Can you see the image?
https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280...805_WOC360.png
This is a quote from the article that you've linked:
"That four per cent difference remains “unexplained,” according to Glassdoor, meaning that it’s due to a variable the company cannot account for based on information in its dataset. It could be attributed to “factors such as workplace bias (whether intentional or not), negotiation gaps between men and women and/or other unobserved worker characteristics,” the company said in a statement."
Negotiation gaps, aka different distribution of negotiating abilities.
Other=men are generally more willing to work (or be avaible) extra hours, more 'flexible' (lateral moves more frequent etc) etc.
Let's analyze the case where there's a clearer (with less unobservable/confounding factors) relationship between job duties/productivity per hour worked and wage.
https://fee.org/articles/harvard-stu...men-and-women/
Harvard Study: "Gender Wage Gap" Explained Entirely by Work Choices of Men and Women
The “gender wage gap” is as real as unicorns and has been killed more times than Michael Myers.
A New Study Out of Harvard
Remember, if we truly want to measure the impact of sexism on male and female relative earnings, we want to look at men and women doing exactly the same job at exactly the same place. Fortunately, a new study by Valentin Bolotnyy and Natalia Emanuel of Harvard University—again, listed in that order because that is how they are presented in their paper—does just this.
And yet, even here, Emanuel and Bolotnyy find that female train and bus operators earn less than their male counterparts.
They look at data from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). This is a union shop with uniform hourly wages where men and women adhere to the same rules and receive the same benefits. Workers are promoted on the basis of seniority rather than performance, and male and female workers of the same seniority have the same choices for scheduling, routes, vacation, and overtime. There is almost no scope here for a sexist boss to favor men over women.
And yet, even here, Emanuel and Bolotnyy find that female train and bus operators earn less than their male counterparts. From this observation, they go looking for possible causes, examining time cards and scheduling from 2011 to 2017 and factoring in sex, age, date of hire, tenure, and whether an employee was married or had dependents.
They find that male train and bus drivers worked about 83 percent more overtime than their female colleagues and were twice as likely to accept an overtime shift—which pays time-and-a-half—on short notice and that around twice as many women as men never took overtime. The male workers took 48 percent fewer unpaid hours off under the Family Medical Leave Act each year. Female workers were more likely to take less desirable routes if it meant working fewer nights, weekends, and holidays. Parenthood turns out to be an important factor. Fathers were more likely than childless men to want the extra cash from overtime, and mothers were more likely to want time off than childless women.
“The gap can be explained entirely by the fact that, while having the same choice sets in the workplace, women and men make different choices.”
In other words, the difference in male and female earnings at the MBTA was explained by those “so-called ‘women’s choices,’” which Hartmann and Rose so easily dismissed.
“The gap of $0.89 in our setting,” the authors concluded, “can be explained entirely by the fact that, while having the same choice sets in the workplace, women and men make different choices.”
The “gender wage gap” is as real as unicorns and has been killed more times than Michael Myers. Yet politicians feel the need to genuflect before this phantom figure. President Obama’s White House was obsessed with that ridiculous 80-cent number. Let us substitute the quest for phantoms with serious research into the causes of relative incomes.
Originally Posted by Jon96
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks