Disproving the Gender Pay Gap

[ThatJarHead]

Hey, everyone! Just because I am tired of hearing people on G@G preaching the "Gender Pay Gap" I decided I would make a little article disproving it for anyone and everyone to refer to should a feminist bring it up.

Without further ado, let's get into it!

What is the Gender Pay Gap?

The gender pay gap is the difference between women’s and men’s average weekly full-time equivalent earnings, expressed as a percentage of men’s earnings.

Let's take a look at that "definition" shall we?

The first thing we need to look at is the wording "average weekly full-time equivalent earnings" what does that mean? It means that it's the calculation of the average earnings between men and women. Now you might think the definition lines up with the feminist definition, but it doesn't. By that I mean, feminists see that as "the dollars men make per hour vs women" when in reality it means "The total amount of money that men make versus the amount of money that women make" it's a comparison of total gross wages/salaries not the dollar per hour.

Why is the "Gender Pay Gap" Wrong?

Well, first things first, it's a study that shows the average earnings of men to women. It doesn't account for key factors such as:

-Career Choices

-Education

-Tenure

-Experience

-Negotiation

-Hours

Basically, it's not proving that men are paid more than women on the dollar but that men make more money overall. A dollar on a man's paycheck is worth the same amount as a dollar on a woman's paycheck. Gender-based pay bias is impossible to have as it is a federal law in mostly all first-world countries that men and women be paid equally.

Here are some examples:

Canada: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p07

United States: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm

United Kingdom: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Those are just a few prime examples.

Basically, why should an open heart surgeon be paid as much as a social worker? That is, of course, a vague example but is definitely a good example.

Can you disprove it with easy logic?

Yes, I definitely can!

If a company can pay women less than men, why hire men at all? They can just hire all women and enjoy a HUGE market advantage! So, if it were true, all companies are completely stupid in their hiring processes! Here's proof of what I say.

Walmart makes roughly 118,179.00 US Dollars every three months in MILLIONS. Making it roughly 486 BILLION dollars at the end of every fiscal year according to the Walmart yearly financial reports. Walmart spends roughly 25,576.00 million dollars every three months on Selling/General/Administration. So that would mean a rough estimate could be made that good old Wally World spends over 15 million dollars every three months on its employees in the US. That is, of course, an estimate by me as they don't have the actual expenses on labour public (that I could find). If anybody finds the actual number I will put it in here, but I couldn't find it after searching through as many documents, PDFs and financial reports as I could find.

So if we estimate that Wally World spends 15 million dollars on employees and have an equal number of men to women employed they spend 8 million on men and 7 million on women if the gender pay gap were to exist. So why not fire all the men and enjoy a cool 8 million in savings on labour costs every three months?

They don't because, in reality, they spend 7.5 million on men and 7.5 million on women. They spend an equal amount on men to women. Well, to be fair they probably spend more on women because they hire more women than men, but that's beside the point.

The point is if a huge money hungry company like Walmart could enjoy a huge amount of savings by hiring all women because they can be paid less, why don't they? Because men and women are paid the same. If they fired all of the men they would be enjoying a market advantage sure, but they would get the same market advantage if they dropped all the women. So there's no point.

In short, the pay gap is bullsh*t. If a feminist pulls the "Men are paid more than women" card send her here.

Just as a little note, I realise this may not be the best-written thing I've ever supplied to G@G and please let me know of any citations I need to make and I will make them. Thanks!

Anywho, thanks for reading!

Cheers!

~Jarhead

[BlueCoyote]

