Ah, that would make more sense, although it's an odd way to phrase it. Surely the first is an hourly wage and the second is (presumably) the annual wage.
I assumed OP was talking about income from other sources than your primary employment, e.g. investments, secondary jobs, side hustles of some sort.
It goes further than that. If you want to arrive at the 77 cents on the dollar statistic you have to compare average earnings.
If you compare in the same jobs and hourly pay, the gap is very small to statistically insignificant. Women on average work fewer hours and lower paid jobs, but in those jobs they earn the same (or maybe even more) than men.
So now the question becomes why women are working fewer hours and lesser paid jobs. It's probably because of a multitude of factors. You have less societal pressure to earn money. An unemployed woman is a housewife, an unemployed man is usually considered worthless and is divorced. If you want women to work more hours and get paid the same you'd either need to take the pressure away from men to be providers, or you would need to increase the pressure on women to be providers.
Then we have the issue of different jobs. Why do women not get the same positions as men? It's also probably many factors. Again we have the pressure to provide which drives some people to become workaholics, which makes it more likely that they will get chances to advance in their career. Then we have interests. I studied 10 years ago and we barely had more than 5% women in engineering. Engineering pays better than a lot of careers chosen by women, even if you don't advance as much career-wise.
And the women I do know in engineering usually start out in big corporate, highly paid jobs, whereas their male peers often need to work in small body-leasing companies for half the pay until big corporate takes them. This is because big corporate wants to fill quotas that are unrealistic given only a very small population studying these subjects. So at least at the start of an engineering career the job-gap is the other way around.
However men are still much more common in the higher positions in those corporations. It could be a glass ceiling. It could be self-selection. It could be more pressure to provide. I'm guessing it's a combination of factors. But the often touted inequality is probably not nearly as pronounced as the clickbaity media presents it.
Women are given special treatment at every level in STEM just as they are in general life. I've been in science, engineering and programming positions and there's always a special effort to hire women, special courses for women, special sources of funding for women. Men just have to be good to succeed and if they're not they just have to get used to emptying bins or digging ditches or something.
I've downvoted this comment because I believe it's very misguided. The reason that there is so much focus on getting women into STEM subjects is in an attempt to counter the huge biases against them, in education, the workplace, the economy, and life in general. It has been shown time and time again that women tend to need to be far more capable to achieve the same as men, whether that's in job applications, hiring, STEM subjects, or running for political office.
I respectfully suggest that you look into this more, and do so from sources that are experts in this, rather than from people in privileged positions who have self-interest in retaining that privilege.
What biases against them? Women do better in education. Women spend more money. Women are less likely to get sick at all stages of life and live longer. I respectfully suggest that you look into this more.
If what you're saying is true that means that, on average, women you work with are always more capable than all of the men. Do you really believe that? Think.
This does not tell the whole story - there is also a lawsuit against google for “under-leveling” women in engineering. This is when, at the same skill level, a hiring manager would perceive the woman as less competent and place her in a lower compensation band / level.
In fact, if under-leveling were true, you might see exactly this pay effect that google discovered! As more competent women are placed in lower levels, they are relatively better paid than men in the same level as they are more skilled. However overall the salary is less than would be if they had been in a lower range of the next level up.
I can’t say what the truth is, but I think it’s very sloppy journalism not to include that detail.
I didn't read this article because of a payway but I read the NYT article on it, and they covered that. Knowing the Post I can only assume they did too and you didn't read it either?
22 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 79.8 ms ] threadRegardless, links?
Wage = $/h
Earning = Wage * h(worked)
[Edit] paragraph spacing
I assumed OP was talking about income from other sources than your primary employment, e.g. investments, secondary jobs, side hustles of some sort.
If you compare in the same jobs and hourly pay, the gap is very small to statistically insignificant. Women on average work fewer hours and lower paid jobs, but in those jobs they earn the same (or maybe even more) than men.
So now the question becomes why women are working fewer hours and lesser paid jobs. It's probably because of a multitude of factors. You have less societal pressure to earn money. An unemployed woman is a housewife, an unemployed man is usually considered worthless and is divorced. If you want women to work more hours and get paid the same you'd either need to take the pressure away from men to be providers, or you would need to increase the pressure on women to be providers.
Then we have the issue of different jobs. Why do women not get the same positions as men? It's also probably many factors. Again we have the pressure to provide which drives some people to become workaholics, which makes it more likely that they will get chances to advance in their career. Then we have interests. I studied 10 years ago and we barely had more than 5% women in engineering. Engineering pays better than a lot of careers chosen by women, even if you don't advance as much career-wise.
And the women I do know in engineering usually start out in big corporate, highly paid jobs, whereas their male peers often need to work in small body-leasing companies for half the pay until big corporate takes them. This is because big corporate wants to fill quotas that are unrealistic given only a very small population studying these subjects. So at least at the start of an engineering career the job-gap is the other way around.
However men are still much more common in the higher positions in those corporations. It could be a glass ceiling. It could be self-selection. It could be more pressure to provide. I'm guessing it's a combination of factors. But the often touted inequality is probably not nearly as pronounced as the clickbaity media presents it.
http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/
I respectfully suggest that you look into this more, and do so from sources that are experts in this, rather than from people in privileged positions who have self-interest in retaining that privilege.
If what you're saying is true that means that, on average, women you work with are always more capable than all of the men. Do you really believe that? Think.
In fact, if under-leveling were true, you might see exactly this pay effect that google discovered! As more competent women are placed in lower levels, they are relatively better paid than men in the same level as they are more skilled. However overall the salary is less than would be if they had been in a lower range of the next level up.
I can’t say what the truth is, but I think it’s very sloppy journalism not to include that detail.