the raise!" Wink wink.

Simply, a more nuanced slicing of the data could throw light on the issue, no hidden agenda, just wanting to follow the data...

The nuance doesn't matter, in the minds of the feminist activists, because whatever nuance you find is caused by sexism anyway. Women don't go into industry X ,which pays more? Oh, well, that's because our patriarchal society rewards jobs that men do and undervalues jobs that women do! Women don't work as many hours as men? Oh, well, that's because the patriarchy forces women to take an unfair share of housework. Men work jobs where there are higher chances of getting injured or killed? Well, that's the patriarchy at work again, putting women on pedestals and not letting them work at jobs they can die in.

[Strontium Dog]

What do the facts tell us about the relative ability of female board members? Are companies with more women on the board more profitable or less profitable?

[pErvinalia]

New research has found female top tier managers in Australia are paid on average $100,000 a year less than their male counterparts.

The 2016 Gender Equity Insights report out of Western Australia also revealed after 10 years of moving through full-time managerial positions at the same pace, men can expect to earn $600,000 more than women by the time they reach an executive role.

Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) and analysed by the Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre (BCEC) found women in key management roles working full-time earned an annual average of $244,569 while men earned $343,269.

The report used data from more than 12,000 employers and captured approximately 4 million employees, or approximately 40 per cent of all Australian workers.

Report author, BCEC Associate Professor Rebecca Cassells, said although some female dominated industries paid less, pay discrimination and preferential recruitment were major factors causing the wage gap.

"Particularly in more senior occupation levels, men are more likely to see greater remuneration levels than woman. So there are obviously some bias in recruitment, woman aren't accessing those high paid jobs," she said.

"This is further evidenced by the greater additional remuneration that men receive, compared to women, beyond their base salary in the form of bonuses and other discretionary pay."

{cont}

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/g ... wa/7215784

Interesting. How much money do you blokes and sheilas make over there in Oz? I mean -- what sample size averages $244,000 and $343,000? Here in the US, that would be, like, 1% of income earners, which is far less than 1% of the population (many of whom aren't earners of any income).

Something sounds weird about this article - it says "The report used data from more than 12,000 employers and captured approximately 4 million employees, or approximately 40 per cent of all Australian workers." -- that can't be the sample of "key management roles" which is the issue with the high level salary disparity. The full report must have covered other salary levels, I suppose. But, to be relevant, shouldn't the data set as to the income range discussed be presented?

I don't understand how some people think. You know it's entirely possible to sample the full spectrum of workers and then look at subsets of the data, right?

[Forty Two]

Indeed -- which is why the article is weird in reporting the data used for a broad spectrum of workers, rather than disclosing what data-set was used in addressing the actual statistic related to those making 1/4 million and up. The relevant data set is the number of folks surveyed who fell into that category, and how the distinction was made as to who was on the "same path" and who was on a different path. None of that was disclosed in the article, for some reason.

The way I think is that an article discussing an issue of gender pay gap among a small set of income earners should disclose the methodology and data-set used to make the determination. When an article leaves that out, and instead makes some general, but irrelevant, nod to having used data from more than 12,000 employers, we are not given information to evaluate the study, and the article tries to bolster the study's credibility by presenting it as being based on 12,000 employers and "capturing" 4 million employees.

[Brian Peacock]

How's that different to married men? If it is different, then that just confirms even more sexism (that is, women are required to be home to cook for their men, but not vice versa).

Required?

Have you known many women? The one with the choice - the option - to either stay home and cook/clean or follow her career is more likely to be the female. Men, to this day, are far more likely to have one option: work outside the home.

While true, this is bollocks. Gender, I suggest, has a lesser role to play here than the drivers of culture and income. Men and women, that is to say couples, face the same choices - options - post partum. The issue is not about which partner is more likely to stay at home (if that is even an affordable option) but why.

Equal pay for equal work and (more importantly) responsibility is, imo, a principle that should apply across the board regardless of one's genitourinary configuration.

[Brian Peacock]

...

Married men, particularly with kids, "get a boost" because the added financial responsibilities incentivizes them to work longer and push harder in their careers to earn more money.

Bollocks. See above. Post partum financial constraints fall on a family, not just on men.

S The notion that men just "get a boost" -- like gift -- because they get married is a curious way of puttiing it, but it's not surprising that "feminists" like to portray it as such. Yes yes -- men - we have it soooooooo easy.... don't do shit, really.

We just "get boosts." When we get married, we just get a raise and the managers at our companies say "here ya go, buddy! No really! Go ahead! Take the raise!" Wink wink.

Simply, a more nuanced slicing of the data could throw light on the issue, no hidden agenda, just wanting to follow the data...

The nuance doesn't matter, in the minds of the feminist activists, because whatever nuance you find is caused by sexism anyway. Women don't go into industry X ,which pays more? Oh, well, that's because our patriarchal society rewards jobs that men do and undervalues jobs that women do! Women don't work as many hours as men? Oh, well, that's because the patriarchy forces women to take an unfair share of housework. Men work jobs where there are higher chances of getting injured or killed? Well, that's the patriarchy at work again, putting women on pedestals and not letting them work at jobs they can die in.

Strawmanned hobby horsing much? Why is what you say feminists say relevant here - other than to perhaps negate and/or disparage evidence of the gender pay and employment gap? Do you think the gender pay and employment gap is non-existent, a feminist fabrication, or perhaps just a fact of life that reflects a normative which necessitates differential pay and opportunities for men and women? Spit it out, or swallow the facts and address them.

Come on. Spit or swallow?

[Forty Two]

How's that different to married men? If it is different, then that just confirms even more sexism (that is, women are required to be home to cook for their men, but not vice versa).

Required?

