Why are women paid less than men, if they are? (reasons and solutions)

[Ana.J]

I think women are paid less because they are thought to be less intelligent, can do less tasks. And because they go on maternity leave.

 

[Maponos]

It's illegal to pay women less than men for the same job in the United States. The only reason women make less than men is because of their own choices.

 

[Penumbra]

I didn't read the studies because I doubt that my questions would be answered in them. If I am wrong, please correct me.
I can think of two obvious reasons for the disparity.

1) Affirmative Action.
Anybody who gets two comparable applications, one from a female and one from a male, can confidently assume one thing. The female applicant had affirmative action helping her get those credentials. The male applicant had the same affirmative action working against him.
So the reasonable conclusion is that the male applicant is the better applicant.

What are you talking about? Are you serious?

If you get identical resumes from a male and female applicant, you confidently assume the female applicant didn't truly earn those credentials and the male did?

2) Stability.
If an employee decides to leave, taking all their training and experience with them, it costs their employer a good deal. If women are more likely to do that (because their spouse wants to move) than men are, the better choice is the male applicant. He is more likely to stay longer.

Both applicants had the stated desire on their resume to go and get a PhD in a couple years. So that would be essentially nullified, since this would be a job likely lasting only a couple years.

And you do realize that this would be a vicious cycle anyway, right? If men make more than women for the same job, or are more favorably picked for higher-paying jobs to begin with like in this case, then naturally a wife would be more likely to move for their husband's job than the other way around.

From personal experience in the engineering facility where I work, women have a lower turnover rate than men. I suppose that if I thought like you do, I'd start consciously discriminating against male applicants in the future.

Do the studies you presented factor those in to their conclusions?
Tom

The application-reviewers gave their reasonings for whether they considered an applicant was hireable and qualified and what they would pay them, going down the resume explaining various things about it that help or hurt them, and ranking the male applications higher. So the scientists didn't blatantly say they'd prefer a male, or a male is more stable, etc. Instead they just subconsciously considered their identical application to be superior (or, possibly, consciously had sexist opinions but lied and gave other reasons).

The humorous thing, though, is that the article kinda predicted your second response.

From reading the comments on Sean Carroll’s post, most people who read this will have one of four reactions:

1) This is not surprising, but I’m glad we have something concrete to show what we’ve known all along.
2) This is surprising and disturbing.
3) Figure 2 is misleading because the y-axis does not start at zero. Therefore, I will reject everything else exposed by this study.
4) Equally qualified women should be discriminated against, because they could go off and get pregnant.

I’m afraid the 4’s do exist, and from my experience they are not very willing to have their minds changed. (For a concise article that touches on why their argument is flawed, I’d recommend this piece by my sister, Shara Yurkiewicz.)

 

[Penumbra]

It's illegal to pay women less than men for the same job in the United States. The only reason women make less than men is because of their own choices.

Or, you know, facts:

Here's a very specific study showing evidence of a wage gap:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

They gave qualified application packages to scientists for a lab manager position. Although the applications were identical, some of them were given a female name and others a male name.

The scientists rated the male applications higher in competence and hire-ability, were more willing to mentor male applicants, and offered 15% higher starting salaries compared to the identical female applications.

Interestingly, both male and female scientists were guilty of this gender bias; they were both biased in favor of men. Probably subconsciously. So it wasn't like it was all the dudes' fault.

 

[Maponos]

Or, you know, facts:

Sure, facts:

Harvard professor takes down the wage gap myth.

 

[Penumbra]

Sure, facts:

Harvard professor takes down the wage gap myth.

None of that addresses the study.

-Given identical resumes, both women and men prefer applicants with male names, rate them higher in terms of hireability, and consider them worthy of higher salaries. The same thing happens if you send out identical resumes with ethnically black or white names, like John Smith vs Jamal Washington.

-Given identical information about a company, MBA students are willing to pay more for IPO shares for companies run by men compared to women.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmauree...o-evaluation-a-hotbed-of-sexism/#6179c9e340c0

Your video consists of someone rationalizing away observations. These, however, are published studies measuring actual behavior when other variables are made identical. Results from these kinds of repeated studies are clear and consistent.

 

[Maponos]

None of that addresses the study.

-Given identical resumes, both women and men prefer applicants with male names, rate them higher in terms of hireability, and consider them worthy of higher salaries. The same thing happens if you send out identical resumes with ethnically black or white names, like John Smith vs Jamal Washington.

