@SizeofaPeaYou mean that special interest groups are misrepresenting the facts for their own gain? That is horrible; how they can live with themselves? Some one needs to object to this behavior to their elected officials…as soon as they gt back from their lobby groups junket.
Well said, SizeofaPea. My own belief is that when you control for non-gender factors such as experience, hours, and type of work performed, the pay gap shrinks to a very small figure. If we were talking about this actual figure, and not the bogus statistics that one sees bandied about, I would have much more respect for this political issue.
While you have made some good points, you have managed to miss one important one. Why do you count parenthood as NOT being valuable experience? Many women executives cite managing a family as good training for juggling complex issues with uncertain data.And of course since only women can bear children but both genders can raise them, we should keep in mind that if there is value to this society to have more well-raised children (and certainly there are many who think so), then there is value to having women take off time to bear children, and for women AND men to be able to raise families.One question that is more to the point is, as you note, are men and women being paid the same of the same job if they have the same qualifications? There have been studies that say, quite clearly, NO. Women are not being paid the same, and this goes all the way up into the executive suite.Another, more robust data point, is what percentage of top roles are women at all. Executives typically have grown children, so that’s not the issue anymore. They may have different experience, but at that level competencies are far more important than specific categories of experience or expertise. Even if you correct for women having lost career development time, the question is whether the percentage of female executives and board members is understandable or not. The data here are pretty striking:Women make up 14.6% of executive officers in the Fortune 500, and only 4.6% of Fortune 500 CEOs.They hold 16.9% of Fortune 500 board seats.The percentages are lower in the financial services industry and far lower in Silicon Valley startups, where it has been shown that women receive less VC money and interest.And when you dig into the data, they are even worse than they look. In 2013 (the most current data I can find quickly), 135 of the Fortune 500 — over a quarter — had NO female executive officers. At the time, that included Apple, Delta, Exxon-Mobil, and Google. A low percentage is perhaps explainable. A zero percentage is not.Indeed, the argument is too simple right now — but I respectfully suggest you have not covered the ground either.
OmqR-IV.0 over 9 years ago
… I ended up watching it and an additional dozen or so of her skits. She’s funny.So are the comments under her videos.
Observer fo Irony over 9 years ago
When it comes to wages the time comes twice a month.
Observer fo Irony over 9 years ago
@SizeofaPeaYou mean that special interest groups are misrepresenting the facts for their own gain? That is horrible; how they can live with themselves? Some one needs to object to this behavior to their elected officials…as soon as they gt back from their lobby groups junket.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
Well said, SizeofaPea. My own belief is that when you control for non-gender factors such as experience, hours, and type of work performed, the pay gap shrinks to a very small figure. If we were talking about this actual figure, and not the bogus statistics that one sees bandied about, I would have much more respect for this political issue.
Motivemagus over 9 years ago
While you have made some good points, you have managed to miss one important one. Why do you count parenthood as NOT being valuable experience? Many women executives cite managing a family as good training for juggling complex issues with uncertain data.And of course since only women can bear children but both genders can raise them, we should keep in mind that if there is value to this society to have more well-raised children (and certainly there are many who think so), then there is value to having women take off time to bear children, and for women AND men to be able to raise families.One question that is more to the point is, as you note, are men and women being paid the same of the same job if they have the same qualifications? There have been studies that say, quite clearly, NO. Women are not being paid the same, and this goes all the way up into the executive suite.Another, more robust data point, is what percentage of top roles are women at all. Executives typically have grown children, so that’s not the issue anymore. They may have different experience, but at that level competencies are far more important than specific categories of experience or expertise. Even if you correct for women having lost career development time, the question is whether the percentage of female executives and board members is understandable or not. The data here are pretty striking:Women make up 14.6% of executive officers in the Fortune 500, and only 4.6% of Fortune 500 CEOs.They hold 16.9% of Fortune 500 board seats.The percentages are lower in the financial services industry and far lower in Silicon Valley startups, where it has been shown that women receive less VC money and interest.And when you dig into the data, they are even worse than they look. In 2013 (the most current data I can find quickly), 135 of the Fortune 500 — over a quarter — had NO female executive officers. At the time, that included Apple, Delta, Exxon-Mobil, and Google. A low percentage is perhaps explainable. A zero percentage is not.Indeed, the argument is too simple right now — but I respectfully suggest you have not covered the ground either.