Actually, the gender pay gap still exists but it is smaller than usually claimed. For example in Germany, a study found that women earn less than men due to factors as the ones you've mentioned above. Hence, the researchers' result was that the 21%-claim the German government makes is probably not true. However, - and this is where it gets interesting - the researchers couldn't make out complete pay equality even after accounting for the variables you've mentioned. In the end, there was still roughly a 6%-difference.
It's also important to mention that some of the variables are due to a more subtle sexism deeply rooted in western society. A good example for this is the claim that "women earn less because they have children and end up working less". That is indeed true but the very fact that it's mostly women who end up staying at home looking after the children is problematic in my opinion. Many men these days like to see themselves as progressive and considerate of their girlfriend's or wife's wish to work and have a career but when push comes to shove, the large majority of men still expect their female partners to do the biggest part of household chores and child nursing (possibly with a small part-time job) while the man is out making big bucks. Most men talk big about supporting the idea of equality but once the children are actually born, very few of them say to their wife "okay, let's find a way for each of us to work 50% and be home 50%".
Another example is the problem of looking after one's elderly parents. Many people who are in their 40s or 50s and trying to make progress in their careers are suddenly held back by the fact that their parents have become very old, sick and need lots of care. In some cases, this makes working for money on the side almost impossible or at least extremely exhausting. Imagine looking after your mom who's got dementia because you can't afford a professional, full-time nurse for her and at the same time also work. This is a problem not just in America with its bad health care system but also in European countries. In theory, I'm sure people would say that all the children should help to care after their sick parents. However, when you look at the numbers, it's almost exclusively daughters who perform the large part of the work. And just in case you want to argue that they do it voluntarily: I very much doubt that because it's freaking exhausting and having to interrupt one's career isn't fun for anyone.

[thetea]

I agree with everything you're saying and, as a German, I would like to add that the pay gap also differs here, depending on the field you're working in. For example, the pay gap in medicine is quite small while female chemists can receive up to 20% less than their male colleagues.

[BlueCoyote]

@thetea Yes, I agree. In the US they apparently only look at the over all pay difference but in Germany and also here in Switzerland (and probably in some other European countries as well), they actually break it down to the different fields and the pay inequality still exists in many of them.

[ThatJarHead]

Take experience, benefits, negotiated pay, tenure, education and hierarchy into account and all studies "proving women are paid less because they are women" fall apart.

[thetea]

No, they don't, let me tell you, I live in Germany and while the government's claims of a 21℅ wage gap are influenced by the factors you mentioned and thereby are false, several researchers have conducted another study where they did take all that into account and still came out at an average of 6%, just like the opinion owner mentioned. From what you based your take on, I guess you're from the US and the situation there is most likely different. But that doesn't mean the wage gap does not exist in other countries...

[BlueCoyote]

That's exactly what the German researchers did and a pay gap (though a lower one) still remained. By the way: similar studies have always been made in the US and the result was the same.
Also, there a few things most people don't know. For example the fact that the gender pay gap already exists after only 1 year out of college, where things like experience, tenure and hierarchy don't matter. Furthermore, studies have been made for individual professions (also high-paying ones) and have found that for example female lawyers earn significantly less than male lawyers in the US.
Also, as I have explained to you in detail, there are numerous factors that seem unrelated to sexism at first sight (such as the fact that women work fewer hours) but when you actually dig deeper, you understand that they are based on systemic discrimination that exists in our society. You can deny this all you want and that's your opinion. Some people also deny the existence of racism. But it's a fact.

[ThatJarHead]

Germany is also a patriarchal governing system. So take that into account. Also keep in mind of this little tidbit of information:

www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Article 23 No. 2

[BlueCoyote]

I highly doubt Germany is more patriarchic than the US, considering it's also less religious and less conservative overall.
As for the UN declaration on human rights: sure, it's a right. The problem is that just because something's written on a paper doesn't actually make it true in reality. The UN also says that no child shall live in poverty and every child has the universal right to a basic education but we both know those things are unfortunately not true in the real world.

[ThatJarHead]

Keep in mind those rights only apply to countries that have agreed to them and the first world

[W31rd0]

Actually, the claim that men are paid more than women is not false. It was true at an earlier time; now it's outdated. Something that was true at an earlier time does not mean that that thing is false. It's just outdated.

Currently, there is more of an effort to push girls into male-dominated careers that are well-paid and considered safe (STEM careers) and that are in positions of power and status (politics, business, finance).

I think it's hypocritical for a feminist to push girls into STEM careers and not encourage them to become soldiers, believing that girls should be protected, even though it is an honor to fight and defend the country as footsoldiers and die on the battlefield. Girls should be encouraged to go into Construction and Emergency Services (mainly fire-fighting and street-patrolling), because while those are male-dominated, they don't get much attention from feminists. :P

[ThatJarHead]

Women do not earn 75 cents on the dollar for the same work men do. The mere notion of that happening here and now is ridiculous. Just because on average men have a bigger paycheck doesn't mean that it's discrimination. Women are allowed into STEM fields. It's nobodies fault but women's that they choose not to go into them.