Have you known many women? The one with the choice - the option - to either stay home and cook/clean or follow her career is more likely to be the female. Men, to this day, are far more likely to have one option: work outside the home.

While true, this is bollocks. Gender, I suggest, has a lesser role to play here than the drivers of culture and income. Men and women, that is to say couples, face the same choices - options - post partum. The issue is not about which partner is more likely to stay at home (if that is even an affordable option) but why.

Equal pay for equal work and (more importantly) responsibility is, imo, a principle that should apply across the board regardless of one's genitourinary configuration.

There really isn't anyone who would argue otherwise, at least in terms of equal pay for the same job, depending on experience and qualifications, of course. It must be noted that as between men, there is no set pay for a partiular job. A customer service rep with 10 years experience will likely make more than the 21 year old newbie sitting near him. Also, sometimes, it's about how badly an employer needs an employee. I had the same job as a friend/coworker of mined, with the same qualifications and experience - we even went to the same school - and I earned 25% more than him, because I asked for more money and told them I had other options. They needed me there, and were willing to pay more. Should they have bumped the other guy's salary?

Right now, women do get equal pay for the same job, and if an employer were to pay women less on the basis of sex, then a private lawsuit is very much available, as is a complaint to the department of labor and the equal employment opportunity commission (or whatever equivalent a country has), which will look into the matter of pay propriety.

What we sometimes here from the "equal pay" crowd is that the professions that women most flock to are undervalued by society and therefore don't command as high a salary, but they should. So, the highly paid crane operator or coal miner is only paid more than a receptionist because society overvalues those manly, dangerous jobs, and just because men go in for the former kind and women go in for the latter kind doesn't mean women should be paid less. The "work" is equal, even if the "job" is not.

[Forty Two]

...

Married men, particularly with kids, "get a boost" because the added financial responsibilities incentivizes them to work longer and push harder in their careers to earn more money.

Bollocks. See above. Post partum financial constraints fall on a family, not just on men.

Which does not render what I said bollocks at all. The men, however, tend to react to the financial burden by spending more time at work, and trying to earn more money. Women's focus, after children, tends to not be that as much. So, the "burden" of course falls on the family (how can it not -- the financial responsibility is the family -- food, clothing, shelter, education, etc., for the family). Who said it didn't. What happens after that burden arises, however, is that men tend to work more outside the home.

S The notion that men just "get a boost" -- like gift -- because they get married is a curious way of puttiing it, but it's not surprising that "feminists" like to portray it as such. Yes yes -- men - we have it soooooooo easy.... don't do shit, really.

We just "get boosts." When we get married, we just get a raise and the managers at our companies say "here ya go, buddy! No really! Go ahead! Take the raise!" Wink wink.

Simply, a more nuanced slicing of the data could throw light on the issue, no hidden agenda, just wanting to follow the data...

The nuance doesn't matter, in the minds of the feminist activists, because whatever nuance you find is caused by sexism anyway. Women don't go into industry X ,which pays more? Oh, well, that's because our patriarchal society rewards jobs that men do and undervalues jobs that women do! Women don't work as many hours as men? Oh, well, that's because the patriarchy forces women to take an unfair share of housework. Men work jobs where there are higher chances of getting injured or killed? Well, that's the patriarchy at work again, putting women on pedestals and not letting them work at jobs they can die in.

Strawmanned hobby horsing much?

it would only be a strawman if feminists did not actually make this argument. You've never heard feminists say that the careers women tended to choose have been undervalued by society and that's why those types of jobs are paid less than the jobs men tend to take? It's not that jobs are more difficult, involved, valuable to an organization, or dangerous -- it's just that society values men's jobs more.

Why is what you say feminists say relevant here - other than to perhaps negate and/or disparage evidence of the gender pay and employment gap?

No, the statistics negate the alleged gender pay and employment gap. I was very clear that the notion of "nuance" was what I was addressing. When JimC asked to follow the data and see what the nuance is, I correctly stated that whatever nuance is found to explain why women overall earn less than men overall is explained away, by feminists, as being a result of sexism and the patriarchy. And, that's absolutely accurate. When someone notes that most of the gender wage gap is explained by the nuance that women choose different career paths, tending not to do the dangerous and dirty jobs, and tending not to take the STEM jobs, etc., and choose more often than men to take years off of work to stay at home with their families, and work fewer hours than men at their jobs on average -- that nuance is attributed to sexism. More hours at work? Well, men get to do that because sexism makes women do more at home so they are prevented from working more hours. Women choose different career paths? Well, that's just because our sexist system undervalues women's choices in career fields. Many others.

Do you think the gender pay and employment gap is non-existent, a feminist fabrication,

The assertion that women are paid less overall for the same job with the same qualifications and experience is a fabrication, yes. The assertion that full time female employees earn less annually than full time male employees, without a job for job, hour for hours, comparison, is true. That's the wage gap.

or perhaps just a fact of life that reflects a normative which necessitates differential pay and opportunities for men and women?

What's normative is that engineers will make more than secretaries, and that dangerous jobs often come with a premium pay rate, and that if you work more hours you tend to get paid more (in hourly wage jobs). That kind of thing is a fact of life. What is also a fact of life is that women hired for the same job tend to make about the same as men hired for that same job. And, there is no lack of equal opportunity for women in the West. Every major country, the US included, has for at least half a century had protections against discrimination.

Spit it out, or swallow the facts and address them.

Come on. Spit or swallow?

You're implying i haven't addressed the facts? Brian -- you seem to be claiming that women by and large are paid less for the same job, like if Exxon hires a female chemical engineer, they pay her less than a similarly situated male. Or, if the University of California hires history professors, the women get paid less. Or, if Carmax auto dealership hires female sales people, they are paid less of a commission rate or a lower salary than men.

is that what you're saying?

What do you think the wage gap is? Is it job for job - like for like?