-Given identical information about a company, MBA students are willing to pay more for IPO shares for companies run by men compared to women.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmauree...o-evaluation-a-hotbed-of-sexism/#6179c9e340c0

Your video consists of someone rationalizing away observations. These, however, are published studies measuring actual behavior when other variables are made identical. Results from these kinds of repeated studies are clear and consistent.

Those have nothing to do with men being paid more than women. Next, please.

 

[Penumbra]

Those have nothing to do with men being paid more than women. Next, please.

I recommend actually reading what has been posted, prior to commenting.

The first example study specifically has female applicants being given 15% lower salary offers than men, for identical applications. The identical female applicants were considered less hireable and assigned lower salaries.

The next example specifically involves the amount of IPO money that can be raised by a company helmed by female executives. Investors are not willing to invest as much money or at equally high valuations for companies led by women compared to men, even if everything else is identical.

 

[Maponos]

I recommend actually reading what has been posted, prior to commenting.

The first example study specifically has female applicants being given 15% lower salary offers than men, for identical applications. The identical female applicants were considered less hireable and assigned lower salaries.

How many hours did they work? Are they applying for the same job? How much time are they taking off?

The next example specifically involves the amount of IPO money that can be raised by a company helmed by female executives. Investors are not willing to invest as much money or at equally high valuations for companies led by women compared to men, even if everything else is identical.

Investors can invest however much they want to invest in companies. This also has nothing to do with women being paid less than men.

And, once again, it is illegal to pay women less than men in in most Western countries for the same job and same hours.

 

[Sunstone]

How many hours did they work? Are they applying for the same job? How much time are they taking off?

Maponos, with all due respect, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that you are not reading with understanding the posts and the linked article that you're arguing against. I would recommend that you read more cautiously and thoroughly those posts and the article.

 

[Penumbra]

How many hours did they work? Are they applying for the same job? How much time are they taking off?

I'll recommend, again, actually reading what's posted.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

They showed literally identical application packages to scientists. Half were given ones that had a female name, and the other half were given ones that had a male name. Every other variable was identical, and this was for a lab manager position.

On average, the application packages that had a male name were rated higher in terms of hireability and competence, and offered higher starting salaries by about 15%.

Investors can invest however much they want to invest in companies.

Sure, they can. Even when they're doing it for sexist reasons, given identical info about a company but making their decision based on the gender of the CEO and the overall gender makeup of the executive team.

This also has nothing to do with women being paid less than men.

Sure it does. Investors are the ones that elect the boards that determine CEO pay. And why would a CEO hire female executives if he or she knows it'll hurt their share price or their chance at raising money in an IPO, due to investor sexism?

Part of pay disparity is having men and women paid different salaries for the same type of job, at the same level of experience and performance.

Another part of pay disparity is when one gender has more difficulty accessing higher-paying jobs due to gender-based hiring bias or other reasons outside of their own control. For example, if a given hiring manager is willing to pay men and women equal amounts if hired, but for conscious or subconscious reasons are more likely to hire a male applicant than a female applicant even given identical applications, than this results in pay disparity over time. We even had a member in this very thread consciously say he'd consider the male applicant to be better for the job, given an identical application from each gender.

And, once again, it is illegal to pay women less than men in in most Western countries for the same job and same hours.

Yeah, if you can isolate all the other variables and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That's almost impossible to do in practice.

But when they actually do study it and eliminate the other variables, it becomes clear as day.

 

[Maponos]

I'll recommend, again, actually reading what's posted.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

They showed literally identical application packages to scientists. Half were given ones that had a female name, and the other half were given ones that had a male name. Every other variable was identical, and this was for a lab manager position.

On average, the application packages that had a male name were rated higher in terms of hireability and competence, and offered higher starting salaries by about 15%.

So you've essentially isolated one place that gives hardly different starting pays and you're using that to say that there is a universally enforced wage gap?

Sure, they can. Even when they're doing it for sexist reasons, given identical info about a company but making their decision based on the gender of the CEO and the overall gender makeup of the executive team.

And they have every right to. It still has nothing to do with the mythical 'wage gap'.

Sure it does. Investors are the ones that elect the boards that determine CEO pay. And why would a CEO hire female executives if he or she knows it'll hurt their share price or their chance at raising money in an IPO, due to investor sexism?

Nope.

Part of pay disparity is having men and women paid different salaries for the same type of job, at the same level of experience and performance

Except that's not the case. A simple search easily debunks your claim.