[W31rd0]

I meant factory work in the 19th century. Factory owners knew that they could pay women less for the same work, so guess what? They did hire women and children to perform the work for less pay. Small children had small hands, so they could risk their own lives as they entered the machines to fix something. This was before labor laws were in place to protect workers.

[Zinkr7]

The claim that women currently are paid less than men is false.
I get your point at trying to be technical but it's flawed given the actual claim.

[ThatJarHead]

Are you really gonna get on my case about the way I worded things? Ugh. Fine I'll change it.

[nalaa]

Research consistently finds that in most (but not all) areas women get paid less, even if you control the factors you mentioned.

I really think the "wage gap is a myth" myth has gotten way more popular that the original myth. Every week here you see a take just like yours but you never see a take debunking the myths you're spreading here.

No the gap today is not as big as it was claimed back then (like decades ago) but what you claim is also not true
cdn-images-1.medium.com/.../0*8o93JhtcHT3qJBU7.jpg
scholar.harvard.edu/.../goldin_aeapress_2014_1.pdf
www.aauw.org/.../...ummary-and-Recommendations.pdf

images.techtimes.com/.../gender-pay-gap-png.png

And then there is this argument of life choices. Well especially if you look careers individually, "life choices" is essentially a different word for having children, which men and women deal with differently.
But it takes two tango and if women are carrying the main burden, I don't think it's unreasonable to point that out

[Zinkr7]

I think a good estimation is about 93 cents on the dollar which is a gap.
But the problem is, while it could be "internalized sexism", more likely it falls on such factors such that men are more likely to ask for a raise. (7% I think it was, I don't recall. Search Maddox Wage Gap on youtube, and you should find the exact numbers.)

[ThatJarHead]

Just because women make less on average doesn't make it sexism or discrimination. It's simply the fact that women CHOOSE lower paying jobs, join the workforce later in life and tend not to have education prevalent to the job. Women also enjoy much more benefits in the workplace.

[nalaa]

@Zinkr7 Ya maybe that's the case. But frankly we don't know enough to make that statement, which is why scientists, generally don't.
So that's what annoys me, despite there being so much certainty, people like the take owner go out announcing there is no gender gap, which is an idea they got based on nothing but assumptions.

@ThatJarHead Clearly didn't read my reply. Even if you control for those factors, you get a gap

[Zinkr7]

@nalaa
Well no studies have been done for such things. If anything, there's 0 reason to attribute it to internalized sexism more than anything.
But I think the point of "there is no gender gap" is that there's no actual gap based on gender, rather other factors are likely in play. Likewise, such a gap probably does not apply to everywhere. The 93 cents one I have looks at exactly one place of business.

[nalaa]

@Zinkr7
Well the reason it's attributed to internalized sexism is history. It's a well known fact that women used to get paid less for the same work. It was true during the industrial revolution and even in the 40s, when women worked factories they were openly paid less for the same job. In that context any studies today are just a measure of how far we have moved on from that.

Obviously women today are not openly paid less than men that doesn't mean there is no sexism at play all.
For example there is some research that shows that both and women would rather fire a woman who has a family, than a man who has a family because men are still seen as the breadwinners.
There's not obvious sexism there and no bad intentions either but those types of things do have an effect

[Zinkr7]

@nalaa
And it's been illegal since the 1960s. History has no effect on the present, it merely shaped the present to be what it is today.
Here take a coin flip for an example. Basic math. 50/50 shot to get heads right? Well, if you flip a coin and get tails, then decide to flip it again, what's the chances of you getting heads? It's still a 50/50 shot.

[Zinkr7]

But anyhow, I missed the second part apparently, but see that's sorta the point about the wage gap being bs. People don't fight for even the small stuff like that that might actually exist, they fight about a barely existent wage gap that's far more likely to be caused by other factors than just "internalized sexism".

[ThatJarHead]

To be entirely fair men of those periods have the defence of ignorance. If you know what that means.

[nalaa]

@Zinkr7 Come on the history of us is like the history of flipping a coin? That's BS and you know it.
History DOES have an effect on the present. Of course it does. I mean are you serious? Do you think you would be able to vote, to live freely, choose your religion... if people hadn't died for those rights?
The present world is a consequence of history

[Zinkr7]

@nalaa
Ahem. "... t merely shaped the present to be what it is today."
But history does nothing to currently effect the present. Well except perhaps to be a reminder of what not to do really.
I'll explain it with math again You have a bag of 7 pills. 3 green, 2 red, 2 blue. You remove a green pill. The chances to grab any pill now becomes 33% or so. Right? The past effected those chances, however the past has no effect on those chances. Kinda of an oxymoron, but like the fact that you pulled a green pill out of the bag is not going to make you more likely to grab a green pill in that scenario, or another type of pill. That bag is still going to give you a 33% for any pill. If you pulled a red pill out of the bag to get 2 of each kind of pill left, it's not going to have an effect, etc.
The past shapes the present, but it doesn't do anything past that because it's literally in the past.

[nalaa]

@Zinkr7
" the fact that you pulled a green pill out of the bag is not going to make you more likely to grab a green pill in that scenario" in the fact that you removed one pill from the bag means your chances of picking a green pill again moved from 40% to 33%.
The past has affected that likleyhood and will (or should) the choices you make based on it. Say picking a green pill meant you get 1 million dollar. But picking a red pill meant you lose your job and all savings. Picking a blue one meant you got 100$.
At the start your chance of getting a good outcome were ~70%, the chances of getting a great outcome were 40%. But once one green pill has been removed your chances of getting a good outcome dropped to 66% , whereas the chances of losing everything increases to 33%. So given the consequences of history do you really think it's unreasonable to think people would make different choices?
Let's play that game again and remove a green pill. Your chances of getting a good outcome

[nalaa]

now is 60%, the chances of getting a great outcome is 20%, half of what it was originally. Again, do you not think people would make different choices based on the past?

[Zinkr7]

@nalaa
You're missing my point. Yes, when you remove the green pill the chances drop from 3/7 to 2/6.
But now in that 2/6 scenario, the fact that you pulled the green pill out has no effect on the chances. It will remain a 2/6 chance. The past, shaped the present. The past event turnt the present from 3/7 to 2/6 for choosing a green pill. The present scenario is now a 2/6 chance for a green pill. But it doesn't matter what happened in the past so to speak, because the present scenario is a 2/6 chance. It doesn't matter if green blue or red pill was removed to get that scenario, it doesn't matter if 3 pills were removed to get that scenario, all that matters is currently the chances are 2/6 for a green pill. That's more what I'm getting at.

[nalaa]

@Zinkr7 What you're saying is, the only thing that matters is where you are, not how you get there?
But as I said the present is a consequence of history. Having chances of 2/6 is a consequence of the past.

And history or people aren't as simple as picking pills.
Donald Trump for example was born in 1946. In fact the he could have conceived on this day. https://thefederalistpapers. integratedmarket. netdna-cdn. com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1412669496726_wps_86_Statue_of_the_famous_mome. jpg
I can't even quantify how different the world was back then. He was a child in the 50s, young man in the 60s. All times with different values. Times in which women were openly paid less and the same for black people.
And now he's the president. Don't you think that the values and the world he grew up in will have in impact on the types of decisions he makes as president?
And that's true for everyone.

[Zinkr7]

@nalaa
We're agreeing on some parts but I don't think you see it. The past causes the present to become what it is.
Likewise Trump has also been alive through many different times, including when such values have been smashed. Is this sort of what I mean that history has no effect on the present. You assume merely because Trump was alive during those times he's going to want to uphold those values. But that's ridiculous. Both Hilary and Bernie were alive during or around those times, I'm sure. I mean I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to merely google that but I'm pretty confident they were. And you probably wouldn't say the same about them, because that's ridiculous.
Perhaps it's better to word it this way: Because something has happened in the past doesn't mean it is going to happen again in the present.

[nalaa]

@Zinkr7 No that's not what I said, I said that because he grew up with those values, they are going to influence his decisions as president. What we call our formative years.
And I think the same is true Bernie (born 1941) and Hilary (born 1947), just in different ways. For example Hilary being a career oriented woman in the 60s, especially one in politics later would have had it much harder than her male counterparts so I think that would influence her decision making as president, to make the same easier for women in the future.
Trump on the other hand seems to want to bring back the 50s and that's presumably because he was a child then.