Another part of pay disparity is when one gender has more difficulty accessing higher-paying jobs due to gender-based hiring bias or other reasons outside of their own control. For example, if a given hiring manager is willing to pay men and women equal amounts if hired, but for conscious or subconscious reasons are more likely to hire a male applicant than a female applicant even given identical applications, than this results in pay disparity over time. We even had a member in this very thread consciously say he'd consider the male applicant to be better for the job, given an identical application from each gender.

You'll have to excuse my extreme skepticism. Every job I've worked, there have always been female managers and women in higher positions. I've even been told that many jobs (especially desk jobs) actually will not hire men because they prefer women in those positions. I even went to a job with a female friend to turn in applications to the female manager where I was much more qualified to work, but she is the one who got a call back and not me. It later turned out that they preferred women to work there.

Yeah, if you can isolate all the other variables and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That's almost impossible to do in practice.

But when they actually do study it and eliminate the other variables, it becomes clear as day.

You can ignored evidence perfectly contradicting your claim or you can stay delusional. That is entirely your choice.

 

[Penumbra]

So you've essentially isolated one place that gives hardly different starting pays and you're using that to say that there is a universally enforced wage gap?

And they have every right to. It still has nothing to do with the mythical 'wage gap'.

Nope.

Except that's not the case. A simple search easily debunks your claim.

You'll have to excuse my extreme skepticism. Every job I've worked, there have always been female managers and women in higher positions. I've even been told that many jobs (especially desk jobs) actually will not hire men because they prefer women in those positions. I even went to a job with a female friend to turn in applications to the female manager where I was much more qualified to work, but she is the one who got a call back and not me. It later turned out that they preferred women to work there.

You can ignored evidence perfectly contradicting your claim or you can stay delusional. That is entirely your choice.

You still haven't actually addressed the studies I presented.

I don't really expect to convince you of anything. However, for anybody reading this, I'll present further evidence.


1) Here's an article providing information about the wage gap. It's based on both gender and race.
http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

And here are some example occupations where men out-earn women for the same work, from that source:

2) Women do far better in "blind" auditions for a professional orchestra position compared to auditions where the evaluators can see the musician's gender. And when orchestras switched to primarily using blind evaluations, the percentage of women in this profession went up dramatically.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903


3) Similarly, a study in Israel revealed that when teachers knew the gender of a student, they scored math tests lower for girls. When they didn't know the gender of the test taker, that was not the case. They also found that this seemed to discourage girls from taking tougher math courses later on in their school career.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...inds_teachers_grade_boys_more_generously.html

Beginning in 2002, the researchers studied three groups of Israeli students from sixth grade through the end of high school. The students were given two exams, one graded by outsiders who did not know their identities and another by teachers who knew their names.

In math, the girls outscored the boys in the exam graded anonymously, but the boys outscored the girls when graded by teachers who knew their names. The effect was not the same for tests on other subjects, like English and Hebrew. The researchers concluded that in math and science, the teachers overestimated the boys’ abilities and underestimated the girls’, and that this had long-term effects on students’ attitudes toward the subjects.

4) This article from Forbes highlights a study that for procurement professionals in the same job, men earn more money:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2...s-than-men-even-in-the-same-job/#76b4ccd516ee


5) Here is a set of four experiments that showed that evaluators were turned off when women were negotiating for higher salaries compared to men. When shown transcripts or videos of hiring events that are otherwise literally identical except for the gender of the applicant, people reviewing it were more likely to view women as "demanding" if they negotiated for more pay, and were less likely to want to work with them, while they were more likely to view men as confident. The transripts were identical. In the final experiment they found that women were less likely willing to negotiate for a higher salary, which unfortunatey makes sense, because as the rest of the experiment showed, women really are perceived more negatively when asking for more pay.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf


And those are in addition to the previous studies I showed, where scientists were less likely to hire female applicants with otherwise identical applications, and if they did hire them, were only willing to pay them 85% as much as the men, as well as the study showing that companies with female CEOs and executive teams that were otherwise identical to ones with male CEOs and teams earned less IPO money than their male-led counterparts.

Every way you look at it, when all variables are set absolutely identical, people on average view males as more qualified to be hired and deserving of higher pay, and aren't as turned off by their desire to negotiate for higher pay. In the actual world, men do make more money than women in most (but not all) professions, especially higher paying professions. And then in the research world, where they can isolate variables and study how people perceive absolutely identical application packages or auditions or test scores or salary negotiations, the samples with female names attached consistently are ranked worse than ones with male names attached. Both correlation and causation are therefore well-evidenced.