But in general the reason we generally don't elect presidents that are in their 20s is because first hand experience of history is a valuable asset.

"Because something has happened in the past doesn't mean it is going to happen again in the present" No but some things are more likely than other. For example we've never had a middle class until the

[nalaa]

20th century. Some people seem to think that a middle class is a natural byproduct of capitalism, but history tells us otherwise. There are few times in history in which we had a middle class. Mostly you were either rich or poor and nothing in between.
Similarly you're looking thousands of years in which women's work wasn't paid or paid less than men's work. In comparison you have then the last 50 or so years where it was fairly even.
Imagine we have 10000 pills in a bag and 50 of them are good, would you like your chances there?

[Zinkr7]

I'm not going to argue further, mostly because I'm more exhausted than anything, but you've been a good discusserer and I appreciate that.
However:
"Imagine we have 10000 pills in a bag and 50 of them are good, would you like your chances there?"
As someone who shiny hunted Pokemon (about a 1/8192 chance) and succeeded, those chances sound like actual child's play to me.

[Izumiblu]

Here's a great video that explains teh myth of the gender pay gap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc&feature=youtu.be

[ThatJarHead]

I've seen that one! Great video.

[coachTanthony]

Absolutely true! Love her she is always touring with Milo.

[rjroy3]

It's far easier just to say the true statement, "No economist takes the Gender Pay Gap as it is defined seriously, because it is not true. It is a myth". Sprinkle some knowledge on them:

www.businessinsider.com/harvard-economist-explains-the-gender-wage-gap-2016-3

then walk away

[ProjectBaby1K]

The gender pay gap is a MYTH. 💩 It has been debunked and disproved so many times that I can dismantle that argument, build it back up, then dismantle it again 100 times over. 😂

Although I agree with this MyTake, isn't doing any good. The SJW-PC Feminist are allergic to logic/reasoning and won't bother reading past the title. But good take nonetheless.

[ThatJarHead]

Thank you very much. Sadly, what you say is true.

[Hihikinn]

In my country, most jobs don't hire woman or fire woman once she gets pregnant or wanna use maternal leaves. So women can't help but get some jobs where give much more opportunities to women and they pay little mostly. Even if women who never marry can't be promoted just becauae she is a woman. No law to protect them. That causes gender pay gap and I don't know another countries' case. Women are forced to choose jobs which pay less.

[ThatJarHead]

You obviously aren't in a country which falls under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations and is therefore third-world so it doesn't apply to this take. Thanks for the info though. What country do you come from? I'd like to research this statement.

[sedrftvgyhujik]

So your country's not the US then?

[Iraqveteran666]

Ssshhh you can't use logic and facts to disprove the gender pay gap as that is basically taking the key stone of all of third wave femin

[Iraqveteran666]

... feminist ideology and dogma away.

[ThatJarHead]

Oh hush lol

[Iraqveteran666]

Logic and facts can be so triggering lol

[ThatJarHead]

Right?

[Kirah]

Nice take. Straight to the point.

Anyone who still buys into the "77 cents" statistic is dumb.

[ThatJarHead]

They aren't necessarily dumb or moronic. They've just been misled and don't question things or do any research to fact check what they hear.

[Jamesol1]

Dumb = don't question things or do any research to fact check what they hear.

[Zinkr7]

@Jamesol1
Given the extent of the wage gaps propaganda spread, it's probably really easy to find sources that seem like great fact checks that really aren't, honestly.

[Jamesol1]

@Zinkr7 True. I mean people in my family and people i know who are 'clever' believe it because of the amount of propaganda like you said. I'm not pro trump but everyone in the UK is acting like he is the next Hitler... the media spins bad stuff he does so far out of proportion it's pathetic.

[Zinkr7]

@Jamesol1
That too.

[Jager66]

You should check out the Gender Tax Gap.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a32803-the-real-gender-gap-the-tax-gap

[ThatJarHead]

There's also a luxury tax on toilet paper, deodorant, and underpants I disagree that there's a "gender tax"

[Jager66]

okay so you didn't even click the link... You're "argument" has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[ThatJarHead]

Any argument for the existence of a gender-based economic inequality in the modern first world is inherently false.

[Jager66]

that is demonstrably not true. We have laws and policy that intentionally spend tax dollars on women's services in grossly disproportionate amounts than is spent on men.

[ThatJarHead]

If you want pure equality in all things you're dreaming of a utopian society where nobody scrubs the toilets.

[Jager66]

What are you even talking about? perhaps it's time to lay off the crazy pills for a while. I'm not sure how you jumped from "equality under the law" to "dreaming of a utopian society where nobody scrubs the toilets."

I mean with your attitude why bother with anything right? no way things could ever improve.. nope... best to give up now.

[ThatJarHead]

It's a figure of speech to describe a logical fallacy.

[Jager66]

Well since I made no logical fallacy it only sounded like a crazy person blabbering on about god only knows what.

as a side note.. it might not be long until no one has to scrub toilets thanks to robots.. just sayin.

[ThatJarHead]

The day I don't need to clean my toilet is the day I can die a happy man.

[Jager66]

hahaha you and me both!

[disgustingweebtrash]

This take should be shown to EVERY single person that buys into this bullshit.

[ThatJarHead]

That's why I wrote it.

[John_Doesnt]

It's also against the law for Catholic priests to molests boys and for companies to be racist. So I guess those things don't actually exist.
Your logic.

[ThatJarHead]

Seeing as companies with employees report directly to the government about their expenses and earnings my logic is sound. Your analogy is preposterous.

[John_Doesnt]

the Catholic church is non-profit, which means it reports everything to the government and the public has access to their records as well.
We haven't seen any reports of child molestation, so I guess it never happens according to you.

[ThatJarHead]

The acts of the priests aren't reported to the government. The income of the church is. If they had to report on the dealings of the priests we would see those statistics. Besides, you can't say a stereotype is whole truth. That's like saying all men are rapists.

[John_Doesnt]

So you're saying corporations report on all the illegal activity going on in their buildings? really? When was the last time a criminal decided to just turn in all the evidence to the government on a regular basis?
People don't report illegal activity. Think next tim. e

[ThatJarHead]

Companies MUST report all of their expenses (labour included) if a huge discrepancy was found in the way women were paid it would be rectified and the company would be punished for it

[John_Doesnt]

they simply would not report it. Companies get away with lying about their taxes, lying about their expenses etc. None of which are reported.
This has nothing to do with laws. It's about social standards and social treatment. People are treated poorly individually because of racial bias.

You can't deny that a large amount of people still have personal bias towards others based on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation.

[ThatJarHead]

Just... nevermind. This argument with you is pointless.

[John_Doesnt]

it is pointless against a person who thinks that sexism no longer exists in companies. Sexism has always existed.

[ThatJarHead]

And so has bigotry, idiocy and hypocrisy. Those three being far more prevalent and parasitic to the further development of society.

[John_Doesnt]

you admit those exist, but won't admit sexism exists.

[ThatJarHead]

I never once said sexism doesn't exist. You're assuming my beliefs.

[Kirah]

If the gender pay gap was real (it isn't), then it would be more prevalent than an occasional molestation in church.

The pay gap doesn't exist. It is the product of men and women's life choices. Women will choose part-time over full-time more frequently. They choose lower-paying jobs like teaching or nursing, rather than going into STEM.

[John_Doesnt]

@Kirah child molestation is a lot more prevalent than people realize too.

How dense do you have to be to think that corruption is just out in the open where anybody can see it with a few statistics?

[Bananaman177]

If you could pay women 25-30% less, EVERY COMPANY WOULD HIRE NOTHING BUT WOMEN...

[Tony1974]

Bravo! Precise and to the point.

[ThatJarHead]

Thank you my friend!

[Tony1974]

You're welcome. Are you a marine?

[ThatJarHead]

Canadian Special Forces actually

[Tony1974]

Wow! That's quite the accomplishment for one so young. Thank you for you service. I have a few cousins who live in Canada.

[ThatJarHead]

Thank you! I would always lay down my life to protect my friends, family and countrymen.

[lumberman9]

Exactly glad someone pointed this out